Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 11

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 because the keep arguments are not giving enough reasons for a valid inclusion of this article. The article is clearly lacking reliable sources and hence does not conform with WP:V. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] She's Real, Worse Than Queer

She's Real, Worse Than Queer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I cannot find this film on IMDB. Google produces many Wikipedia mirrors and gay film sites acknowledging its existence but with little else to say. I suspect it therefore fails WP:NOTABLE. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Appears (from the mentions in my comment below) to be a notable lesbian film. IMDb isn't perfect, especially with regard to video-documentaries. Unsure why a gay film site, or even Planet Out, isn't considered a reliable source. Edited because I forgot to login. --Charlene 20:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Not only is it non-notable, it doesn't even exist. --Dennisthe2 19:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It does exist: check out its listings at the British Film Institute and at Planet Out and a mention in a syllabus at Tulane University. --Charlene 20:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• My mistake, thanks for the pointer. It only downgrades me to delete, though, on account of a failure to assert notability. --Dennisthe2 00:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• The article asserts notability in the first sentence by identifying the film as a seminal documentary about a specific period in the queer punk movement. Otto4711 04:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The BFI page doesn't exist, the PlanetOut one acknowledges it exists but doesn't say anything else, and the third one doesn't mention the film at all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. (I had no trouble accessing the BFI page.) I found no mentions in Google News Archive, and just one citation -- in a listing of "other" queer films inside a book devoted to them -- in Google Books. It seems to exist, but it does not seem notable, let alone "seminal" by any citation. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see it now too. Weird. But it didn't tell me anything that made the film notable... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep, Console-ing Passions is an academic film festival that was held at Tulane, not a syllabus. This seems to meet The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. 2004 > 1997 by seven years. --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep based on proposed Wikipedia:Notability (films) guidelines which say in relevant part that if a film is taught at an accredited university with a recognized film department. I'll accept the Tulane syllabus as evidence of meeting that criterion until such time as it's demonstrated untenable. Otto4711 21:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. IMDb and Google are not a litmus test. Wikipedia is not a mainstream media vehicle, there are most certainly things in any encyclopedia you will find only spurious mention of anywhere outside encyclopedias or universities. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as the notability and verafiability have not been established. Eedo Bee 05:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  (Note: the above user has been blocked indefinitely for harassment of the LGBT WikiProject)
• Delete. Although notability is asserted, it doesn't seem to be clear from the referenced sources that the film actually is notable. If this really were a "seminal" work ( can a lesbian film be "seminal" ? perhaps we mean "ovular" ? ) I'd expect a clear reference to a suitable professional or critical source, and this isn't provided ( the only link is to what appears to be a film festival's programme notes ). WMMartin 13:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiability unquestionable given the reference on the BFI site. Notability in my opinion comes from it being a documentary whose subject matter is unusual (I won't say unique as I can't prove that). Mallanox 00:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A Google search would indicate that it exists. I see no reason for deletion. — Emiellaiendiay 06:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and a laugh at WMMartin. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The existance does not seem to meet the requirements for notability, more importantly, the article makes a vast number of complete unsourced statements with no sourcing per WP:RS. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 06:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Elaragirl and WMMartin -- unsourced statements (it hasn't been shown that they're fixable), still unproven notability; proof of existence isn't good enough; if it's seminal, that should be readily provable. Noroton 19:38, 14 February 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, the keep arguments do not indicate how this article seems to meet WP:MUSIC. It is clear that this article does not meet the primary It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable criterion for inclusion. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lourds

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

Nonnotable band; no indication of meeting the criteria at WP:MUSIC. —Angr 13:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - but rename Article purports to be about the lead singer, yet the main body of the article is about "LOURDES" the band (their caps) The band could just qualify for notability due to their touring multiple states, albeit the source is their website [1] Would suggest an article on the band is appropriate, but one on the lead singer would not yet deserve own article. •CHILLDOUBT• 19:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The correct name of the band appears to be LOURDS (no e) and I found reviews [2][3][4], and I'm not sure how I feel about defining those as 'nontrivial.' Article should be about the band, not the person, if kept.-FisherQueen (Talk) 19:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong KEEP The article is indeed about the band "LOURDS" fronted by Lourds Lane. More information can and should be added in about the band in its entirety. The band has toured extensively throughout America, has been the subject of articles in national publications (Billboard, for example) They have received national airplay on the Fuse cable music network as well as the national series "City Sounds". The band "LOURDS" is also chronicled in the forthcoming documentary entitled "Always". Worthy of an entry, though article needs to be fleshed out a bit.Griff 03:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Definitely KEEP - I am the webmaster of the LOURDS official website [5] and the LOURDS MySpace website [6]. I will work with the leader of the band, Lourds Lane, to address the above issues, expand the content about the band, LOURDS, and create a separate page for the musician and lead singer, Lourds Lane. Bkoopers 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • User:Bkoopers has contributed only to the article in question. —Angr 12:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 00:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It looks like a notable band and should be kept, even if it is a small band. mrholybrain's talk 01:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: violates WP:MUSIC. Causesobad → (Talk) 02:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete zomg the webmaster of their MYSPACE is the article editor. I think such high authority is proof of their notability. (or lack thereof). Fails WP:COI, among other things. Nardman1 02:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Appear to be a non-notable band. TJ Spyke 02:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Inkpaduta 03:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, sources cited are primary and/or trivial. Fails the primary notability guideline without that, WP:MUSIC or no. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 09:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• ABSOLUTLEY KEEP The article might not yet do the band justice, but the band is indeed noteworthy. The debate should be about the band itself and not about who is editing their page. There is an absoloute need to flesh out the article as soon as possible. None of the detractors have shown any compelling reason to support deletion, while those in support of keeping the entry have provided legitimate reasons for the page remaining. I reiterate that the entry needs to be expanded as soon as possible to feature the entire band and not just the lead singer Lourds Lane. Slurponyou 12:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The above is User:Slurponyou's first contribution to Wikipedia. —Angr 12:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • We are not here to debate how many contributions I have made, but the band Lourds. Lets stay on topic, shall we.Slurponyou 12:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but the fact that you have only made one contribution means you may be a sock puppet of another user. I'm not saying that you actually are, but there have been cases of people trying to create a false consensus in a discussion through the use of sock puppets.--Aervanath 14:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Whether or not Slurponyou is a sockpuppet isn't the point. "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed here are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus." (emphasis added). Someone who shows up just to "vote" in an AFD isn't a Wikipedian and isn't part of the Wikipedia community. —Angr 07:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable band. A simple google search found articles in the New York Daily News, Billboard magazine, National TV programs and more. This would hardly justify deletion. As many above have stated, more information is needed about the entire band and not just Miss Lane. Exploring Uranus 12:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The above is User:Exploring Uranus's first contribution to Wikipedia. —Angr 07:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, borderline, but seems to meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil 12:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep, not very notable, but the reviews cited above do meet the minimum criteria.--Aervanath 14:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article definitely fails WP:NOTABILITY.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 15:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keepmeets WP:MUSIC, albeit by a hair's breadth, by reviews cited. However, webmaster should refrain from editing, and if no one else starts contributing to it, it should be deleted.Samael775 15:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - lack of sources and external links (well, except for links that they own) lead me to believe that this article does not satisfy WP:Notability or WP:Music. Is having a song that's played on ESPN/ABC (which are exactly the same in sports really - if you watch abc and there's a game showing you'll see ESPN in the bottom left/right) really enought for notability. I mean can you imagine seeing these guys in something link Britannica (I know we aren't Britannica, but still ... notability)Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 17:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of substantive independent coverage. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete COI issues not withstanding, this article must be sourced from information outside of the bands myspace. I would probably change my votes if links were provided to show evidence of reviews in major music magazines, not local newspapers. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete One release from a small lable does not notability make. If there is independent press coverage, it should be added to the article.-- danntm ^T _C 20:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the band seems, as we say, on the cusp of notability, but isn't there yet. There will be no problem creating this article sometime later this year or next when WP:MUSIC is indisputably met. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep only just meeting WP:music is still meeting it. Jcuk 22:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No independant sources. non-notable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dysepsion (talk • contribs) 00:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep. Borderline, but still meets WP:MUSIC nonetheless. RFerreira 07:51, 16 February 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 concensus to redirect. If you wish to pursue an editorial-concensus-based redirect proposal, feel free to use the talk page (not AfD II). - Daniel.Bryant 08:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roland Duchâtelet

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

Notability

I propose the deletion of this article. The main reason is the lack of notability. This person has been the chairman of a non-notable and no longer existing Belgian party, which is largely unknown and has never played a significant role in Belgian politics. This is also proven by the fact that this article didn't get more than one sentence, while this article already exists since 2004. Sijo Ripa 13:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Edeans 05:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep the leader of federally known Belgian party, which has representatives in the German-speaking council and the Senate, and is the ally of the influential VLD-party. Dutch article is way longer. Even has an entry on imdb! C mon 01:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 00:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, Dutch article seems well-sourced (although I don't read the language), and there are a number of articles in Goolge News Archive (mainly about his business career, though). --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Vivant and tag as redirect with possibilities. Nardman1 00:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep now that a more detailed article from the Dutch Wikipedia has been brought over. Nardman1 23:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect I see no point in having one sentence about him, when it could be in the vivian article. mrholybrain's talk 01:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• redirect per above. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I do read Dutch, and regardless of his political activities he is notable as a businessman - article cd do with expansion that direction.HeartofaDog 02:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well-expanded, C mon - make that a Strong keepHeartofaDog 00:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Well, if you can read Dutch, why don't you transwiki his Dutch article here? Nardman1 13:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I have translated the nl.wikipedia article now, I hope this makes his notability even clearer. C mon 22:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
      • With all due respect, the things you have added still don't seem to make this person notable. They seem more like details that can be added if the person is really notable. I mean what is the importance of his studies, what is the importance of non-notable companies, what is the importance of the fact that he's a chairman of a soccer team (not every chairman deserves a wikipedia article), what is the importance of the fact that he supported a very marginal party (BANAAN), etc.? Sijo Ripa 23:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Inkpaduta 03:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect if no improvements are made to the current article. Nuttah68 10:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the party has representation at the national level, seems to be notable enough. Plenty of room for expansion with his political and business careers. Lankiveil 12:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete, notable for Belgium, not notable for english WP. --MaNeMeBasat 13:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I believe article fails WP:BIO and the article is too small with to little information to make it Notable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tellyaddict (talk • contribs) 16:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep and expand. if he's notable in Belgium, he's notable full stop! You CANT have one rule for Americans and another for Belgians however much some people here might like to. Jcuk 22:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Founder of several major corporations, chairman of a league football club, leader of a political party. He seems notable enough for an article to me. And to answer a comment above, if he is "notable for Belgium" (or any other country) then he is notable enough for English WP. WP is only divided by language in which the articles are written, not by country. A Belgian person does not require higher standards of notability for inclusion than a British person or an American person. -- Necrothesp 00:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notability seems clear to me. Everyking 09:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the Dutch article is well sourcedSlideAndSlip 22:03, 13 February 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Volconvo

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

Non Notable Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 00:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As stated, non-notable, not enough info to keep about a small organization. Tcpekin 00:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NN. mrholybrain's talk 01:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete violate WP:WEB. Wooyi 02:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Inkpaduta 03:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It fails WEB and also NN. Daniel5127 <Talk> 05:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, website which does not appear to be notable enough to pass WP:WEB. Lankiveil 12:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete I agree with the other editors, it fails WP:WEB in the first paragraph.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Causesobad → (Talk) 16:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete asside from failing WEB (as mentioned) - I can't help but wonder if this reads like an advertisement. I mean they describe the forum with apparent weasel words (well, they don't actually say according to some ... but the phrases near the end like "intellectual","informative", and "constructive" are obviously the author's own opinion due to lack of sources - and lack of ability to prove - hey, it also violates WP:NPOV I guess), you can't help but think so. Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 17:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --MasterA113 22:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB.-- danntm ^T _C 00:11, 12 February 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, after weighing both the keep and delete arguments. I do agree that the article needs to be re-written, but that is not a reason enough to delete it outright. The NPOV issue can be dealt with by rephrasing the words and quoting the magazine which calls this enterprise "the fastest-growing video game retailer in the United States". This is a borderline close and the nominator or any other interested party can re-nom this article for deletion after a reasonable period of time, if no more independent sources are available. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Play n trade

Play n trade (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In my opinion it is below the radar on notability Alex Bakharev 00:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but rewrite This article, while not well written, contains information about a company that when searched on Google returned over 29000 hits. It could use a rewrite to organize information and add more, but it should be kept. It is has quite a few franchises and does have some notability. Tcpekin 00:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Week keep It needs a huge rewrite and sounds like an ad, but is notable. mrholybrain's talk 01:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless if someone Rewrite it. Seems like an advertising, borders WP:SPAM if not rewritten. Wooyi 02:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

CommentDoesn't Wikipedia policy (or maybe an essay ... ) mandate that if an article has potential it should not be deleted. I mean we have teh rewrite template for a reason, and it's not just for articles that survive an AfD - be boldDaniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 17:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Reads like an advertisement, and nothing more. TJ Spyke 02:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. non notable. Nardman1 03:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Inkpaduta 03:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The article contains plenty of information that does not show WP:NPOV--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

CommentIsn't that why we have the NPOV tag? Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 17:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I have substantially rewritten the article and sourced it. I think this addresses the "advertisement" claims. As for notability, it's recognition by Entrepreneur Magazine is one indication and 4 unique news articles is another. I will incorporate this additional information into the article and carry out further cleanup as necessary over the next few days. I also propose to move the page to Play N Trade, but will wait until the AfD is closed. Cheers, Black Falcon 04:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, 170 outlets? Notable enough. I see no problems with the article after Black Falcon's excellent rewrite, definitely better than the spammy version before it. Lankiveil 12:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete The first paragraph violates WP:NPOV as-well as not meeting Notability standards. Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:N requires multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works two articles from Entrepreneur Magazine don't seem to fit that, also the article Entrepreneur Magazine looks like a candidate for AFD it's self. Jeepday 16:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: if not for Black Falcon's rewriting, I would vote delete but the article looks much better now and the game is notable enough. Causesobad → (Talk) 16:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Too much potential to delete, however that being said it is raw potential. The correct tags must (and will) be added.Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 17:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment -- I have added 2 more news sources about the company. Also, there seems to an actual video game based on the company (see [7]). Perhaps someone with better knowledge in this area could comment. Also, I really don't understand the {{citations missing}} and {{POV}} tags. Could someone please note what the problems are, specifically--on the talk page or through {{fact}}. Thanks, Black Falcon 18:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep for the notability attempt. The notability of the sources is questionable, among them a press release claiming "fastest-growing". However, any NPOV issues can be resolved by further editing. Pomte 22:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. - Per nom. --Bryson 22:40, 11 February 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, although I would agree with the delete arguments that this article inherently fails WP:BIO. However, as an academic it is possible that he would not be the main subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. But his work and research has been mentioned in multiple sources as illustrated by the article. There is a proposed guideline which has not achieved consensus as yet, but sums up good reasons why professors and other academicians should be included into the Encyclopedia. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Knutson

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

This guy is only an assistant professor and does not have many publications. The publications he has are not well cited and not influential. Not notable per WP:BIO. Mnemopis 03:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 16:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Agreed, per nom. Unless some influential sources can be cited, I have to go with delete. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 22:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Edeans 06:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Mr.K. (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Brainsynth 01:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Agreed that Assistant Professors are not usually notable scientists at that stage in their career. But I have checked his publication list, which is very strong--he has published approximately 40 peer-reviewed articles since receiving his doctorate, including 5 in Neuron, the highest ranking journal in his field. These publications have had a total to 1041 references to them from other peer-reviewed scientific journals, four of them having over 95 citations. That's way more than average, since average is one or two cites each and his average is 25. I did not expect to see this--in fact I had written delete before i went back and checked in Web of Science. The numbers speak for themselves. Allowing for those who have cited more than one of his papers, several hundred published scientists have found his work notable enough to cite. Mnemopsis, could you recheck your count--Web of Science is usually the most reliable source. DGG 01:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Pubmed indicates he has one publication in Neuron, which is not the highest ranking journal of any field btw (Nature, Nature Neuroscience, and Science all rank much higher than Neuron). He has a couple of dozen publications, which is not that many by any standards. Prominent neuroscientists typically have over 200 publications. Furthermore, he is not the recipient of any notable awards, nor do his publications indicate any significant new findings that are in any way notable. Nor does he appear on ISI Highly Cited Researchers. He seems like your typical neuroscientist who falls on the lower end of the publication spectrum. If he has done something significant, I'd like to know what it is. Mnemopis 02:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• 'isi highly cited includes publications only through 1999, and is thus not relevant here.'DGG 02:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

you're right, my bad, it only covers 1981-1999. Mnemopis 02:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect: This is the second time in recent days that I have seen someone propagate the false belief that ISIHighlyCited.com is based upon 1981-1999 citations. The first version was based on those years, but they continually shift the 20 year frame of reference forward with each full year's contributions according to their own website: To identify Highly Cited Researchers, we begin with all articles indexed in the Thomson Scientific Citation Databases in a 20 year, rolling time period; the first dataset used for analysis comprised articles and their citations in the years 1981-1999, the second dataset included 1983-2002, and we will continue with 1984-2003, etc. Each article in the data is assigned to one or more of the 21 categories in ISIHighlyCited.com based on the ISI classification of the journal in which the article was published. ju66l3r 19:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That's strange. I checked the site and you're right but when I checked it earlier, I could have sworn it said it covered only 1981-99. Maybe they updated the site? Mnemopis 22:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 00:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep He has some publications and is cited, so he is a little notable. mrholybrain's talk 01:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• it would be interesting to compare standards. He is perhaps in the top 10% of his field--(among those who have acquired the minimum credentials, a PhD) but not the top 1%, (perhaps everyone could agree on that?) .

Then do we include the top 10% or the top 1% in other areas of human work? Do we include the top 10% of rock musicians who have acquired the minimal credentials of producing one generally released recording?--or only the top 1 in a hundred? Do we include the top 10% of novelists, among those who have published at least one novel? or only the best 1 in 100? Do we include the top 10% or the top 1% of professional football players, among those who have ever played a professional game?

Some of the guidelines say more notable than the average (whatever): That's the top 50%. All associate professors in any research university are within the top 50% of those with doctorates in the field. In fact, so are all assistant professors in a research university--at least half of new doctorates never get a tenure-track job in a research university. Included in the top 50% are all associate or full professors in any four-year college and up, and all full professors at 2-yr colleges.

If we think the standards are those whom we could write a meaningful article about, then anyone who has obtained these minimal distinctions count, for it could be done by analyzing their work in connection with their field, their advisor, where they publish, etc.

What I do not think is acceptable is to say those about whom a good article is written--we are judging the subject. If the article is inadequate, by all means we should stubbify it, and then protect it indefinitely against deletion. The point of having rules is equity--judging by a fixed standard, applicable to all. DGG 02:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Inkpaduta 03:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It's close to passing WP:BIO, but not close enough.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 04:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. I'll add also this guy is working at Stanford University, not some itty bitty 2 year college. Which in my mind strengthens his case ontop of what has already been said. Mathmo ^Talk 04:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - 40 peer-reviewed articles is damn good for an Assistant Professor. Leave as stub and tag for expansion. In addition, numerous mentions in news articles. The individual is unquestionably notable in his field and for WP. -- Black Falcon 04:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I would not go so far as to say we should include all full professors at all 2-year colleges, as DGG seems to be saying, but that's very different from a rising star at a top research university. I would like to understand the discrepancy between DGG and Mnemopis' citation numbers but a quick check of Google Scholar (ignoring the similarly named B.L. Knutson) seems to lean more towards the DGG side of that equation. —David Eppstein 05:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as per DGG. Lankiveil 12:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete in my opinion this definitely fails WP:BIO.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per DGG, this professor appears to be notable based on his publications and community referencing. (jarbarf) 19:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Director of research group and lead author on many of the publications coming out of the group[8]. John Vandenberg 22:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity pageSlideAndSlip 22:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Sources added: I have added to the article 5 news reports that discuss Knutson and his research. Some cleanup and expansion still needs to be done (I will work on this when I get the chance), but I think the subject definitely passes WP:BIO now. -- Black Falcon 01:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Id say this even fails the pokemon test. TSMonk 03:36, 14 February 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 The result was no consensus. This is a borderline case for notability when you refer to WP:BIO. The subject of the article might not have multiple, non-trivial independent sources to justify it's inclusion; a lot of his published work is available over Google Scholar search; and the article needs expansion and not deletion. There is a proposed guideline on the subject of academicians which sums up good reasons why academicians should be included as subjects in the encyclopedia. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Rawlins

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

I pull up 7 hits when I Pubmed search this guy. Does not seem very notable and does not meet WP:BIO. Mnemopis 03:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that, on further investigation, I now believe this article should be kept. This person's publications appear under "Rawlins JN", and not "Rawlins N", as would be expected from his name, Nick Rawlins. The fact that I could not retrieve his list of publications using "Rawlins N" lead me to nominate his page for deletion. However, he does have quite a few publications, as I subsequently found out, and they are fairly well cited, so his article should be kept. Mnemopis 07:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. Edeans 06:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 00:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Professors generally are notable, somewhat. mrholybrain's talk 01:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete appears non-notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Inkpaduta 03:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:BIO.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 04:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, a professor at Oxford is not notable? Hmmm... I doubt it! Mathmo ^Talk 04:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Oxford professor w/ at least 14 publications ... I think "keep and tag for expansion" would be reasonable solution. -- Black Falcon 04:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Professors at Oxford are indeed notable, because only a small proprtion of academics/College fellows are Professors. --Bduke 05:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Oxford professor? Of course he's notable. Could use a bit of expansion, though. Lankiveil 12:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete Although this is a good article it fails WP:BIO.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I checked WP:BIO and could not find where it said being a "Oxford professor" met WP:N, this article also fails WP:V as it has no references. So we have an unverified article about someone claiming to be and oxford professor, the "external link" is not even to an Oxford page it is to Oxion (<notice red link) at http://oxion.physiol.ox.ac.uk/oxion.php Delete the article. Jeepday 16:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment OXION stands for Oxford Ion Channel Initiative. Rawlins is (or was) a professor at Oxford: see [9], [10], [11]. Zagalejo 20:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Question Is this the same person as JN Rawlins? Zagalejo 20:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that's John Rawlins. Mnemopis 22:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you know that, or are you just reading the automated search suggestion? Zagalejo 23:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I was just reading the search suggestion. I did some more digging and 'Rawlins JN' is Nick Rawlins. The problem is that there seem to be multiple people in Pubmed with the name 'Rawlins JN' so it's hard to dissect out this guys actual publications. However, he is a prof at Oxford. His page is here. Mnemopis 23:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Ok we seem to have validated with primary sources only that the subject of this article is a Professor at Oxford, but in spite of all the keep votes no one has shown how he meets WP:N being a professor is not a notability criteria any place that I can find any Wikipedia policy. Per WP:V If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Jeepday 14:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Ok, I've changed my mind. This guy's article should be kept, but the article should include some of his publications and significant findings. Mnemopis 23:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added some publication info to his page. I started this deletion request. Is there a way for me to terminate it? Mnemopis 23:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. If there had been no delete votes you could have done a speedy keep close because you withdraw the nomination. But because there have been a few delete votes you won't be able to close it yourself. I suggest putting your note right underneath your nomination. That way future editors to this AfD will be aware of how you have changed your mind that you now believe this article should be kept. Mathmo ^Talk 06:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, non notable personSlideAndSlip 22:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The person is notable as one of the very few professors at Oxford, as well as many well cited publications. RFerreira 07:56, 16 February 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jossed

Nelogoism that isn't verified by anything reliable. Links down at the bottom are all fan-created info (such as user-submitted terms to UrbanDictionary, or guides to that BBC link). I did a quick Google search: out of 4,000 hits, all of them link to fanfiction sites or user-created info, none of which can be used under WP:RS. Hbdragon88 00:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and WP:NEO. Otto4711 00:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, very weak transwiki WP:NEO. If there are some WP:RS, transwiki it to Wiktionary. mrholybrain's talk 01:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, for the nom's reasoning (and per my prod that said basically the same thing). Just for the record, the BBC link is H2G2, a site somewhere between Wikipedia and Everything2. It's moderated but not edited, and it's not a reliable source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I think the nominator is right that there aren't any reliable sources. James086^Talk 02:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Obviously notable and well verified. Satisfies WP:N, WP:RS;; and WP:V. Inkpaduta 03:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

  It doesn't seem to be too obvious to me. This is someone's personal website. This is UrbanDictionary, a (rather infamous) user-submitted site, which doesn't pass muster as a reliable source. This is H2G2, which I've already mentioned.

  So, um. Where's the obvious notability and verification? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per WP:NEO. The term in question is not popular to the general population.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO. A personal website, H2G2 and urban dictionary (which anyone can edit- tut tut) do not make reliable sources. WjBscribe 05:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep the sources are naturally fan created since fans are the only experts about fandom. The terms in fandom glossaries are peer reviewed by other fans which means it is a reliable source for fandom. Give me time and I may be able to find a printed source, but it will only be repeating the definition readily available on numerous websites. The word requires more than just a dictionary definition because its usage and the variation that arises from its usage is more complex than a simple dictionary entry would cover.Agrestis 06:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a neologiam unless reliable sources can be found. Nuttah68 10:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it's a regional neologism. Lankiveil 12:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete Fails Wikipedia is not a directory.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Fan-created definitions are hard to verify in print sources because they're used by fans, generally in online communities. That doesn't mean that they're pointless or not worth listing; Jossed is a valid and oft-used term in fandom discussion, and the article is accurate as to usage and source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.176.81.73 (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
• Redirect to Fan fiction terminology#Jossed. The term exists, but I do not think that it is notable enough to have its own article. The three sentences on the Fan fiction terminology page are enough.--FreeKresge 05:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  I've removed it from that (terrible) article for the same reason I !voted for deletion here: no reliable sources exist. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:07, 15 February 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. W.marsh 05:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Blechman

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

Appears from the text to be a non-notable person SilkTork 00:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Entry might be a copyvio from [12]. Copyright is not explicitly asserted, but I believe it is implicit. --N Shar 01:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's definately a copyvio. Should I replace the page with {{copyvio}}? mrholybrain's talk 01:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as copyvio, then. No prejudice against re-creation. --N Shar 02:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete Add sources. mrholybrain's talk 01:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as copyright violation.Inkpaduta 03:30, 11 February 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. - brenneman 03:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Space4k

Apparently non-notable browser game per WP:WEB/WP:SOFTWARE, text reads like a game guide. There is an older version that doesn't, but it's old, with hardly any info. But in any case, I don't think there are any reliable sources out there on this topic: I found a whole buttload of ghits, mostly forums. Alexa rank is around 155K, which is low for something like this (wouldn't the constant connection generate an artificially high rank?) Mangojuice^talk 00:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Space4k is a game played by thousands of people across the world on the .com server alone. With the Italian and German servers taken into account there are tens of thousands of players world-wide... is that not notable? The article is useful for new players to the game or potential players. Adding a guide as to what each menu does and the purpose of them would make the article a great deal better, but a lack of that hardly means it should be deleted. All of the information posted in the article, at least the information posted by Siesatia, can be verified in either the game itself or on the Official Space4k Forums maintained and operated by Gameforge staff. There are a great many different forums floating around that are Space4k related, but the only official one supported by Gameforge is at http://board.space4k.com. Siesatia has done a great job keeping this article informative and repairing damage from vandals. If he needs help adding a more comprehensive player's guide then I would be happy to aid him in that. Ranks in Space4k are not effected by people clicking or connecting with links, so artifical gains can not be made through use of this article or anything like it. Typhonous 00:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I posted this in the wrong area. Siesatia 04:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

KeepI think this game should be given the benifit of the doubt. Hell, even the menu for the McDonalds is listed on Wikipedia and this has somewhat more importance than that. I don't think we should go with Alexa, the way they collect data doesn't give me a good feeling. Just let it stay, Daimanta 08:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I'm starting to get a bit dispirited at alot of these deletion proposals... this is game is certainly notable, just becuase its not physically 'there' like some of the trash which is included, doesn't mean it shouldnt have an entry. Even more frustrating, is theres no way to know when these rather random deletion proposals are are even made without spending hours on WP daily... Bjrobinson 22:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be an independent party, so I will ask: why is this game notable? And does your concept of notability fit either WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE, and if not, why should this be in a different class? Mangojuice^talk 23:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No independent reliable sources, so notability issues are not unfounded. Existence is not sufficient for inclusion, as has been well-established. Will change my !vote if independent sources are provided -- have any gaming magazines reviewed or written about the game, for instance? Shimeru 21:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 00:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep However, it reads like a guide and needs a lot of work. mrholybrain's talk 02:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable software. Inkpaduta 03:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for the same general feelings expressed by Bjrobinson. Mathmo ^Talk 04:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources are found to make the article meet WP:V. Nuttah68 10:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but revert it back to a state before it started looking like a game guide. Lankiveil 12:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Comment -- can any of the keep voters please explain how this is notable, beyond just a preference? I really can't figure it out. I went through all the unique Ghits in English that excluded the words "forum", "blog", and "Wikipedia", and all it came up with were official websites of the game. In other words, there are no reliable sources, unless they aren't in English or aren't on the Web. See for yourselves: [13] Mangojuice^talk 13:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Simply look at the Ogame page, there are no sources and the references are all going to the official pages of the Ogame owners, yet there is no controversy about that. Consistency is an important point in this. Daimanta 17:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Definitelt fails WP:SOFTWARE.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, no reliable sources fails WP:SOFTWARE.--John Lake 23:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.gameforge.de/space4k/24,0,0,0,2.html This is a purely online game, there is no printed material for it. There are websites devoted to tips, strategies, and offering tools to aid in the playing of this game. It is played world-wide by tens of thousands of people. http://www.space4k.info/ Runescape, Ogame, etc are all online games with no more "notability" then Space4k. Typhonous 05:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Those sites are not independent of the game; they're official sites, so we can't use them as sources. RuneScape has sources attesting to a much higher level of use than "tens of thousands thousands" of players -- one says over 9 million. Ogame: it's not in better shape than this one, but inclusion is not an indication of notability. Tens of thousands of users doesn't sound that high for this kind of a thing, and in any case, I would want independent verification. Mangojuice^talk 16:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:SOFTWARE, no sources for notability, had a look on google and found none. QuagmireDog 23:39, 12 February 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 I'm happy to userfy the content if anyone wants them in order to populate a category -Doc^g 20:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Vietnamese companies by industry

List of Vietnamese companies by industry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

an indiscriminate and unreferenced list of companies in Vietnam; Wikipedia is not a directory. An injunction at the top to add only corporations with articles has been universally ignored, and probably always will be. Brianyoumans 11:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hmmm... lively discussion here, eh? --Brianyoumans 21:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Move Make it a category. mrholybrain's talk 02:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable listing. Inkpaduta 03:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Categorize or delete - The listing is not notable (WP:N). If possible, add companies with articles to a category.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, really unfocused and pointless list. Add all companies to the relevant categories, then get rid of the list. Lankiveil 12:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep if it's suitable for a category it's suitable for a list. Jcuk 22:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and categorize. No need for a list page. Eluchil404 07:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly categorize. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:10, 17 February 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 A7. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Mafia Network

The Mafia Network (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable online game. 25 000 registered users is fairly negligible and there does not seem to be any sort of reliable third-party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; article admits that the game has "a small amount of players", and there's no evidence of coverage by independent sources. Walton monarchist89 19:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 01:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep But it needs a good rewrite and sources. mrholybrain's talk 02:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Inkpaduta 03:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources are found to make the article meet WP:V. Nuttah68 10:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, I think that 25,000 accounts is good enough for notability, but I'd like some third-party backing for this figure. Lankiveil 12:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete, no evidence of notability. (Alexa rank 752,101, Google hits 6630), 25.000 accounts? --MaNeMeBasat 13:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks interesting, but needs sources. --UsaSatsui 21:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Looked everywhere, but it is not listed on any of the major lists I know off that states all the MMORPG of significant size. So probably isn't 25,000 subscribers, if it was that would be making it pretty big and I'd be supporting keeping it. But haven't seen anywhere that said that. Plus I very very strongly doubt if this is even a MMORPG! Take a look at this search, only gives you 17 results.... doesn't look good. Mathmo ^Talk 05:54, 12 February 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. The keep arguments do not make it clear as to the criteria for its inclusion. There is a lack of multiple non-trivial independent sources for this article. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fields (band)

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

fails on notability, has no corroboration and reads like advertising / vanity piece. Wastekiller 18:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - article links them to a major record label and asserts that they've released several records, which might make them notable; however, more independent sourcing is needed to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Currently not enough evidence of multiple non-trivial third-party coverage. Walton monarchist89 19:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --MaNeMeBasat 05:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete From the sounds of it, they released at most one album on Atlantic, so they fail WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 01:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 01:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - this band just did a free single of the week on iTunes. It's very good. Delete it if you want, but it will come back... (Anonymous500r 18:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC))
• Weak delete It doesn't sound like much of a band at all and is WP:VANITY. mrholybrain's talk 02:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Inkpaduta 03:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC, no sources per WP:V. Nuttah68 10:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, they haven't even released an album yet. Come back when you've got some indie cred, lads. Lankiveil 12:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep, they were taken on a UK national tour in late 2006 (MTV2's Spanking New Music Tour [14]) Richsage 14:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Richsage-from K37 05:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:MUSIC, has a song is hheavy rotation on Sirius Satellite Radio's "Left of Center" station plus touring. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Benefit of doubt for notability. Article reads decent, and there's even stubs about a song and one of its members. Appears notable. - grubber 18:23, 12 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Taliaferro

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

Contested speedy, should be an open-and-shut case. 17-year-old folksinger, no albums, no national tour, no other signifiers of notability per WP:MUSIC. "...not until early 2007 did he start to build up a small fan base." Indeed. Herostratus 02:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete Should have been speedied. mrholybrain's talk 02:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, it was, but the creator of the article put a lot of work on it and apparantly wanted a full discussion. Herostratus 02:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Sources are unverified. --N Shar 02:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC and suspected WP:AUTO, google search only resulted myspace link. Wooyi 02:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Fails WP:MUSIC andWP:NInkpaduta 03:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, according to the article has had a couple of interviews. Plus has other claims to notability in the article. Mathmo ^Talk 04:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The published interviews mentioned by Mathmo may be enough to pass WP:BIO. "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." --Eastmain 05:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Mathmo. 1ne 10:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. Regarding the two interviews listed at the bottom, one is from his local newspaper, and the other is from a magazine that I can't even verify the existence of. Article also seems self-promotional. WarpstarRider 10:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete promotional and fails WP:MUSIC. The article needs more than one potential reliable source to change my opinion. Nuttah68 10:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, reads more like a press release than an encyclopaedia article to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Taliaferro 12:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article asserts his own lack of notability in its lead paragraph: "not until early 2007 did he start to build up a small fan base." There are also a ton of claims that are not supported: "major criticism" for his "rusty voice" huh? He is "best known" by who for refusing to "give in to record labels"? I can find no evidence that "Bad Magazine" exists. Fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC. Resolute 17:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with Mathmo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.168.16.12 (talk • contribs).
• Keep Has sold self-promoted albums, Bad Magazine is real , and he played in most Southern States. Boisebellomine 05:38, 11 February 2007 — Boisebellomine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Taliaferro is a very important part of Southern Underground Music. Not on an "Important" record company, but has sold thousands of albums. Thebaconsoda 06:03, 11 February 2007 — Thebaconsoda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete, fails WP:MUSICSlideAndSlip 22:09, 13 February 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 since no good reason has been shown for deleting this list other than "Gosh! how MANY of them ARE there?" HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of asteroids/120901–121000

List of asteroids/120901–121000 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

None of these asteroids are notable and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information Nardman1 02:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep Are you serious? None of the asteroids are notable? How do you measure the notability of an asteroid? Although Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, this list can hardly be considered a useless collection of facts. Lists like this which maintain valuable scientific information are exactly the sort of data which make Wikipedia useful. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe someone should write a guideline at WP:ASTEROID? In any case I'm not really advocating this article's deletion, just questioning its place on Wikipedia. I still think it failed WP:NOT Nardman1 02:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    • If you ask me, the guidelines at WP:NOT are totally inappropriate in this particular instance. It's not like any newspaper columnists are going to write a review about an asteroid. In a case like this, the notability guidelines should be overlooked in the interest of the protection of potentially useful scientific information. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Not overlooked, but properly interpreted. Special topics require this sort of interpretation, because it is impractical to amend the general ones to reflect all cases. Therefore we need to rely on the fundamental meaning, which justifies the

• keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 02:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

• Strong keep You could then delete all other asteroid listing pages, using this as precedent. mrholybrain's talk 02:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You're right, you could delete them all, but I don't this is a good reason for or against inclusion. --Kevinwiatrowski 08:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, highly recommend withdrawing the nom for now. While I'm not a big fan of data dumps like this article, it would be much better to work with the creators of this article (and the THOUSANDS of other similar articles) in order to get them into some sort of encyclopedic format. Also, a listing of discovered asteroids is a notable subject as all asteroids are covered in reliable sources.--- RockMFR 03:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Everyone should take a look at Category:Lists of asteroids and the number of pages within it before commenting. --- RockMFR 03:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment, how biased is your vote on rocks due to your username? Just joking around here... Mathmo ^Talk 04:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep My God, this is real life astronomical data. Inkpaduta 03:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Any reason why this particular list has been singled out and not the dozens of others? As noted above, this is legitimate and encyclopaedic information. WP:SNOW might apply here, I think. 23skidoo 04:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I happened to come across this article by clicking "Random article". Nardman1 13:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That is a problem I've been mulling over. The 100-count pages were created to ease editing and server load; they are not meant to be browsed directly. I'm thinking of enclosing them in an includeonly tag so they would become redirects to the "main" (1000-count) pages when accessed directly. Make sense? Urhixidur 00:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I probably wouldn't support an article on every single asteroid, but this list should definitely stay. See WP:LIST: it is informative and aids navigation. -- Black Falcon 04:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per RockMFR. Mathmo ^Talk 04:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. How else would we present this information? Clearly valuable scientific content. WjBscribe 05:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

  Comment. Mmm. I'm just starting to realise quite how many pages of the asteroid lists there are. Check out [15]... WjBscribe 08:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I may be a voice crying in the wilderness on this one, but... this is a list of trivial astronomical information. None of these asteroids have articles, probably never will. Is Wikipedia a host for reams and reams of trivial astronomical info? What is next - bulk star catalogs? Does everyone realize how much data this would mean, and how little it would be of value to anyone except astronomers? Grains of sand on the beach, stars in the sky... asteroids are not far behind. Out!!! --Brianyoumans 05:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This table is a copy of other source material published by the Minor Planet Center. For instance, this article's information is found on this Minor Planet Center reference page, with the columns even in the same order. WP:NOT#MIRROR explains that mere collections of source material may not go in Wikipedia. The point is further made in WP:NPS, which makes a good suggestion that large sources are candidates for WikiSource. --Kevinwiatrowski 08:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable, informative... what's the problem? Lankiveil 12:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Strong Keep This data, while admittedly only of interest within a narrow intellectual framework, is nevertheless invaluable. A really genuine encyclopedia article, as are the large number of related articles detailing other asteroid series.--Anthony.bradbury 15:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as pointed out by Brianyoumans and Kevinwiatrowski above wikipedia is not a mirror site or directory of information. The information could be transwikied to wikisource if it is in the public domain but it does not belong in Wikipedia - it is not a data repository! Madmedea 17:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

CommentOh and the same should happen to the other lists - could have been bundled into this AfD but is it too late? Madmedea 17:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. It has potential. --Bryson 22:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I see no reason why this can't be kept. Belongs in an encyclopedia. --MasterA113 22:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ Nardman1 00:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Send to Wikisource That's what it was created for. I fail to see any cogent argument why this should stay on Wikipedia despite WP:NOT#MIRROR and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, or the WP:RS provision that Wikipedia articles should rely on secondary sources. ~ trialsanderrors 04:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as copyvio per [16]. ~ trialsanderrors 04:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Can you explain how this is a copyvio? Is the data itself copyrighted? I can see that the page says that everything on their pages is copyrighted, but does this basic data really fall under copyright? --- RockMFR 04:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
      • If it's basic data you can retrieve the data yourself and create your own list. The compilation effort, i.e. retrieval, decision on what to include and exclude and presentation in a certain format is a creative act and is copyrighted. The provision that might make it usable is "Freely-available datasets may be redistributed as long as the source for the data is clearly specified." I'm not sure if that applies for this database but even then this is a primary source dump and should go to Wikisource. ~ trialsanderrors 05:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Question Is this tied to an article about these asteroids? KP Botany 04:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note I'm going to bold this, because I think everyone voting should read it. If you look on the Minor Planet Center site where this list came from, you can see clearly that there are 150,000 of these asteroids identified so far. Yes, that is "one hundred and fifty thousand" - and thousands discovered each year. How many of these is anyone ever going to care about? Probably 0.1% of them, if that. Why don't we start a list of NOTABLE asteroids? This enormous list of astronomical trivia belongs on Wikisource, if anywhere other than the Minor Planet site. I also took a look at the copyright terms, and I have no idea if our usage is legal as is; my guess would be not, principally because we haven't reformatted or reworked the data in any way.--Brianyoumans 08:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that we are not an indiscriminate collection of data, but I'm inclined to feel that this data is not indiscriminate: we're not seeking to list every grain of sand in the sky, we're simply providing an organised arrangement of data. Although obscure, I'd rather have the complete list than edited highlights in a "list of notables". WMMartin 14:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment — It should be possible to come up with a concensus for what makes an asteroid notable (or any Solar System object for that matter). We shouldn't have to record every single 100m rock in the sky. Here's a few thoughts:
  • It was discovered prior to the use of photography for finding asteroids.
  • It has had (or will have) a close approach by a spacecraft.
  • There is a solid diameter and/or mass estimate, along with good orbital elements.
  • It has been imaged by radar or other sensors, including but not limited to occultation profiles.
  • It has unusual spectral properties.
  • It has had (or will have) a close-Earth encounter.
  • It is known to have a moon.
  • There is a published paper on the asteroid.
  • It is a trojan asteroid for a terrestrial planet.

— RJH (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Sure, there are lots of these rocks out there, but "notability" applies to individual asteroids, in my mind. I feel the Wikipedia list is much easier to consult than the MPC or Lowell astorb data files, if only for the links. I would love to see how it could be deposited in Wikisource --we've kept the discovery data and "meanings of names" lists separate precisely with Wikisource in mind. As for copyright concerns, the list is scientific data. We have reformatted it massively (all the wikicode in the individual pages, plus the organisation into blocks of 100 asteroids). I'm certain there is no problem whatsoever on that axis. Urhixidur 00:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Definitely encyclopedia worthy. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Question Is this tied to an article about these asteroids? Could someone answer this question? If it's not tied to any article that discusses these asteroids it's simply a list of asteroids and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. KP Botany 03:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no article about these asteroids because there is no encyclopedic information about them. The data in the lists could be supplemented with orbital elements and magnitudes but that's it for most of them (see List of asteroids for the complete run down). I say transwiki the whole kit-and-cabbodle to wikisource and ony allow lists of asteroids that are named or otherwise assert notability. These lists are clearly useful but they are also clearly directories which Wikipedia is expressly not. Eluchil404 08:08, 16 February 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 redirected. Sandstein 21:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OYEZ Project

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

There is an article Oyez.org written by me, which has the identical subject of this article, has more information and details, and is fully referenced, I suggest this one to be redirect to Oyez.org. Wooyi 02:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect. Er, you didn't have to start a discussion to do this. You generally would only do so in controversial cases. I've taken the liberty of doing the redirect for you since I doubt anyone could object. If I were you I'd withdraw the nomination and ask for speedy close. Nardman1 02:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Withdraw nomination and request for speedy close per above reason, thank you Nardman! Wooyi 02:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete We do not have one word articles. Inkpaduta 03:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Would you stop kidding around? Nardman1 14:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note - admin please close; redirected this page to the correct article. Thanks. SkierRMH 09:29, 11 February 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mongolian Migration

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

The purpose of the article is unclear, it combines snippets of information that is given more appropriately elsewhere. The title isn't a commonly used term and has no clear definition besides the trivial fact that nomadic people happen to migrate in one form or another. Most of the article text talks about different subjects than the title. Latebird 02:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Delete: I agree with Latebird. I don't see the point of the existence of the article. Causesobad → (Talk) 02:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This could go in other articles. mrholybrain's talk 02:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense/test page. I'm confident that all of the useful facts in here are already contained elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugnuts (talk • contribs) --Latebird 15:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with something, if there is anything worth merging. The article at present consists of three unrelated pieces of infomration, and perhaps not even wholly accurate - I think a yurt is made of felt, not leather. Peterkingiron 18:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Half the article belongs in Mongol Empire, and another half is original research strung together by articles that don't actually back up any claims. Maybe this is a notable topic, but the article itself has not shown this. Delete this until an editor comes to make a real article out of the topic. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per HongQiGong. Nothing salvageable here. --Richard 05:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. 〈REDVEЯS〉 11:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gareth Nightingale

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

Article makes outrageous claims, like a 7 year old being head of a gang and having a chauffer's license and being reincarnated. Obviously a hoax. No g-hits besides wiki-mirrors and blogs Nardman1 02:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• delete as a hoax. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-a ridiculous article. Reincarnation?. [|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 02:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete Per WP:HOAX. mrholybrain's talk 02:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Clearly a hoax. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 03:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as hoax artice. Inkpaduta 03:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, if anything at all about this article turns out to be real it can at least then be recreated with that information. Mathmo ^Talk 05:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax. Maxamegalon2000 06:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete dumb. JuJube 07:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Total nonsense. WarpstarRider 10:54, 11 February 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. DS 00:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dale Cook

Does not seem to be in any way significant and also appears to be an autobiography by someone with a rather high opinion of himself. Necrothesp 02:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find any sources about him and the only reason it can't be speedied is because he was asked to lead something. Fails notability. James086^Talk 02:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Nardman1 02:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete Per WP:HOAX and WP:AUTO. mrholybrain's talk 02:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 02:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as hoax. " He has also been seen conclinig many famous Zulu Nation members" Inkpaduta 03:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Sadly, "hoax" is specifically excluded as a reason for speedy deletion. -- Necrothesp 19:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, looked but failed to find any sources which could save this "article". Mathmo ^Talk 05:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete dumb. JuJube 07:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• "He is most for having wisdom far beyound his years.". Uh-huh. Delete. Lankiveil 12:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete no sources, no references... should be speedied under VP:V Alf photoman 13:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Joke of an article, written by User:Dale Cook, who, as he says himself, has "wisdom far beyound his years." Indeed. Wavy G 04:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Displaying a "wisdom far beyound my years", I'd like to say that it's entirely possible that the person exists, but only one claim to notability fails the "obviously silly" test: the sentence about being signed to "Def Jam" ( whoever they are ). It's possible that he has been signed by some record company - the levels of modesty and literacy conveyed by the article are of about the level I'd expect from such a performer - but until his CD comes out this article would fail anyway under "we're not a crystal ball". ( By the way, does he mean "Shao Lin" ? ) WMMartin 14:16, 12 February 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. Agathoclea

[edit] Henry Westerbeld-Pottinger

Henry Westerbeld-Pottinger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is a hoax. Every edit by the author is a hoax. No g-hits besides wiki-mirrors. Nardman1 03:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Delete right away: no citation, no evidence of verifiability. Read like hoax from yellow press. Causesobad → (Talk) 03:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as particularly crappy hoax article. Inkpaduta 03:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete dumb. JuJube 07:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Total nonsense. WarpstarRider 11:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable bad {{hoax}}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Git rid of this junk. mrholybrain's talk 12:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, some absurd hoaxes are also really hilarious. This is not one of those. Lankiveil 12:50, 11 February 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 merge (if possible) with Ctrl+Alt+Del. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Buckley (artist)

Tim Buckley (artist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Though Buckley has public exposure, this page really doesn't say anything that should not appear on Ctrl+Alt+Del. So delete based on notability. DaoKaioshin 03:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. He wrote a couple of legitamate books. Perhaps you nominated per WP:HOLE? BuickCenturyDriver 03:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well my point is that the scope of Tim's notability does not extend past Ctrl+Alt+Del, these books included. W.marsh's redirect suggestion is probably the best idea for this page.DaoKaioshin 03:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. While Connecticon is crap, I did meet him at it. Definitely notable. Nardman1 03:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• This article gets a lot of WP:LIVING violations, while apparently lots of people dislike this guy, reliable sources don't exist (or at least, never end up getting cited) to back up any of this criticism. This has led to the article being redirected to Ctrl+Alt+Del in the past, on the basis that there isn't enough information on this guy from "acceptable" sources to ever write a complete article. I would support going back to that redirect, as clearly people are looking for information on this guy. --W.marsh 03:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Totally fails WP:N , WP:RS, and WP:V. Inkpaduta 03:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep.per BuickCenturyDriver. Mathmo ^Talk 05:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge With Ctrl+Alt+Del. mrholybrain's talk 12:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as per BuickCenturyDriver. Lankiveil 12:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Redirect to Ctrl+Alt+Del. While Tim Buckley is one of the most notable webcomic artists, his fame is directly centered around his comic. He's almost unknown outside of webcomics, which means he doesn't really qualify for an article by himself. He's also the target of a lot of hostility. Any article regarding him is going to have a lot of hate directed at it, and per the guidelines on living persons, we should avoid criticisms unless they can be extensively sourced. Most of this stuff isn't even sourced at all. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ctrl+Alt+Del Nothing on Buckley's page is memorable that isn't about his comic. This page is just a cesspit for WP:LIVING vios.130.126.130.171 16:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for the same reasons that Brian Clevinger has his own article. Both are very popular webcomics with similar fanbases and both have appeared numerous times at fan conventions to general acclaim. As Brian often says, they're both decently popular "interweb celebrities," and should be kept as such. Just because information here is mentioned on another site doesn't mean that an encyclopedia shouldn't include information on him as well. RPH 22:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as per W.marsh and Lankybugger. Because the WP:LIVING violations are frequent and egregious, I recommend locking the redirect down. My second choice would be to delete. It definitely should not be kept in its current form. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 12:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ctrl+Alt+Del. SlideAndSlip 22:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect: notable webcomic (yes, they exist), but artist not notable outside of the comic, and not enough verifiable, interesting info to warrant own article. Fram 09:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There is no reason to delete what has the potential to be a very good article. Scorp Stanton

Comment Currently, there's nothing in the article which can't be moved to the article on Ctrl+Alt+Del. It only mentions him in the context of the comic itself, or in direct relation to the website hosting the comic (IE Charities he promoted on the site, merchandise he sells related to the site, etc). There's nothing asserting Tim Buckley's notability outside of CTRL+ALT+DEL, which already has an extensive article. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

reply if we moved every article that didn't have much content at one point or another, we wouldn't have any of wikipedia's featured articles. This "what's the harm of a redirect" attitude is really not helpful. This person is distinct from the comic he writes/draws and has done things unrelated to CAD. Senseless redirects are a bad idea. Delete the article if it's innappropriate(which I doubt), but don't redirect unless there's honestly a reason to expect one(namely misspellings, synonyms, and non-notable spinoffs. i kan reed 19:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

rebuttal This is indeed the point of contention, whether Buckley has notable contributions outside his comic. Earlier, Buckley was compared to Brian Clevinger. The difference between them is that Clevinger does have other ventures dealing with separate IP and collaborations involving individuals who do have some measure of notability in their respective industries. Even this article, as it is, reflects Buckley's current lack of non-encyclopedic accomplishments, couching everything in terms of its relation to his comic. And, if we're willing to count there are exactly zero (0) lines in this article that do not mention Ctrl+Alt+Del DaoKaioshin 22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply again My point was on the notion of theory not on present article state. A person is not the same as a webcomic, and really shouldn't be redirected as such. Redirects discourage actaully making an article out of something. His entry into the "hottest gamer" or whatever it was that was an international competition is a unique aspect that could be ascribed to him without being more than tangentially related to CAD. And while this information is not presently in the article, it could be and a redirect would discourage that and similar information from ever being added to wikipedia, thus is contrary to the fundemental mission of wikipedia, and I strongly oppose any redirect, and would stand for a delete over a redirect. i kan reed 05:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or possibly merge and redirect to Ctrl+Alt+Del until such time better sources are available. RFerreira 07:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE without prejudice to a properly referenced, WP:BLP compliant article being written by a disinterested party. If any experienced wikipedian wants to take this article on, I'll be happy to undelete it, or give them access to the history. -Doc^g 20:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Shields (Bear Search and Rescue)

Scott Shields (Bear Search and Rescue) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not sure if this article is about Scot Shields the baseball player, full of citiation tags. Tagged with a {{prod}} but removed by an anonymous user. Have your say. BuickCenturyDriver 03:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

*Weak keep I have stubbed this article to get of uncited defamatory material. The article is not about the baseball player; it is about a Sept 11 Ground Zero volunteer described here: http://www.bearsearchandrescue.org/. This person is unquestionably notable but the quality problems are so severe that I would not object to deleting it and starting over. Kla'quot 06:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Delete unless a person who isn't involved in the situation in real life, and who has experience in following Wikipedia content polcies, offers to rewrite this article exclusively from reliable sources. Many articles which get off to a bad start end up fine, but this article doesn't seem to be going in that direction. Please also consider protecting the article as a non-defamatory stub until contributors come to consensus on Talk about what the reliable sources are for this article. Kla'quot 07:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep notable and meets WP:BIO easily. Nuttah68 11:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

  The article looks much better then it was when I nominated. Good work! BuickCenturyDriver 11:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The guy is obviously notable. mrholybrain's talk 12:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Currently the article content is "Scott Shields was a dressmaker from Conneticut. He achieved some moderate fame after responding to the WTC disaster, and wrote the book Bear, Heart of a Hero. [citation needed] In late 2002 Scott Shields started the Bear Search and Rescue Foundation named after his recently deceased dog Bear." which in my mind fails WP:BIO there are 3 references to news articles, the first is about the fraud charges agaisnt the subject of the article, and the other two are about a dog not the subject, so would seem to fail WP:N and WP:V. Jeepday 16:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I vote delete. The guy is notable or infamous however it would be impossible to keep ampartial article here with both factions being able to edit it at their leisure.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloinwalsh (talk • contribs)

  I'm surprised you want to delete the page since you were the one who launched it. The page was edited with the correct information and that what affects the outcome of this deletion discussion. BuickCenturyDriver 02:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should stay. It is true and my article at http://landofpuregold.com/truthiness.htm supports it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Landofpuregold (talk • contribs) — Landofpuregold (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete!!! I am the one that prod'd the original article. I have been in contact with Scott Shields on this subject and he has been in contact. The article references/referenced a NY Post article and that article has, at best, flimsy references and BTW, best I can tell, is the only news report on the subject. If this was a legit issue, more journalists would be reporting on it in various media. Also, the NY Post is not known more for it's gossip and sports sections than for their hard news dept. As for the above anonymous poster, you don't offer any real proof, only allegations! Postcard Cathy 01:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• PS THe landofpuregold.com site isn't working right now. Really helpful in verifying your claim! Postcard Cathy 01:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

**KEEP!!** Great editing out od defamatory stuff. Much better now. Highly notable on many blog sites and national print news media. A public figure with book authorship on WTC disaster ("Bear: Heart of a Hero"). Especially notable in search and rescue & first responder communities.Princetonpals 03:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia User:Princetonpals I see you have just begun editing, hope the rest of your first day goes well Special:Contributions/Princetonpals Jeepday 04:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge: If we do end up keeping this, we should merge this to September 11, 2001. If it is indeed kept, it should be renamed Scott Shields (World Trade Center) since that is what he is remembered for. BuickCenturyDriver 11:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Great idea Buick. Makes more sense.Princetonpals 21:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC) — Princetonpals (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment There seems to be several Wikipedia:Single purpose accounts voting and commenting on this article. Jeepday 03:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• DELETE. Wikipedia articles about living people can affect the subject's life. Mr Shields may, or may not, leap over the WP:N hurdle, but this article does not, and apparently will not, meet the criteria set out in WP:BLP. Negative articles on living people need to be scrupulously well referenced, and there needs to be a clear case for inclusion. This is a person of quite marginal notability in a Wikipedian sense. On Wikipedia, nil nisi bonum applies to the living, not the dead. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:19, 16 February 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. -Doc^g 20:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MCV Broadband

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

Tagged as WP:CSD#A7 but contested. No evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep, since it was my article. I didn't see anything wrong with creating it but when someone puts a deletion tag on it for no appearant reason it does raise red flags. Robert Moore 01:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Failure to show notability. If they are important in Guam, there should be some press coverage of them. —Dgies^t c 06:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 03:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep only has one independent external source but a quick google search convinces me others could, and should, be added. Nuttah68 11:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are several other sources for this article that could be added. mrholybrain's talk 12:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, pending addition of more sources. Lankiveil 12:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete ghits Results 11 - 15 of about 112 for "MCV Broadband" page two of ghits pretty much wraps it up, In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 15 already displayed. Fails WP:N Jeepday 16:59, 11 February 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. -Doc^g 20:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curtis Walker

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

Tagged WP:CSD#A7 but notability is asserted. Weakly. Very weakly. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless better sources emerge during the course of this AfD. Almost a borderline WP:BIO at this point in my opinion. CiaranG 21:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep changed from delete per Nuttah68 below. CiaranG 12:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 03:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. Nardman1 03:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Only a minor role in a children's series when his character "was mostly an off the camera character who voice appeared over an intercom". Seems pretty non notable by the article's admission. WjBscribe 05:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep described in the links in the BBC source provided (Curtis walker) as being the star of Paramount City, The Real McCoy and Blouse And Skirt. More than enough to meet WP:BIO. In addition has toured nationally and internationally. Nuttah68 11:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He has many sources and is obviously notable. mrholybrain's talk 12:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article is well-sourced and subject is notable in his home country, with starring roles in multiple television series. --Charlene 20:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep he is a funny guy and on TV a lot here.SlideAndSlip 22:14, 13 February 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. --Coredesat 18:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harvey L. Bass

Harvey L. Bass (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Well-written article, but is essentially just an obituary. None of his achievements seem very notable (started, or perhaps just ran for a while, a local newspaper, was chair of local branch of Democratic Party, and won some Rotarian award). No relevant Google hits. Elmer Clark 03:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• weak delete per WP:BIO. Articles like this make me question the usefulness of Wikipedia's notability policies. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This person who had a big influence in U.S. history sounds far more notable than the least notable of the 490 Pokemon characters or the random 1/3 mile of state highway, both of which seem to fully satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. A genuine human being who had an amazing influence on human events. Inkpaduta 03:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

ugh...WP:POKEMON -Elmer Clark 04:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What was this "big influence on U.S. history" and "amazing influence on human events"? Publishing a local newspaper and being a local political figure is not a "big influence" on American history. Gamaliel 21:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• keep local political figures are often notable, but the people who write the articles do not know how to position them in terms of general politics. The significance of this one is probably his role in the changing political climate of his area, and more can & should be said. What the article warrants is a more careful article. Any career can be made to sound trivial. DGG 06:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you not think the zero Google hits suggest that maybe he was not that notable a figure? -Elmer Clark 06:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, I see nothing in the article that meets WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 06:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Paul Harris Fellow is the MAJOR award for Rotary, not "some Rotary award". There is considerable criteria one must meet to win a Paul Harris designation. He is not on Wikipedia, however, only because he was a Paul Harris Fellow. His is a unique story. Mr. Bass was in business, journalism, church, and local politics. I thought it was a good idea to include some people from the Panhandle for Wikipedia. It is a large, thinly populated area, and most people selected from there would be unknown except in the local community.Billy Hathorn 12:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, seems notable enough as a local figure. Lankiveil 12:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep A notable figure, even in just a community. mrholybrain's talk 12:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep not everybody who is notable is on Google, nor is everybody notable who is. Sometimes some people should bother to get away from their computers and into a library Alf photoman 14:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Cite a library book that establishes his importance then. Gamaliel 21:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per Dhartung -- Bpmullins | Talk 14:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. According to this page, there are over 700,000 Paul Harris Fellows, so it's not as significant an honor as implied above. --Metropolitan90 21:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Obviously a solid local worthy, but not notable enough for Wikipedia. Note that this opinion has nothing to do with a Google search, which I agree is not a good way to determine notability, but is based on the fact that he never held any sort of official post even in the small community in which he lived. Small-time local businessmen and chairmen of local political parties, chambers of commerce and rotary clubs are simply not notable enough for Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp 00:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - I have no idea why it is claimed that we have room for 430 articles about 430 separate Pokemon characters, as well as the entire cast of characters from video games and animated cartoons, and obscure hip-hop and rap performers who just self-published their first CDs, but we don't have room for articles about notable real people. Like other articles about local notables who are unheard of outside of their native counties, there may be too much detail; but that's a content issue, not a "keep or delete" issue. This is an article about a Democrat. I am a Republican, and I'm saying, "Strong keep." Dino 15:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This may be a new record! WP:POKEMON invoked twice in one AfD debate! :-P -Elmer Clark 21:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Local interest only, not notable enough per WP:BIO. Gamaliel 21:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. only of interest in a small area, does not make WP:BIOSlideAndSlip 22:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• I recommended the following article for deletion, but apparently it has been spared. How is this article superior to the one on Harvey Bass, may I ask?

{complete text of Alonzo Sebastian Blalock removed}

Billy Hathorn 20:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be deleted. It was not spared, it was never submitted for deletion because you did not complete the AfD submission process. I've deleted it myself because I feel it fits the speedy deletion criteria. Gamaliel 20:45, 14 February 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. --Coredesat 18:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] African Filipino

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

• User:210.213.174.37 tagged this article for AfD but didn't complete the process. They put their reasoning in the AfD notice: "Not notable enough as a group to warrant their own full article. A Wikipedia category would be enough, since this article is basically turning into a list anyway." I'm just completing the nomination process. My suggestion is keep - notable and encyclopedic. delldot | talk 21:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• There is a visible community so we should keep it but I think the article needs a lot of cleaup.--23prootie 19:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- 23prootie 19:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)</small
• Delete no notability shown as this is mostly a list. we need text and reference about characteristics of this community not just definition and list Fotografico 04:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article is basically an unreferenced list. There isn't even an assertation of notability, since the article doesn't say anything about significant communites in the country. Seems like someone just wanted a "list of famous filipinos with supposed African blood". Shrumster 10:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 03:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Inkpaduta 03:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, visible minority group - don't see how it's not notable. Lankiveil 12:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep But move the list part to a category. mrholybrain's talk 12:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable but it needs to be sourced. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 00:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep That this term can be attributed to mulattos of Filipino/African American mix resulting from American army men being stationed in the Philippines definitely makes this notable. A lot of people in Southeast Asia that are of this type of a union are very much discriminated against and live in poverty. It's a notable issue. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Should be a category, as the list format adds nothing that a category doesn't supply. WMMartin 14:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per 23prootie. Luckystars 15:22, 12 February 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. --Coredesat 18:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nodes of Ranvier (band)

Nodes of Ranvier (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. All links that appear in blue end up going to articles of no relation. Based on this, assuming that the band is non-notable. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 19:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - no clear evidence of notability; only links are to the band's own site and their record company. No evidence of coverage/reviews by third-party sources. Walton monarchist89 20:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article claims that the band has "toured the U.S. numerous times", in which case it would pass WP:BAND. However, there is no reference provided for the statement, nor any other. ShadowHalo 03:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 21:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Listed on AMG, deserves more consideration I think. --W.marsh 21:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 03:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Inkpaduta 04:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Lankiveil 12:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete Unless sources can be found. mrholybrain's talk 13:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Band has released 3 albums, and recently signed with Victory Records[17]. Needs a cleanup though.Dmiles21 21:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• KeepThe Page Clearly needs updating, but the band is well known in the North American Metalcore scene, has released albums on notable labels, and is cited as a key infulence of other similarly styled artists. The page need expansion, not deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.145.109.125 (talk) 21:21, 14 February 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. --Coredesat 18:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blatant Comics

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

Non-notable webcomic publisher. Top magazine only sold 5,000 copies. No reliable sources; much of the article is simply listing parody comic titles. /Blaxthos 03:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Inkpaduta 04:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Blatant is not a webcomic publisher, it is a print publisher. All information backed by reliable sources Mile High Comics and Comics Buyers Guide (links included in References). Notable for being rare publisher of primarily parody titles since 1997. Blatant's top-selling title outsold notable comic titles such as Archie and Betty and Veronica (from Archie Comics), Looney Tunes and Cartoon Network Presents (from DC Comics), and Ninja High School on chart referenced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Egunthry (talk • contribs) 04:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete per nom. TRKtv (daaaaah!) 04:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as subject is non-notable, and no reliable sources exist or can be found. This should be treated just like every other non-notable business or commercial entity. NetOracle 04:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Added links to reviews of two Blatant titles from Las Vegas Weekly, newspaper with 70,000 circulation.^[1] Egunthry 04:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Egunthry. Mathmo ^Talk 05:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep However, it needs expansion. mrholybrain's talk 13:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep based on the reviews, they satisfy our policy on WP:V. Hiding Talk 20:19, 14 February 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 tag as unreferenced PeaceNT 14:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] L. R. Kershaw

L. R. Kershaw (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Tagged as WP:CSD#A7 but notability is asserted. Not sure if it's credible. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unverified and unsourced --RaiderAspect 04:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• comment If some of this could be documented, he would clearly be notable. Let's see what people here can find.DGG 07:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)DGG 07:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 03:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable individual who had a significant influence in the development of Oklahoma. Inkpaduta 04:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, notable yet lacking sources make this article a perfect candidate for a second nomination Alf photoman 14:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Local interest only, not notable enough per WP:BIOSlideAndSlip 22:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep While not instantly recognizable, he appears to be of note, although lacking any page formatting or citations. --Ozgod 01:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep several claims to near notability are enough to make a man notable, IMO. Needs wikification though. Eluchil404 08:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:BIO. John Vandenberg 07:10, 17 February 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 per author's request, game creator's request, and general consensus in this nomination. -- nae'blis 17:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eshraval

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

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

48 active players, no external sources, reads like it was written by the creators. Page has existed since May of last year. -- nae'blis 22:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 04:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Inkpaduta 04:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Breathtakingly non-notable. WMMartin 14:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If you are going to delete the page, the you should delete the entire geofiction section and all the others worlds listed there, such as Vexillium, which has about four active players. The page is relevant to the categories listed, it exists and it is active. The page gets more than 1,500 hits per day. I thought an Encyclopedia was used to look up a variety of information, not just items that were only 'breathtakingly notable', as appears to be the standard by some here. As for that 'breathtakingly non-notable' comment - please grow up and act like an adult. I would sincerely appreciate the exact reason this page is up for deletion. It doesn't seem to violate any Wikipedia policies and clearly describes the object of the page. Eshraval Creator — EshCreator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and other edits have been just to the page in question.

The phrase "breathtakingly non-notable" may, if you wish, be read as "very non-notable", or simply "non-notable". I'll make the rest of this comment without further humorous adverbs...

(1) It is a well-established policy here that in a debate on whether or not to delete an article we do not consider the status of other articles. We aim to work on a case by case basis. You, or anyone else, is welcome to propose deletion of any articles you wish. Sometimes we examine several similar or related articles at the same time, but this is not the case here.

(2) The number of hits per day the website gets is not relevant. This, again, is a long-standing principle followed when we review articles for deletion. The reason for this is that we are concerned with notability, not popularity.

(3) Notability is not subjective. What would make Eshraval notable would be if it had been discussed in some non-trivial way in a reliable published work. I've tried to find such a reference, but have not been able to do so. In fact, outside a very small community there's no reference to Eshraval at all. Eshraval has particularly few references of any kind ( hence the "breath-taking" comment ).

(4) I did actually express the exact reason why I advocate deletion of this article ( note that I'm not "voting" for deletion here - this isn't a vote, it's a discussion in which I express an opinion ): I said above that the article is non-notable. I hope that when you click through to the link above on what notability is you'll see that this was comment enough, and was an "exact reason".

(5) Yes, you're right, encyclopedias are used to look up a variety of information. But the difference between Wikipedia and somewhere like Google is that here we aim to include the "notable" stuff. Of course you've now read the way we identify notability, but here's my general philosophy on encyclopedias, which I hope you find useful: I think of an encyclopedia as being a kind of general repository for information that a well-read student of a particular discipline would be expected to know, or would be interested to know. So we have an article on geofiction because it's reasonable to expect "moderately well-informed" people to know what it is. We also want to provide information that will be useful for experts in geofiction, so we should have articles on Islandia, Boxen, and so on. Now, should we have an article on Eshraval ? I'd say certainly "yes", if it's notable within the geofiction community. But because I'm not an expert on geofiction, the only criterion I have for making this call is to look for publications about it: fortunately, this is a nice mechanical process that simply requires me to go and look for them. If I find that someone has written a paper in a journal titled "Eshraval: a study of human interaction through geofiction", or I find a reference to Eshraval in a survey of geofiction that includes a line like "Eshraval is important in geofiction because <insert non-trivial reason>" then we've got clear evidence that Eshraval is regarded by the relevant people as important and different - that it stands out from its peers. And then we create an article. But at present, despite good faith efforts on my part, I can't find what we need.

(6) As you'll see if you check my record, I make most of my contributions to Wikipedia through AfD debates. This is often a rather thankless task: people who work mostly in this area are looked down on by people who focus on creating articles, because we are "not adding to the project". Though it's hard to believe, I'd be delighted if every article reviewed in a deletion debate could be kept: I want Wikipedia to grow, too. But, sadly, it is very often necessary to prune the tree so that it will grow more healthily. What makes us a useful resource is that when people use Wikipedia to look something up they know that (a) we're trying to tell the truth, without bias, and (b) an article in Wikipedia will provide references to independent sources where you can learn more about the subject and why it is important. My job is to help make sure that our articles meet these criteria. It's not glamorous, but I don't mind doing it.

I hope this rather lengthy response helps you understand why I expressed the opinion I did. Please feel free to contact me any time to discuss this further, or if you feel I can help you in any way. WMMartin 19:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• I appreciate the response, but this in no way excuses the 'breathtakingly non-notable' response. It was unwarranted, ill-advised, and made you instantly come off like a belittling, pompous jerk. While you may think something is not worthy of inclusion - and that is perfectly fine - the way you state that is really the only way you can be interacted with here on the internet; frankly, you were judged as an jerk, for good or ill. In the future I just ask that you respect others work in both thought and deed. If you had simply said 'Non-notable' there would have been no issue aside from the fact we think you are wrong, but at least that debate is on-target and not about an immature comment by you. -- Eshraval Creator

• Keep. As an Eshraval player and a long-time Wiki user and contributer, I'll have to disagree with you, Martin. If Eshraval is so, 'insignificant' as you say, do we really need an article on the Clark Material Handling Company? They make forklifts. They're hardly notable. Please, think before you speak; this is a living, breathing game, simulation and world, and I may not be the authority on the statistics of this page, I can assure you it is visited. Yes, it may need some work and updating, but otherwise there is nothing violating Wiki standards inside it. Thank you, Charles Buechner.
  • Comment Looking at what links to Clark Material Handling Company, it appears they are notable because it was one of the companies responsible for the development of the first forklift, not because it just makes forklifts. —Mitaphane _?|! 00:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I am also an Eshraval player, and I challenge those who are set against the Wiki page to take a hard look at the creativity and depth of the world of Eshraval. I daresay, it is not appropriate for one person to decide the result of countless hours of work is worthless because they do not appreciate the creation. While Eshraval is not for everyone, including Martin, that does not mean it has no notable content, concepts, ideals or designs. Remember, in a perfect world, there is no need for thought police. Sincerely, Xeyda — Xeyda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep. Also an Eshraval player. I think the game speaks for itself. You don't have to like it. Just respect the joined vision of multiple people from across the world, creating a living, breathing world with its own radio broadcasts, content and unique political situations. Custodius 21:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC) — Custodius (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Weak delete, no independent sources found to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS. Article's only references aren't independent, they're affiliated with the creator and publisher. I expected Google to find some mentions on game-review magazine websites which would provide at least some claim to notability, but all I see are non-independent pages, Wikipedia mirrors, and a few blog postings. When this game has gotten substantially covered by reliable sources like the forklift maker has, and when such sources are cited, I will change to "Keep", but for now they don't appear in the article nor in the search I tried. None of the "keep" comments so far has provided a rationale that meets WP policies and guidelines. Barno 21:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Clark (forklifts, cited as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) has no sources in the article but a Google search shows cites by the New York Times, World Cargo News, Automotive Business Review, and other verifiable sources, among the trivial hits such as press releases and directory listings. Barno 21:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Addendum to previous KEEP by Xeyda: Considering this is a free, unadvertised, online effort, the majority of any reviews of the game are going to be independent "blog" style blurbs and reviews of the game such as Omnipelagos.com, AllExperts.com and About.com. Xeyda 21:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: im also a player of eshraval and seriusly believe that hundreds of hours carefully crafting a world setting and game play cant be resumed by a "Breathtakingly non-notable" which is highly derrogative comment of our effort, its serious work and therefore deserves a place in wikipedia to inform people about our effort. Zhar2 — Zhar2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete - close to being a speedy spam delete, but hopefully we can get all 48 132 (which is not what the article says and, compared to Wikipedia's 1 million plus is... well, anyway) members of their community to meat up here before we delete the article. 〈REDVEЯS〉 22:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Now theres no need to be rude. Custodius 22:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The sheer arrogance and lack of tact by some of you Wikipedia people is astounding. People who want this page kept are now 'spam'. Why are some of you so quick to discount and minimize the effort and community of others? Seriously? We will do whatever is required to bring the page up to standard, but I believe Yahoo! and other engines returns a lot of hits. If the page requires more information, we will certainly add it, but I don't think the page itself is out of place, irrelevant, 'Breathtakingly non-notable', or 'spam'.Eshraval Creator
• Comment - Where the hell did you guys get 48 from? There are 49 nations left open to play, meaning there are 132 members of the community. Which is bigger than some organizations listed on Wikipedia. -- 81.109.195.249 22:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC) — 81.109.195.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep I don't understand the reasoning behind this move. This is a Con-world. It's fake! You can't find anything about it besides blogs, pictures, and videos, of which there are 3690 hits on a Yahoo! search alone... Perhaps you should put up another nice pretty banner. I dunno, I think that you should reconsider the value that this article has to many people, and perhaps reconsider this edit. Cronos2546
• Keep There is no reason why this page should be deleted unless, you also go and delete many many other pages as well. Kezaron 22:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Added Note. I think it is worthy to note that several people have found us via your Wikipedia. They were looking for geofiction/fantasy style online games and happened upon us through you. So I think the entry is relevant, because it is providing the very service this entire online encyclopedia was supposedly designed to provide. The entire category is/was clearly getting use AND providing a service to the greater online community. I guess the question is, how can it be non-notable or irrelevant if people have found it through this very entry? There is obviously a demand, and this entry in an online encyclopedia is providing that service. Eshraval Creator 12 February 2007
• Delete per WP:V. Of the 34 -wikipedia&btnG=Search ghits, they are no sources that are reliable, make not of the game's significance, or make more than a trivial mention of the game. Mitaphane _?|! 00:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. This reliable sources arguement is, in my humble opinion, complete rubbish. It's impossible to cite any source besides the site itself, along with the creator's word. Buechner
  • Comment If that is the case, then it violates WP:V. With out reliable secondary sources, how are we to assure that the claims the site makes are true? —Mitaphane _?|! 01:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I would ask you this; what is there to verify is true? This is not a 'science or history' based entry, its about a game. If you want to know if its true, you click the link. You read. What could possibly be misrepresented? Custodius 01:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You're saying this like EshCreator would put false information on his site- let's take a look at something posted on the front page. According to the simulator, There are a total of 181 nations, and 49 open to play. Referring to the map and forums, this is a fact. The site itself is credible. Buechner 01:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: I've played Eshraval, and enjoyed it, but it does not meet Wiki notability guidelines. illspirit|talk 01:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Remove This Page Immediately. As owner and creator of Eshraval, I request that you immediately delete this page and all references to Eshraval from the Wikipedia. I do not want my creation affiliated with your site in any manner, and by the comments of some of the so-called 'editors' here, it is clear that our game is not up to your so-called standards for inclusion. Eshraval Creator.

  Sorry, but only the creator of the page can request speedy deletion of the article. Wait one or two more days, the article will be surely deleted, since none of the "keep" opinions have bothered to give reliable sources to verify the information in the article. -- ReyBrujo 03:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, I know. Apparently for some, the actual existence of an entire website, a very active forum, and an Wiki that contains more than 8,300 pages is not consider "reliable" and can't be used to actually "verify" the existence of something. I am the owner of the game and I authorized this page, so just delete it and let's be done with this little mess, shall we? We shall never darken your glorious door again, I assure you. -- Eshraval Creator.

You don't seem to understand what Wikipedia considers notable. This has nothing to do with how active the game or forum is. A subject is notable if it has been featured in a number of external, published sources. Wikipedia is not a database of games, unless said game happens to be sufficiently notable. illspirit|talk 15:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are you posting, really? Nobody cares. I could care less if it is deleted - I have requested that it be so. So please let it die already. This whole thing is preposterous anyway. -- Eshraval Creator.

• I created the page, and, per EshCreator's request, would like to request its deletion -- ObeliskBJM 02:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As big a tosser as WMMartin sounds, I agree that this is too unnotable, and as EshCreator requested it, I think it should go. TSMonk 03:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think it's important to note that EshCreator's request to have it deleted is because he's fed up with the attitude some of you have towards his creation. The sheer rudeness and contemptuousness you people seem to have towards the idea of a Conworld astounds me. ~Nobody of note 15 February, 2007

• Do you think that trying to use a collaborative project to promote your game, ignoring the project's guidelines and insisting that we serve your interests, admitting that there are no sources of the kinds on which the project is based, and rejecting the project's standards is rude and contemptuous? Would you find it rude and contemptuous if Wikipedia's creator and a few of its participants joined Eshraval, then tried to tell you that you had to ignore the rules that make Eshraval work, with no good reason except that we think you should apply Wikipedia standards instead of yours? Barno 20:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Why hasn't it been deleted yet? Please remove it - there is no real debate. You try to standardize 'validity' and 'notability', which are very subjective concepts, and while I think you fail in some cases (this page among them), it is your site to do with as you will. And I can't believe you even replied to that post above. Very telling. And no it wasn't me and I certainly didn't put anyone up to it, before you assume such. -- Eshraval Creator.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 compelling reason or consensus to delete - if it troubles you, merge it -Doc^g 21:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shirreff hall

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

A college residence hall. I don't think is notable enough, but perhaps others can add their 2 cents. Jvhertum 21:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a building with a rich history, along with much of the rest of the Dalhousie campus. Howe Hall, another residence, has an article, and I know other halls from other campuses must have articles here on Wikipedia. Both articles are well written, and are quite informative for those looking for information on buildings in Halifax. I don't see why most other building articles in Halifax should be more notable (Bank of Montreal Building (Halifax), Loyola Residence Tower, Scotia Square, Alderney Landing) Lusankya 20:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 04:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unreferenced article. Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Inkpaduta 04:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. No relevant standards - but is referenced and well written. Mystache 05:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - the relevant "standards" in this case would be general notability criteria and most likely notability guidelines for places of local interest. Luke! 21:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Read this. Mathmo ^Talk 05:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment what does that have to do with this debate? Nuttah68 11:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The building has more history and considerably more architectural merit than most university residence halls. --Eastmain 05:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete in line with the consensus on all other university residence articles. Residences are not notable unless a notability in the wider community can be shown. Nuttah68 11:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Articles about university residence halls tend to get deleted when submitted to AfD, per WP:LOCAL. I don't see any reason why this one needs to be kept. --Metropolitan90 21:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment WP:LOCAL states that "If enough reliable and verifiable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article. If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality." Personally I feel that there is sufficient information to warrant a separate article, or at least possibly a conversion of this article into one which would cover all of Dal's residences. Particularly Shirreff and Howe halls have quite rich and long histories, which should belong on Wikipedia. Lusankya 03:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The article's current sources don't warrant a separate article -- two links to pages on the university's own web site, and one broken link to Facebook. The university's own site is probably accurate but is not an independent source, and Facebook is a social networking site, not a reliable source. --Metropolitan90 04:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Metropolitan90. GreenJoe 06:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable building. John Vandenberg 07:13, 17 February 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. - Daniel.Bryant 09:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Menner

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

Manager of a non-notable social indoor football team Lankiveil 04:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.Inkpaduta 04:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 04:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.107.48.211 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 11 February 2007.
• Delete per nom.--cj | talk 10:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, gets nowhere near meeting WP:BIO. Nuttah68 12:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 13:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO at all. --Edcolins 17:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable subject, along with the rest of this walled garden ChrisTheDude 08:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. -- Mattythewhite 11:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notableSlideAndSlip 22:18, 13 February 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. - Daniel.Bryant 09:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Aphoy

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

Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC -- Longhair\^talk 04:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 04:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair\^talk 04:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.Inkpaduta 04:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Longhair.--cj | talk 10:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, gets nowhere near meeting WP:BIO. Nuttah68 12:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Edcolins 17:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Roisterer 22:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability (along with the rest of the Melbourne Revolution walled garden).... ChrisTheDude 09:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notableSlideAndSlip 22:19, 13 February 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. -Doc^g 21:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge

Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page, and all associated pages, are subpages of the article. Problem? Subpages do not exist in the article namespace, so the article in question is considered separate. The nomination also includes the linked "subpages". I don't know if the merging project is dead; I don't know if this is even encyclopædic, either. We could also move this to the talk namespace, if the project is even still alive. (Due to technical limitations, this is a subpage of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dictionary of chemical formulas. TRKtv (daaaaah!) 04:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Here is the list of articles associated with this AfD--at least this is everything that links to the main /Merge page. Black Falcon 07:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge
2. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/A
3. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/B
4. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/Ca-Cu
5. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/D (redirect page)
6. Dictionary of chemical formulas/D
7. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/E (redirect page)
8. Dictionary of chemical formulas/E
9. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/F (redirect page)
10. Dictionary of chemical formulas/F
11. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/G
12. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/H
13. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/I
14. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/K (redirect page)
15. Dictionary of chemical formulas/K
16. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/L
17. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/M
18. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/N
19. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/O
20. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/P
21. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/S
22. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C
23. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C2
24. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C3
25. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C4
26. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C5
27. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C6
28. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C7
29. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C8
30. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C9
31. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C10
32. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C11
33. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C12
34. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C13
35. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C14
36. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C15
37. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C16
38. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C17
39. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C18
40. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C19
41. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C20
42. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C21 (redirect page)
43. Dictionary of chemical formulas/C21
44. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C22 (redirect page)
45. Dictionary of chemical formulas/C22
46. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C23 (redirect page)
47. Dictionary of chemical formulas/C23
48. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C24 (redirect page)
49. Dictionary of chemical formulas/C24
50. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C25-C29 (redirect page)
51. Dictionary of chemical formulas/C25-C29
52. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C30-C39 (redirect page)
53. Dictionary of chemical formulas/C30-C39
54. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C40-C49 (redirect page)
55. Dictionary of chemical formulas/C40-C49
56. Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/C50-C100 (redirect page)
57. Dictionary of chemical formulas/C50-C100

• Huh? We are voting on whether to delete a verb which may be applied to articles?Inkpaduta 04:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No. Must have been the fact that that slash is in there. The page should be correctly listed. TRKtv (daaaaah!) 04:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy, then delete - this is the only solution I can think of given that I still don't understand the exact purpose of the page. Given that all of the pages seem to be created by User:Eequor, I would suggest userfying to his/her page. -- Black Falcon 06:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• userfy per above. That is an excellent solution. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 16:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• userfy only through total bafflement, would prefer deletion. "Dictionary of...." article title says it all about why this should not be in Wikipedia Madmedea 17:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep!!!. These Tables are extremely important since they provide connection to a significant number of articles describing different chemical compounds. This is very important to have for anyone who writes Wikipedia articles on chemical or biochemical topics. Before deciding anything you must consult with several Wikipedia users who are familiar with chemistry. Someone did excellent job by creating these Tables. One can tell that this is a "Dictionary", but such Dictionary is necessary and convient for developmet of articles.Biophys 06:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If the purpose of these lists is not actually to be articles themselves, but to be aids in the development of articles, then they do not belong in the main namespace, but belong in the project namespace. That's one of the very things that the project namespace is for. Uncle G 10:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This is essentially another way of navigating wikipedia, similar to by alphabetical order. Normally when one selects a category the articles are listed alphabetically. For this category (chemicals) alphabetical order is not necessarily the best way to navigate. I see use in this but it would need to be automated from chemboxes rather than a user maintained list.--Nick Y. 19:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Then, we should contact author or someone else who could make this properly, insted of simply deleting this valuable work. I would like to note that aricles about many chemical compunds look really professional, see for example Lanosterol, which is accesible through one of these tables for deletion. Biophys 20:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As a chemist I agree with Biophys that it is useful to list compounds by formula as well as by name, since most chemists actually think in formulas or in structures. There may be a better way to present the data, but I would keep the present article until something better is available. Dirac66 02:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I suggest moving this into Missing article WikiProject and notify the other relevant projects of its existence. I'm happy to assist in this migration. John Vandenberg 07:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Almost anything except delete - I am withdrawing my suggestion to userfy then delete in light of additional suggestions (transferring to a WikiProject, temporarily leaving it, etc. As I understand from the "/Merge" in the titles and some of the comments above, the articles are intended for organization/development purposes. Although I don't think they should remain in this state for long, it would be a disservice to WP and to the editors involved to simply remove the mechanism they have created without at least offering an equal or better alternative. Cheers, Black Falcon 07:25, 17 February 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image Analyzer

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

Disputed advertising speedy, article doesn't really assert meeting WP:N/WP:SOFTWARE. Consider me in favor of deletion unless sources are added. --W.marsh 04:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not advertising, and that is that. What sources are you talking about? A source that shows there is an article or something about the program? Well, http://www.snapfiles.com/get/imageanalyzer.html is one I found on a quick search. Also, a Google search for "Image Analyzer" yields almost 500,000 hits. That is almost double of other image editors that have articles. Looks pretty notable to me. It looks like it doesn't meet any criteria for deletion. --Althepal 04:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The term "image analyzer" is fairly common. The bulk of those hits have nothing to do with this subject. IrishGuy ^talk 04:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

IrishGuy: Still, it has plenty of hits for the program and does have reviews on it. Althepal 04:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Including the latest version number in the search yields almost 15000 hits - as much as some image programs with articles. Althepal 05:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, not to be rude, but did you look at the links in my nomination? It doesn't assert meeting those guidelines. --W.marsh 04:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying. Althepal 04:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the pages or not? You said this article "doesn't meet any criteria for deletion" but it doesn't assert meeting the two inclusion guidelines I mentioned. --W.marsh 04:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It has to have at least two publications about it. http://www.freewarefiles.com/review_3_36_5125.html is some user reviews. Its hard to believe there is no publication about it, so I encourage you to look for one before deleting it. I did a little bit of searching but didn't spot a real publication. So, maybe it is not notable. If it is deleted, make sure you delete all the information from the comparison of raster graphics editors, too. Althepal 05:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - No assertion of notability and the "review" looks like a copy of the program description. GHits are a bad way to show notability, especially with such a common term. This search turns up ~500 sites, mostly download mirrors. —Dgies^t c 07:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"Artweaver 0.4.3" turns up 62 hits. I wasn't including the version number in the quote; I left it outside of the quote just to try to limit the hits to ones about the program. --Althepal 17:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like it may be notable. From the site it looks reasonably well known. For me to want to keep it though, it needs reputable third party evidence of notability. If that is added I will be inclined to keep. meshach 08:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• It seems to be the only small free program offering a number of important features. But I suppose that is officially irrelevant to this process of determining if it is worthy of mention anywhere here... Six published review sources: "advanced features not even available in professional photo suites"[18] "user specified filters in spatial and frequency domain"[19] "teriffic program"[20] "rated: 3/5 cows"[21] "Color model conversion: RGB, CMY, HSI, Lab, YCbCr, YIQ and PCA"[22] "rated: 5/6 ducks"[23]--69.87.199.81 15:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Although some of your reviews seem to just copy the main website, others don't. I'd say it is notable. Althepal 17:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No sign of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. The "reviews" listed above are merely brief paragraphs for download mirrors. IrishGuy ^talk 18:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOFTWARE doesn't say the reviews have to be long. And 69.87.199.81, your vote won't count unless you create an account. Althepal 18:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it states that they must be multiple non-trivial published works. A paragraph is trivial. IrishGuy ^talk 18:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Does it define a paragraph as trivial? Maybe it means a sentence is trivial. Furthermore, there is more than one paragraph of information on some of these "reviews". Althepal 19:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote. An anon with a valid argument is welcome to participate in this discussion. —Dgies^t c 19:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my wording. Althepal 03:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. A couple of the links provided by the anon appear to be independent (albeit short) reviews. It's enough for verification and a good faith argument for notability. So, I default to weak keep.--Kubigula (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete While the argumentation and evidence of 69. is very relevant and useful, it is insufficient to show notability. All of the reviews are either trivial, non-independednt or both. A paragraph (even a glowing one) at a couple of download sites is not enough for a freeware program. Eluchil404 08:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless reliable sources outside of download sites are provided, --Daniel J. Leivick 23:41, 16 February 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 02:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mother Tongue Publishing Inc.

Mother Tongue Publishing Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prod expired, but to combat systemic bias I'm giving AFD a chance to salvage it. Prod rationale was "Not notable. Company has published translations of six kids' books. Possible WP:COI problem judging by all the personal info in the article." If the article is not significantly improved, it should be deleted. GRBerry 04:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability; fails WP:CORP. Mystache 04:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Reads like publicity material for a non-notable publishing house, and strong scent of CoI. WMMartin 14:24, 12 February 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Całkowite Wewnętrzne Odbicie

Całkowite Wewnętrzne Odbicie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album fails WP:N , WP:RS, WP:V and WP:MUSIC. It only gets about 1000 Google hits independent of Wikipedia.Inkpaduta 04:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:MUSIC. --MaNeMeBasat 13:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment the band Syndesmo claim to have released four albums. Whether they are on notable record labels or not I dont know. However if by releasing four albums they are notable, does that make the albums themselves notable per WP:MUSIC? Jcuk 22:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment What is the meaning of "releasing albums" in the era of home computers that can record, edit and author cds, complete with cover art and jewelbox inserts, and duplicating services that can mass produce them, or in the era of people paying for downloads? What is the standard, in other words, to be sure it was a legitimate record company, and that it was widely sold? This is a serious question, because issing a single or cd seems to be something any non-notable band could easily do these days. So was it released by a major company? Did the album achieve big sales in Poland or other European countries?? The name of the album gets bogus Google hits unrelated to the album, as it seems to be a term in the physical sciences. The article on the group and the articles on their other albums bear examination as well, but the website for the group set off alarms in my McAfee antivirus program, which warned that it linked sites which sought to download spyware. Inkpaduta 19:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources. There is an interwiki link over to the Polish Wikipedia, but there is no article there. There's practically no information in the present article except for a track listing for one record. Hardly worth an encyclopedia entry. The band Syndesmo, which made the album which is the subject of this article, has their own article (very uninformative) and three other articles for specific records, all just as minimal as this one. In their present state they all look to me like candidates for deletion. EdJohnston 23:02, 16 February 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. - Daniel.Bryant 09:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Q.Quan

Q.Quan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC -- Longhair\^talk 04:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 04:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair\^talk 04:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not-notable.--cj | talk 10:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, gets nowhere near meeting WP:BIO. Nuttah68 12:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nn social football player. Sorry. Lankiveil 12:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete per nom. --Edcolins 17:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No notability. Bigtop 22:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable subject. All these Melbourne Revolution-related AfDs really should have been bundled together..... ChrisTheDude 09:04, 12 February 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. - Daniel.Bryant 09:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Fragomeni

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

Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC -- Longhair\^talk 04:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 04:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair\^talk 04:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--cj | talk 10:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, gets nowhere near meeting WP:BIO. Nuttah68 12:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nn social football player. Sorry. Lankiveil 12:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• keep --tony esopi patra^talk 16:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Edcolins 17:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable subject. All these Melbourne Revolution-related AfDs really should have been bundled together..... ChrisTheDude 09:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notableSlideAndSlip 22:20, 13 February 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. - Daniel.Bryant 09:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Alicatoras

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

Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC -- Longhair\^talk 04:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 04:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair\^talk 04:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--cj | talk 10:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, gets nowhere near meeting WP:BIO. Nuttah68 12:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nn social football player. Sorry. Lankiveil 12:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete per nom. --Edcolins 17:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable subject. All these Melbourne Revolution-related AfDs really should have been bundled together..... ChrisTheDude 08:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notableSlideAndSlip 22:20, 13 February 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. - Daniel.Bryant 09:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ivan Verma

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

Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC -- Longhair\^talk 04:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 04:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair\^talk 04:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--cj | talk 10:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, gets nowhere near meeting WP:BIO. Nuttah68 12:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nn social football player. Sorry. Lankiveil 12:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete, nn. --MaNeMeBasat 13:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Edcolins 17:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable subject. All these Melbourne Revolution-related AfDs really should have been bundled together..... ChrisTheDude 09:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notableSlideAndSlip 22:20, 13 February 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. - Daniel.Bryant 09:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] C.Mills

C.Mills (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC -- Longhair\^talk 04:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 04:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair\^talk 04:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--cj | talk 10:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, gets nowhere near meeting WP:BIO. Nuttah68 12:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nn social football player. Sorry. Lankiveil 12:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete per nom. --Edcolins 17:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable subject. All these Melbourne Revolution-related AfDs really should have been bundled together..... ChrisTheDude 09:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notableSlideAndSlip 22:21, 13 February 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. - Daniel.Bryant 09:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Brandner

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

Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC -- Longhair\^talk 04:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 04:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair\^talk 04:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--cj | talk 10:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, gets nowhere near meeting WP:BIO. Nuttah68 12:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nn social football player. Sorry. Lankiveil 12:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete per nom. --Edcolins 17:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable subject. All these Melbourne Revolution-related AfDs really should have been bundled together..... ChrisTheDude 09:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notableSlideAndSlip 22:22, 13 February 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. - Daniel.Bryant 09:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Maccagnini

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

Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC -- Longhair\^talk 04:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 04:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair\^talk 04:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, gets nowhere near meeting WP:BIO. Nuttah68 12:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nn social football player. Sorry. Lankiveil 12:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. --Edcolins 17:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable subject. All these Melbourne Revolution-related AfDs really should have been bundled together..... ChrisTheDude 09:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notableSlideAndSlip 22:22, 13 February 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. — CharlotteWebb 04:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brennende Liebe

Non-notable single. Fails WP:N, WP:RS. WP:V, and WP:MUSIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inkpaduta (talk • contribs) 04:46, 11 February 2007

• Keep per WP:MUSIC/SONG and WP:BIAS. Has reached chart positions: #6 (Germany), #11 (Austria), #35 (Switzerland) -- Triebtäter 09:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Add this to the article, with sources, please. Punkmorten 21:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nn for english WP. --MaNeMeBasat 13:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Kusma (討論) 19:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the chart positions that Triebtäter stated. I have a reference for two of them, so I'll add it now. ShadowHalo 13:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep then. Punkmorten 17:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely notable. - grubber 18:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Well known artistSlideAndSlip 22:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable in Europe. As far as I know, it should not matter if this is the English language Wikipedia. (!) The subject either meets our music guidelines or it doesn't. (jarbarf) 19:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It was helpful for the chart positions to be added to the article. If it reached the top 10 in a major country, that is a pretty good argument for keeping, and as nominator I do not object to keeping it. Inkpaduta 20:18, 14 February 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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 08:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moises salinas

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

Borderline on notability. If the consenseus is keep, the page should be moved to Moises Salinas. BuickCenturyDriver 23:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Notability is very, very week. The Herzl Award is the only thing that would suggest notability, but I hardly think every winner of that is worthy of their own article. Aplomado ^talk 23:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel or Palestine-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  11:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable. Nardman1 15:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. In addition to the Herzl Award, Dr. Salinas is the author of over 20 publications, including one award winning book, and a second book that is quickly becoming a major contribution to the field of Israeli-Palestinian peace. Hardly any of the other original Herzl Award winner have such a record. In addition, he is one of only 4 Herzl Award winners in the U.S., and some of the other ones have pages in their respective language (Hebrew, Spanish). AZM-GH
• Comment. There are several pages about American Zionist leaders from the right. None, however, about American Zionist leaders from the left, progressive affiliation. Do I detect a bias here? Is there a reason why Liberal Zionist are being deleted? Kibbutznik
• Comment There are many other non-fiction authors with less stellar records. e.g., Thomas Alexander, Biplob Kumar Debnath, James Joll, Neal Lozano, etc. I have looked at Salinas' books, and they seem really noteworthy. Has anybody looked him up? Maybe somebody needs to add more notability items to his stub?
• Comment. Someone created Moises Salinas as a redirect to the article in question. It's proper to have the article itself on Firstname-Lastname capitalized and the Firstname lastname as a redirect. If this article is deleted, both the article and the redirect will be deleted from the mainspace. BuickCenturyDriver 03:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• I have added some information about Dr. Salinas, including some of his other awards (American Education Research Association, Carnegie Academy, Pew Charitable Trust) and some minor edits. Thank you. AZM-GH 15:57, 9 February 2007

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 04:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I didn't know that an AFD could be extended. Lets see how the cards fall. BuickCenturyDriver 07:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Certainly notable. His 4 books are from respectable academic social science publisher--Sage is a very important one & the other 2 of also reputable. His university does count as a research university,and we have consistently accepted full professors at research universities as notable, because their notability has been verified solidly and reiiably by the peer-review at the university. DGG 03:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I note that I almost missed this one, because the article was not written to give a summary of his major accomplishments as a lede paragraph--and perhaps others did also. I added it. DGG 03:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 05:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely notable.SlideAndSlip 22:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• I moved the article to correct capitalization, per a request. --W.marsh 16:12, 16 February 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Libido Airbag

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

Can find no evidence of notability for this band. It was tagged PROD, but was removed with the note "there is no reason to delete this page". I disagree. ♠PMC♠ 21:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional keep Since the article is unverified it's presently deletionworthy anyways, but should those albums(listed in discography) be published by a label then it passes WP:BAND, but presently there's no evidence of that. i kan reed 21:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Their latest record is sold on Relapse, which is a huge label, if that accounts for anything. http://shop.relapse.com/store/product.aspx?ProductID=19966 Eighty 21:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete - No assertion of notability, no indication that it passes WP:MUSIC. 26,500 Ghits is borderline - it suggests that it might in some way meet WP:MUSIC, but someone would have to argue that case... --Hyperbole 21:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I couldn't find anything to indicate that BAND was met. The record is sold on Relapse, but it doesn't appear to have been put published by Relapse.--Kubigula (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• The band is a pretty well known project within the underground grindcore community. And, they are probably the premire cyber grind band. their records are relesed by Stuhlgang records, run by one of the guys in the band Cock and Ball torture. They are an offshoot project for the band GUT.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.90.5.182 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete unless some reliable sources showing how they meet WP:MUSIC are provided. The fact that it is a side project of GUT (band) doesn't help because that article offers no more than this. Nuttah68 12:15, 11 February 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. - Daniel.Bryant 09:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Murphy

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

Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC. Original AfD was to delete a different Keith Murphy entirely. -- Longhair\^talk 05:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 05:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair\^talk 05:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP keith is top goal scorer in queensland state league 3 and the sri lankan football association have shown interest in him what else do you want —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.107.48.211 (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete per nom.--cj | talk 10:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete gets nowhere near meeting WP:BIO. Nuttah68 12:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nn social football player. Sorry. Lankiveil 12:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete, nn. --MaNeMeBasat 13:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Edcolins 17:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep so a guy who could play for the national team isnt important enough? i think maybe you should get out and see the world rather than asking peoples pages to be deleted because theyre not important enough for you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnnybhoy22 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete. He could play for Australia as indeed could I theoretically. Given that he plays for a suburban indoor soccer team however, I doubt that the Australian selectors are paying him much attention. It is also interesting that the article claims that he plays for teams in Melbourne and Logan City in Western Brisbane. Capitalistroadster 02:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• he is on our indor roster, but hasnt played because he has gone back to brisbane, and logan city is south east! not west, and btw SRI LANKA has been interested in him not australia can you read? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnybhoy22 (talk • contribs)

Comment: Most people here can read. I suggest you take a read over the official Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:No personal attacks. There's no need to go insulting anyone simply because they may disagree with your idea of notability. -- Longhair\^talk 03:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP i agree, it shouldnt be personal, but if this player has goal scoring records, and is being scouted for an international squad, then it must be of some importance, and therefor relevant to people interested in his progress —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.164.134.249 (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC). — 58.164.134.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• The person should first read then get his facts right before saying the page should be deleted, and i dont think merely asking someone if they can read is a personal attack thanks all the same —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnybhoy22 (talk • contribs)

• Comment: Calling other editors "nerds" in other AfD discussions [24] could be considered a personal attack. My comments of above, whilst not referring to your worst offence of a personal attack, is your warning to stop with the personal comments, or be stopped. Comment on content, not the contributor. I've also left some pointers on your talk page to the official policies of Wikipedia so you don't fall foul of the rules. Now back to the article at hand, do you have any evidence of this players' achievements and/or claims of notability from a source outside of your organisation? As it stands, the article is currently without any external references at all, so we're merely taking your word for everything the article says. Wikipedia functions on verifiability and some sources may help to back up the article's claims. - Longhair\^talk 03:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• sorry ill stop it then anyway back to the topic, currently Keiths Football Club doesnt have a website which i can give reference to but it will soon be up and running with all stats and player profile, but if you really want a reference you can contact Jason Sorenstam, club coaching director and confirm all keiths details Johnnybhoy22 04:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable social player - being top scorer in a minor suburban indoor league does not satisfy WP:BIO. I find it very hard to believe that an international team would be scouting in such a league, and "you need to contact some *bloke in Australia" is not a valid citation.... ChrisTheDude 08:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Actually he is not top scorer in a minor suburban league mate, he is on the roster but hasnt played for the indoor team, he is top scorer in Queensland state league 3(equivilent to Coca Cola League 2) which is a top league and also is top scorer for another team aswell, please read the article propely before asking for it to be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnybhoy22 (talk • contribs)
  • I can't find any references online to the "Queensland State League 3" even existing, never mind being a "top league" equivalent to the English League Two - a Google search on "queensland state league" "park ridge" "soccer", for instance, turns up nothing, and our own entry on Football Queensland states that the state has only regional leagues.... ChrisTheDude 08:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - totally non-notable. Orderinchaos78 08:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• [25] theres park ridge fc for you, and obviously u havnt looked hard enough for queenslands league —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnybhoy22 (talk • contribs)
  • I never said the club didn't exist, I said I could find no confirmation of the league existing. The club's own website doesn't mention it and neither does the website of Football Queensland.... ChrisTheDude 09:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • After some further searching I've found that Park Ridge apparently play in the Brisbane District League (not QLD State League) but aren't in the top three divisions (which is all the website currently shows fixtures for), so presumably they play in one of the lower divisions, which doesn't strike me as a "top league", personally, and certainly not the equivalent of England's national fully professional League Two, as claimed above. I'd also hazard a guess that the Brisbane League itself isn't a full-time professional league, which means that Mr Murray doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BIO.... ChrisTheDude 15:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable. Archibald99  23:21, 12 February 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. Yuser31415 07:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alive in Studio A

Alive in Studio A (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Non-notable album fails WP:N, WPRS:, WP:V, and WP:MUSIC. Inkpaduta 05:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Album by a notable musician. --Holderca1 14:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable enough. Dreadful "music", though. WMMartin 14:58, 12 February 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 article's improvement. PeaceNT 15:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psyopus

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

I deleted this under category a7, and another editor asked me to restore it based on a fairly large Ghit count. However, the article positively asserts the band's "lack of fame", and cites no reliable sources. I found a few independent sources on Google but I am not sure that any of them are reliable. NawlinWiki 05:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The article does assert the band's "lack of fame." Fails WP:BAND and also lacks sources. janejellyroll 05:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - still a speedy candidate. So tagged. MER-C 13:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, fails WP:BAND. -- Kesh 03:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Though not a criteria they are on a very famous metal record label, Metal Blade Records/Black Market Activities. They have done several nationwide tours and one [recently. They have also had quite a few third party reviews [26], [27], [28], [29],[30]. Notable enough for me. maybe not the biggest band in the world but big enough. I also cleaned up the article a little.--Tainter 22:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 19:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Being signed by Black Market Activities seems to just meet criteria 4 of WP:BAND. Combined with the reviews pointed out by Tainter I think this one crosses the notability threshhold. WjBscribe 05:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the work done by Tainter --Eastmain 07:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, weirdly enough I've heard of this band! Not a reason for keeping... but is unusual indeed when I see a band on AfD that I've heard of. Anyway... keep for the other reasons mentioned here. Mathmo ^Talk 07:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Tainter. Meets WP:WEB. 64.178.96.168 17:10, 16 February 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 PeaceNT 15:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brooke Haven

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

Non-notable porn performer, does not satisfy WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V Inkpaduta 05:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Weak keep I can't find it in the WP:PORNBIO but I definitely remember something about anyone was has appeared in over 100 films being notable. One Night In Hackney 05:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Look under the "dubious criteria" section. Tabercil 06:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Ah yes, I knew it was there somewhere....I'll change to weak keep in that case One Night In Hackney 07:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, this section (which I'll presume is true) is certainly a claim to notability: Brooke has now worked in over 150 pornographic movies and with some of the biggest names in porn. Brooke is under a non-exclusive contract with the studio Vicious Media which allows her to work for other companies as well and where she also directs her own pornographic movies. Mathmo ^Talk 07:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment IAFD currently lists her as having 134 titles, it's not unreasonable to assume that may be out of date. She's definitely over the 100 threshold anyway. One Night In Hackney 07:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep A search for her name in imdb.com lists 120 films, which exceeds the threshold of 100 films mentioned in WP:PORNBIO. That criterion points out that films like this can be made in three days. Notability is thus minimally shown. More sources would certainly help. EdJohnston 18:25, 16 February 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 02:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ricardo Francis

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

A search fails to bring up any sources that would show this person is notable. The closest I could find are these two results. This and this. Neither of which give anymore than a one off trival passing mention to him. Also the article itself hardly gives him any claims to notability either. Mathmo ^Talk 05:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete can find nothing to indicate the subject passes WP:BIO and the article, at the moment, fails WP:V. Nuttah68 12:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 13:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and [WP:V] by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:36, 11 February 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 02:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buzz Poets

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

Does not seem to meet notability guidelines in WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 05:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Very weak delete and with a couple of reliable sources that will change to a keep. I'm pretty sure this band would pass WP:MUSIC but there's no evidence at the moment. Nuttah68 12:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Getting a record played on a local radio station is not evidence of notability. Nor, sadly, is the "dancing dentist". WMMartin 15:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No reliable sources. WP:MUSIC is fairly demanding with regard to record sales, awards, critical notice, etc, and there is no evidence that they have hit this level of fame. The main evidence offered in the article is that a particular song of theirs was heavily played on two Pittsburgh radio stations in 1997-1998. That doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC standards. EdJohnston 21:58, 16 February 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 04:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fabral

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

Unreferenced article about an apparently nonnotable vehicle manufacturer. Fabral santana -wikipedia only gets a couple of hundred Google hits, and many of these are unrelated to the vehicles. This is a Brazilian company, so maybe others can determine if there are sources to show notability and make this into a keepable article. Appears to fail WP:N WP:CORP and WP:RS Inkpaduta 18:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no assertion of notability in the article and no evidence of notability that I can find (albeit with zero knowledge of Portuguese). Kla'quot 05:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Neutral The sources don't look particularly convincing. One appears to be a short directory entry, one centers on products made by the company rather than the company, and one is apparently about Fabral's parent company. Kla'quot 03:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of transportation-related deletions. -- Eastmain 06:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletions. -- Eastmain 06:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I added some references, which I think are enough to establish notability. --Eastmain 06:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I added a fourth ref. Someone more fluent in Portuguese needs to translate what's linked to and pad this out, as it's barely even a stub right now, but the references establish notability; the one I added mentions annual (planned) production of almost 17,000 vehicles in 2003. I'd have voted to delete without User:Eastmain's contributions, though. --DeLarge 12:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Never heard of them, but after reading the IstoÉ link I'm nearly convinced. This article may have simply been created prematurely; I'll keep an eye out for them and if and as they become more notable, I'll try and flesh out the article. Fvasconcellos 20:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Inkpaduta, please think thrice before nominating an article for deletion. You obviously don't have much experience on WP, so I suggest you please read the policies you have mentioned in your nom.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 01:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment -- WP:AGF, and don't bite the newbie either. 13 completed AfD nomination at the time of writing, of which eight were deleted (one speedily) and three redirected ("in lieu of deletion"). Only Chen Li (no consensus) and Minnesota State Highway 127 survived unscathed. Even this article was well worthy of deletion before others worked on it. I'd say he seems to have a very good understanding of wikipolicies for such an "inexperienced" editor. --DeLarge 09:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I click on random articles. If one is a stub, I look for sources to make it into a better article. Sometimes I nominate for deletion. This one had lingered for 6 months with no additions and no sources. No one was actively adding sources or details to it, so adding templates to it that it needed improvement did not look like a productive move. The WP:N standard says "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the source of which is both: independent of the company, corporation, organization or group itself, or of the product's or service's manufacturer or vendor, and reliable. A Google search did not disclose such sources. I asked that others with better access to Portuguese sources try to add some. In the end if the article is kept but with sources, then Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia. If it is deleted because good sources cannot be found at this time to bring the article up to meet the standards cited, then Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia. The nomination was made in good faith and not just to be nominating something randomly through lack of having read the policies cited. Inkpaduta 18:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I realize that a google search for Fabral alone will generate a lot of irrelevant hits. Sometimes more sophisticated search techniques can turn up reliable sources. This can include googling a combination of words, such as the manufacturer's name and its city, or its country, or its product together, or searching on other databases which may be available to you free of charge through your city library or university library. In this case, I checked the Portuguese Wikipedia to see if it had an article on the company. It didn't, but if such a page existed, it would have saved a lot of time. This isn't intended to criticize any other editors; I just want to explain some of my techniques for expanding articles when there is some time pressure involved. --Eastmain 18:46, 12 February 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 Additional sources go a long way to showing notability and verifiability. Eluchil404 08:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Koreans in the Philippines

Koreans in the Philippines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

While I am not contesting the fact that there are Koreans in the Philippines, most of the article as it stands is not verifiable. A great deal of the article is unreferenced, and might not even be possibly reference-able. The article scope seems confused, being a mix of unverified statistics, history, religion, sociology and a little blurb about the entertainment industry. Notability may also be suspect, as there is most likely a minority of X nationality in most, if not all countries. Most of those communities do not warrant articles on Wikipedia. Shrumster 18:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. While I am not tagging them for deletion, depending on the consensus for this AfD, we should also keep in mind South Asians in the Philippines, Indonesians in the Philippines, Europeans in the Philippines and Arabs in the Philippines. Shrumster 18:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I specifically left out Americans, Spanish and Japanese in the Philippines as these articles have potential if re-scoped to deal with their respective occupation of the country (and not just the racial mixing. Shrumster 18:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Hmmnnn....apparently, somebody started an AfD on African Filipino but didn't complete the process. Shrumster 18:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. User:210.1.89.169 removed the AfD tag for the article, which I reverted back in. I've given him a level 1 warning on his talk page. Shrumster 20:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. You're right, there is a minority of X nationality in most countries. Not all of these communities are notable and I don't see why this one is. As you say, most of the information is unverified (and possibly unverifiable, judging by my quick google search). Srose (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand/clean-up or Merge. It appears that this article was written with another article in mind. After reading and re-reading the said article, it appears that this article (Koreans in the Philippines) was written as a fork of the Gyopo article...that is, written after it, and can be viewed as one of a series. (Note that this article is linked within the "Other countries" discussion in Gyopo). Let's face it, Koreans have been here since Philippine colleges and universities have started accepting Korean exchange students and Korean expats (Korean restaurants now seem to be a staple in the newly-opened megamalls like the Mall of Asia). (And, like her or not, Sandara Park chose to live and work here.) All these, to me, are signs, that the presence of Koreans in the Philippines make an interesting article...just that, the article as it currently stands, needs a lot of work to make it worthy as an encyclopdic article. Hence, IMO, one of two things need to be done: either merge this article to the main Gyopo article, or rewrite this article and add more sources and references. Otherwise, we might as well nominate the Gyopo article for deletion, as well as the other (insert-your-nationality)-Korean articles (although the Japanese-Korean, Chinese-Korean and Korean-American articles appear to be well-written). --- Tito Pao 05:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. As it is though, the article makes a lot of (possibly controversial) unreferenced claims. For example, until a sociological journal or a major local newspaper takes note of a "Koreatown" in a specific place, it is simply unverifiable and is original research. I mean, one of my favorite places, Ortigas Center, IMHO is turning into a Koreatown. But until I have concrete evidence of a demographic study done by someone, it'll still be my personal observations, and not really apt for wikiality. Shrumster 08:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Surely you don’t believe that immigrants need to set up ethnic enclaves in order to warrant notability. —Lagalag 18:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  11:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup - The Korean community in the Philippines is the "largest Korean community in Southeast Asia". The information, though unverified, is verifiable (tag the article with {{unreferenced}}. At the least, merge to Gyopo rather than deleting. -- Black Falcon 07:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and add references. This article puts the number of South Koreans in the Philippines to around 46,000, and it states that they tend to form their own enclaves, with even instances of Protestant missionaries from South Korea trying to convert Roman Catholic Filipinos. Definitely a notable topic. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The nomination seems to be based on the poorly-sourced and -written nature of the article, not the subject itself. Keep the article, but source and re-write it. Dekkappai 04:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean-up, SlideAndSlip 22:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep With the article posted by User:HongQiGong combined with another that I just found, meets WP:V and WP:N. I have added inline citations and {{fact}} tags as appropriate. cab 06:05, 16 February 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). TigerShark 13:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Methane reformer (car)

Methane reformer (car) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

This article seems to be more of a half-started work or a scrapbook. The name Methane reformer (car) is used without there being any article called Methane reformer. The article should be completed or deleted. Tunheim 11:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and move I see no reason in the deletion policy to delete this article. It should however be expanded and moved to Methane reformer as it seems to have nothing to do with a car. Mr.Z-mantalk 19:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The topic is already covered in steam reforming. This article adds little or no extra information. --Tunheim 11:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Mr.Z-man that it just needs expanding plus amend the title. Plus it is a superset of the steam reforming article since it mentions both steam reforming and autothermal reforming, the latter of which I can't find mentioned in any other article. Alamagoosa 16:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you read the section on autothermal reforming closely you'll see that this is not so much it's own process but just a way of saying that the feedstock is providing the reaction energy for the process. The same concept is used in most any thermal reforming of an energy-rich substance. This includes numerous, possibly most, core processes in the petroleum industry, petrochemical industry, biomass refining and coal refining. Sometimes these processes might be named integrated or autothermal, but most of the time this would be omitted as it is the most common way to run such processes on an industrial scale. --Tunheim 22:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yuser31415 05:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of transportation-related deletions. -- James086^Talk 08:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. This is going to be slightly complicated. There's no Methane reformer disambiguation page, so the article title is a bit inexplicable. I'd (a) move the page to Methane reforming as per WP:VERB and to retain the history, (b) merge and redirect with Steam reforming, and (c) delete the double redirect at Methane reformer (car) as the chances of anyone searching for those specific terms are slim to none. --DeLarge 11:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. 〈REDVEЯS〉 11:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Play on Words (band)

Play on Words (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable per WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 05:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Does not assert notability. WjBscribe 05:49, 11 February 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. --Coredesat 19:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chief Performance Officer

Chief Performance Officer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Concept is a neologism from a book by a non-notable author. Search reveals no notable company on earth that has a person in this position. UnitedStatesian 14:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I also notice that there's a conflict of interest - the editor who created the article, Apolitano, also wrote the book. --Charlene 16:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; the chief point of the page seems to be to link the author's website. Commend the author for writing reasonably clearly, a perennial problem with these business management consultant topics. (Though I'm at a bit of a loss to imagine what a person compared to a heads-up for the CEO means). - Smerdis of Tlön 17:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Find sources: Chief+Performance+Officer — news, books, scholar Addhoc 23:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Weak keep for now - the above searches appear to indicate this content could be salvageable. Addhoc 23:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Anything that starts with "A term popularized in 2003" means that I should have heard of it in order to be notable. Otherwise, it's NN Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 09:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable and unverifiable due to lack of sources. CiaranG 09:52, 11 February 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 02:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muarrif

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

Non-encyclopedic definition of personal name which has already been transwikied to Wikt. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Will never be more than a dicdef and WP:NOT a dictionary. WjBscribe 05:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 16:31, 11 February 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. Nomination withdrawn, article has shown improvement with reference added since it was tagged for AfD PeaceNT 05:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Experts-Exchange

Experts-Exchange (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Advert for commercial venture, with associates of the venture adding weight against critics of the venture. Gomez2002 11:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I regard your opinion but I object. Looking at the talk page, you can see that people with different points of view are involved in a discussion on how to wikify the article. The solution is not to delete the article, but to help improving it. I've been trying to gather relevant information from available and verifiable sources within the past few weeks. I'm slow on it I know, but I'm trying as much as I can.

In addition, I belive what you mentioned is not a good reason for deleting an article. If people assosciated with Experts Exchange are adding weight against its critics in an illegal way, it is their fault, nothing to do with the article. If available facts against EE are few and/or not verifiable, this again does not mean the article should be deleted. And finally, the article does not explicitely advertise Experts Exchange or even compare it with similar services in a way which may make people feel more positive about it or negative about the others.

Regards, huji—TALK 20:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, few or no verifiable facts about an article is the primary reason for deletion, as per WP:V. The only reliable source I could find was [31], a trivial review going on 3 years old. There is precious little coverage about the site in its current incarnation anywhere, and certainly not enough to help eliminate any of the citation concerns in the article. That said, there does seem to be a reasonable amount of chatter about two things... 1) the old domain name, but that confusion is already covered in Domain names, and 2) that some experts-exchange articles are cloaking the google bot to get a higher ranking [32] which is somewhat covered in Criticisms. However, I don't think either of of those topics are meaty enough to fill out an entire article, especially if the rest of the article is purged of the unverifiable statements, so make mine a Weak Delete until the WP:V issues get resolved. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I said right at the start of the discussion that it was spam. I tried to offset puff that was stuffed into it by EE associates, and then we saw a senior member of EE staff engaging in a campaign to purge anything that was critical.

The fact that it is filled with unverified facts both pro and con is enough reason to delete it. However, there is still the matter of the patent. That is verified. The patent does exist. That can still be the basis for an article but the critics of the site are not going to abandon the dispute over other facts as long as administrators and other associates of EE insist on making it a promotional piece or even a review of the site. Some of the negative things entered were an over reaction to EE staff being involved.

What is notable and worthy of a Wikipedia article is the patent. Just about anything else is going to fuel an argument. It would be a shame to lose the article. My preferece is not to delete it, but if it is not about the patent, then there is nothing to qualify it for a Wikipedia article. There are thousands of Internet sites just like EE; forums where experts answer questions. The only thing different about EE is the patent. While there is very little research; and not much in the way of independent reviews, there is the fact that the patent exists and is the basis of a point and grading system that makes them unique. whether they are a unique tech support site, or a unique game can be debated, but that does not belong in a Wikipedia article.

I guess the best is delete, and hope that we get an article based on the patent at some point.

COBOLdinosaur 04:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Interesting. I couldn't really find any precedent for basing an article exclusively on a patent, and I'm not entirely convinced its a great idea. The only thing that exists to tie the expert-exchange website to the patent is the assignee, and there's no verifiable proof that they actually use the algorithm as designed. Other then the USPTO, there are zero third-party sources about the patent, and there isn't any reason to believe this patent is notable in the least. Prove me wrong? - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There is nothing to prove. If you go back and read what I said, we are not in disagrement; that it should be deleted. All I am saying is that the only thing that might be of value is the patent; which you correctly extend to implementation of the patent. If someone can supply the verifiction as to the implementation of the patent then there may be something to salvage. EE is just one of thousands of forums. I am not aware of anything they have done that is inovative. The patent was the only thing that was unique, and I can also not find any independent support to indicate it is actually being used. There are also other forums with point based ratings and grading that may be violating the patent and I have not been able to find any history or evidence that EE has ever taken action to defend the patent. It appears that the argument I made in support of the patent is moot and deletion should proceed. - COBOLdinosaur 18:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• delete as unverified,--- indeed many of the links are simply "questions answered of Ee. I dont see how the patent would help it--its the use made of the patent that make sit notable. DGG 05:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Spam advertisement. .V. _[Talk|Email] 05:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I noticed that the deletion header had been deleted by an anonymours user this morning. Can we get the article protected until the debate is finished? Gomez2002 09:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• 82.70.155.252 added the header, you completed the nomination, and then 82.70.155.252 deleted the header. If you completed the nomination on behalf of an anonymous user, then you should edit the nomination header to indicate that. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 15:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I didn't delete the header, I had some trouble resurrecting the header however. I didn't make the nomination on behalf of an anonymous user. Gomez2002 15:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (and cleanup): This is a pretty well-known website, one of the first of its genre. Lots of references in independent news articles [33]. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:43Z

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, article needs rewriting from sources such as these FindArticle results. Heck, the site is almost notable for the URL alone ... before they added the hyphen. --Dhartung | Talk 07:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a fairly notable site for anyone in TechSupport. meshach 08:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per User:Meshach above. Also, "expertsexchange". Lankiveil 12:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Strong keep This site is notable as the first knowledge market on the web. There is no doubt that it influenced many other projects. I think it is very important to keep it, because otherwise, Wikipedia will be a poor source of information about knowledge markets. Alex Kosorukoff 17:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reconcidering your vote

I have updated the article, added sources for many of the statements, and included more information about Experts Exchange there. I would like to ask people who voted a delete here, to check the article again and see if they still vote for its deletion.

Thank you. huji—TALK 14:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Change to keep Good improvementGomez2002 09:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :) huji—TALK 16:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Call for speedy close as a nominator's keep is the equivalent of a withdrawn nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 21:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• I was the other objector - it still needs more reliable sources, but that can be handled with a tag. keep. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:31, 14 February 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. Punkmorten 21:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ironweed Collective

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

Unsourced except for the link to the homepage, this collective seems to fail WP:N. janejellyroll 11:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as not notable. Tikiwont 12:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WjBscribe 05:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing there asserts notability. Article fails WP:V. Caknuck 09:00, 11 February 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 (with egg on my face). So... I should pay closer attention to the history. Most of those "more than just the author" edits were attempts at speedy deletion, which the author removed. Silly me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Gauss

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

Non-notable musician. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete surely? There doesn't appear to be any assertion of notability. WjBscribe 05:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

  Certainly not going to cry, but since it had been edited by more than just the author, I figured I'd give it a proper heave-ho. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:59, 11 February 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. - brenneman 03:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greeneyes

Non notable webcomic, fails WP:WB, no reliable sources. I was quiet baffled reading the first AfD debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greeneyes, where arguments for keep are used like "Simultaneous story threads as an approach is of artistic signficance. Use of elements for chapter headings is of artistic significance. Anonymity of writer and illustrator is of artistic significance." (by a current admin, no less!) I don't see how the way this comic is created is in any way an indicator of notability. The only claim to notability is that the author of another webcomic liked the way Greeneyes played with colour, and imitated it, and that another webcomic artists contributes to it,and mentions that in passing This is rather trivial, and does not constitute multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources (the bare minimum asked by most WP:NOTE guidelines. This webcomic has only 18 distinct Google hits[34] (looking for greeneyes without the author gives many, many unrelated hits, and it seems hard to have a non-trivial mention that doesn't name the writer of the comic anyway). No significant awards, no significant reviews, no independent book published, no major reviews, ... Fram 10:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, absolutely no suggestion of reliable sources. This seems to have been created entirely from primary sources and tends towards an original write-up. The comic itself appears to be on hiatus.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Borderline speedy delete - The only assertion of notability is that two other web comics referenced it tangentially. —Dgies^t c 07:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 13:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• 'weak delete' Comic is notable soley for longevity. You should retry your searches with other members of the staff, since there is not just one author, it's a collaboration. But I suppport delete UNLESS there are some substantial references added to the article in the next few days. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timmccloud (talk • contribs) 14:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

• Delete I'm sorry, but it hasn't even got a domain name of it's own. Hard to consider notable. JackSparrow Ninja 20:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• To me, it is very interesting to read the previous AFD for this article. It is truly remarkable how much the standards for a webcomic article staying on Wikipedia have changed in a little over a year. That said, while Greeneyes may be artistically stunning, unusual in being a comic published under the CCL, and may be slightly better known than it was then (constrast, say, Google hits on the previous AFD with what they are now), I have a lot of trouble with the idea that this is notable as a webcomic. Delete.Balancer 21:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment That said, the original request above appears to have been generated with a biased agenda. Searching for greeneyes+Hecke on google.com - not google.be - turns up 1050 hits[35] and similar numbers fall out when we have searches like greeneyes+webcomic-wikipedia[36]. While I can't see this as meeting notability by the current standards of Wikipedia, I find myself having a great deal of difficulty in assuming good faith on the part of the person starting the AFD, who has misrepresented a weak case as even weaker. Balancer 21:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Simply living in Belgium does not make ones google searches evidence of intentional harmful editing. --Dragonfiend 21:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    • No, but even just searching on google.be for Hecke+greeneyes generates 242 hits. "Greeneyes"+"jetfuel" is the singularly lowest combination of all possible search term combinations I could come up with, with a raw hit count of 27. If this was by chance, it's quite remarkable. As things currently stand, though, the only argument I find even somewhat plausible is that it was very resoundingly kept in the last AFD; however, it's quite clear that standards of notability have shifted substantially since then. Balancer 21:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Google.be or Google.com gives exactly the same results, it's just a language skin. This is the search from the nomination via Google.com: [37]. Still 18 distinct Google hits. Anyway, the number of hits is not the only argument: we need WP:RS sources to establich notability. I don't like you doubting my good faith, and certainly not when you do so on faulty grounds. I think my history on Wikipedia shows more than clear enough that my AfD's (and other contributions) are done in good faith, no matter if they are met with agreement or disagreement. I always search for (web)comics with the name of one of the authors added, because the chance that you have a serious discussion of a comic without even mentioning the author is very small, and because for many titles, searching without the author gives many false positives (hits that aren't about the comic at all). e.g. for Greeneyes, the first hit already is this completely unrelated page[38]. Please check your accusations more thoroughly before making them in the future. Fram 22:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
        • And following that policy would have led you to search Greeneyes+Hecke - the name of the author, rather than a random handle - first. In the first place, however, Google (or Alexa) hits aren't a basic measure of notability. My apologies if misfortune has led you to select the singularly least appropriate search term combination of all those, but I am not particularly happy to have stumbled upon this corner of Wikipedia and found rife misrepresentation in use in nearly every active webcomic AFD. Balancer 22:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
          • No, the article gives Jetfuel as the name of the author as used in the comic, and Hecke as his real name. It is normal to search on the pseudonym. Smurfs plus Peyo gives 59,800 (non-distinct) hits[39], Smurfs plus (real name) Culliford gives 795 (non-distinct) hits[40]. I have taken the name which was given in the main text, not the one given in parentheses. If these is the less obvious search term, then the article should be rewritten to reflect the name most used in references to the comic. Anyway, this "corner" of Wikipedia (the main deletion discussion board) is open for everyone to contribute, so if you have any evidence that there is rife misrepresentation, please provide it. The problem with most of the webcomics is that there are a number of hardcore fans, but very little reliable sources about them. Too bad, but until those sources pop up, they don't have a place on Wikipedia. Fram 06:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
            • It should have emphasized the name Hecke indeed, given that the real name is in much more frequent use in discussion of the comic. Someone should pass that suggestion along to Comixpedia. As far as showing that there is rife misrepresentation in the recent spate of webcomic AFDs, I recommend you consult my recent contribution history in the past three days. I've been pointing out lots of misrepresentations - of article content, of traffic statistics, of search statistics, etc. Most, though not all, has been from users trying to delete a wide assortment of webcomics, including some clearly notable ones. My apologies for snapping at you; you haven't been the worst offender, and I can readily believe now that you were simply careless in trying only one search that happened to produce ~18 related hits when several others produced close to ~1000 related hits. Balancer 15:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to establish notability under WP:WEB. --Metropolitan90 22:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It would probably be better to search the author William van Hecke as "van hecke" rather than just "hecke". "Hecke" is the German word for "hedge" and shows up in unrelated contexts such as "Ab durch die Hecke" (Over the Hedge). --Metropolitan90 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Very few German pages contain the exact compound "greeneyes," which filters those out pretty well. In general, if you're going to check search results - which don't in principle establish notability or lack thereof (see WP:N) - you should try a good number of different searches and look at the sort of results you're getting. Balancer 15:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete after transwiki. It doesn't have WEB or sufficient sources for Wikipedia, so it should ease on to Comixpedia, to be kept until it become sufficiently notable. The google search just give an idea, and may lead somewhere the subject is represented by multiple non-trivial published sources. There aren't any, it can't be verified, so it should go. Agree with nom which does not misrepresent. MURGH ^disc. 01:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete along with images; still no reliable sources. Sandstein 06:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete comic has not had "...a noticeable effect on culture, society, and media, and are cited by established publications. " - Francis Tyers · 16:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as the sourcing here is a problem. Wikipedia has established standards for verifiability, reliable sources, and encyclopedic standards, which don't seem to be met here. The suggestion to transwiki is a good one, as the material itself is not so poorly written as to be of no worth. The issue here simply is sourcing, and the article does not meet notability guidelines for inclusion here. We have a responsibility to readers to assert notablity and importance, by citing multiple non-trivial published sources, and to adhere to web content guidelines. Should the consensus favor inclusion, then this article still is in need of serious cruft cleanup. NetOracle 06:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Never notable, only sources are other (not major) webcomics. Original AFD was railroaded by Sidaway's Wiki-philosphising and some really incestuous "oh but webcomic webcomic webcomic webcomic" rubbish. - hahnchen 00:48, 16 February 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. --Coredesat 19:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Todd Huskisson

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

Non-notable individual. He directed an 18-minute film? Good for him. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Says "award winning". What award? The only evidence of notability is weak and unreferenced. —Dgies^t c 07:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete Only claim to notability is having his 18-minute film screened six years after he shot it. Subject garners all of six ghits (four of which are WP). Also delete The Killers (1998 film) as a non-notable short film. (That article makes little mention of the film itself, just the story on which it is based.) Caknuck 08:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 13:41, 11 February 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philippe Servaty

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

Contested db of scandal-bio; sources have been improved, but not enoughTikiwont 10:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose A quick Google reveals the subject is notable enough, but I'd like to see some more English references. I don't think deletion is warranted so quickly in this case - give it time and see what happens. FYI, the "A8" deletion referenced on the talk page is, IIRC, speedy deletion for blatant copyright violation. -- Qarnos 10:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I took this around over the weekend. I thinks the 'quick' clarification is necessary because of the subject and WP:BLP. I studied the sources and tried to search more myself. The main issue is the scarcity of reliable sources. Of the three in English (including the one on the talks pages), two are self-published and take the 'facts' as starting point. The third one (Le Soir) talks of Servaty only as suspect, as does the French one. Tikiwont 10:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Every sentence is sourced with multiple references. There are 22 citations for a three paragraph article. While I realize English refs are preferable on the English Wiki, WP:V states that foreign refs are acceptable. As to the issue of self-published refs, while WP:V states that blogs are not largely acceptable, it goes on to say that self-published work may be acceptable if the author is a professional in the field. This ref fulfills that criterion, as Paul Belien is also a journalist who has written for major newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal and The Independent. I doubt he would libel anyone, as he has his professional reputation as journalist to consider. By the way, of the five refs I currently have, this is the only one that I see as self-published. The others are a Moroccan magazine, a Belgian magazine, a Belgian Newspaper and an Arabic news site. Jeffpw 16:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Could use some cleanup per WP:BLP but is chock-full of non-English references establishing notability. —Dgies^t c 07:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above, and I am irritated this was relisted. It is obviously notable, and my personal feeling is that it was not nominated in good faith. It has 22 cites now, and had 22 cites when it was nominated. It's not my problem if the only language the nominator can comprehend is English. Jeffpw 08:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I hope that you examined the sources more thoroughly than my userpage. While it only lists German and Itlian as Non-English languages, that allows me also to comprehend some Dutch and French respectively. As regards your feeeling of lack of good faith, I will merely take this as hint to try to make my montivation clearer, as I originally did in contact with the artcle's creator. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tikiwont (talk • contribs) 09:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• As, of course, you're the creator let me add that I had hoped to have clarified that while there are many citations, and it is clear that there was a scandal with Servaty as main suspect, not all sources actaully sustained that Servaty was identified as 'Belguel' or explained clear enough how or e.g. where and when the mentioned interview was published. Here my limited understanding of Dutch may indeed have played a role. So I felt it necessary to have this reviewed. However, I won't express an opinion in this relisting (which is completely legit since there originally was only one opinion but ours.) Tikiwont 09:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The TelQuel ref: the 11 Moroccan young women imprisoned following this business had designated the man who had photographed them in these defamatory positions as being "Philippe Sarfati, journalist with the Belgian daily newspaper Le Soir. The Brussels journal: Le Soir, however, forced Servaty to resign in early June when it became known that Servaty had added “anti-Islamic remarks” to some of the pictures. The ArabicNews.com (the weakest ref): Servaty would have deluded over 80 Moroccan women, in the Moroccan south-western city of Agadir, into taking pornographic photo-shots and scenes on promises that he would marry them and ensure their legal stay in his country. Knack magazine: Servaty photographed the women, saying it was for hi8s own use, and placed the explicit photos on the internet, with sexist and racist comments, on the now closed webiste marocsluts.tk...In an interview with RTBF he apologized and said that he is a sex addict. De Standaard newspaper: In Agadir thirtten women are jailed and dozens on the run after becoming the victims of Belgische journalist P.S. During his vacations in Morocco he seduced the women, made compromising photos, and set the photos on an [internet] sexsite. Every ref either states he is accused of this act, or states explicitly that he did it. One ref even contains the fact that he apologized for doing it. It's clear he did it, so I don't see how you can nominate this for deletion based on WP:BLP. it's not libel to state the facts of a case, if you have sources to back them up. The fact that the refs are not all in English does not make it fail WP:V, which explicitly allows non-English refs. I didn't think this was a good faith nomination the first time you placed it here, I think it even less this second time. As to your comment that you hope I read the references more clearly than your userpage, I didn't look at your userpage at all. I merely assumed you were having a comprehension problem, since you couldn't read what I have set before you now in black and white. Jeffpw 10:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• As probably is clear by now, I did not place the article a second time here. That was done by an administrator. I nominated the artcicle in the first place, because I had doubts about the sources of the sources and in particular about the interview in light of WP:BLP which I seem to have understood more narrow than other editors here and only reentered this second discussion because of the not-good-faith claim. Tikiwont 18:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The sources are there, he's notable, it's verifiable, that's it. AFD is not for source review when you simply don't like the sources. If you had questions about the reliability of sources, you should have taken it to WP:RFC. This is an abuse of the deletion process. — coelacan talk — 10:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

  Hi guys, please calm down: AFD is exactly the right forum for this, not RFC (that is for behavioral disputes). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 11:21Z

• Comment - For what's it worth, after the article survives this AfD, it will be immune from being proded or speedied. However, I agree this should have been an immediate speedy keep. Addhoc 15:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I understand the frustration expressed above. Time wasted trying to save articles from improper deletion could be better spent. Press your "random article" age ten times and look at some of the stuff that is begging for deletion yet goes unnoticed. House of Scandal 11:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Find sources: Philippe+Servaty — news, books, scholar Addhoc 12:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - sufficient news coverage per above. Addhoc 12:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Move to Philippe Servaty scandal The article as currently written has very little biographical information about Servaty himself, and is really just a summary of the scandal. So, really, it is the scandal which meets WP:N, not Philippe Servaty, and that should be the name of the article.--Aervanath 14:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• BLP I do not think that most of the article could stand up when examined in the light of BLP, unless one actually thought the sources here reliable by that criterion. As mentioned, this is especially true of the purported interviews. I do not see how one could justify some of the newspaper sources as sufficient for the purpose. But it is notable, though I would how much of it will survive. DGG 03:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply: DGG, would you please clarify your comment? My sources are A) A Belgian magazine; B) A Belgian newspaper; C) A Moroccan magazine; D)An Arabic news website; E) A blog from a noted Belgian journalist; and F) A Moroccan newspaper. Why would these not be considered reliable sources? Because only 2 are in English? Or do you have some other objection to them? Jeffpw 08:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per aboveSlideAndSlip 22:30, 13 February 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 Withdrawn by nominator. I... yeah, I obviously crossed the line on this one. I unfairly bunched Ford in with other articles I'd deleted images for... at the very least, yes, I should have done a Google search. All the more reason to stop editing Wikipedia when I'm already tired... That said, some actual sources for any of the claims in the article would be really, really nice (though I understand that AfD isn't the place to take cleanup requests). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)