Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 24

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Trebor 12:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of films about possessed or sentient inanimate objects

List of films about possessed or sentient inanimate objects (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Indiscriminate information; this list makes no distinction between sentient objects and things that are possessed by spirits or demons. They are two entirely different concepts. For example, the list draws a comparison between the haunted hotel in The Shining, the super intelligent computers in various science fiction movies, and the cartoon characters in The Brave Little Toaster. Croxley 00:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete List of only names with no data. Make a category if possible. No real association anyway.--Dacium 01:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft and indiscriminate per nom. Distinguishing and making a category would be better.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft. JuJube 03:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Listcruft and Indiscrimination. Daniel5127 | Talk 05:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Almost impossible to maintain. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Categorize Listcruft is not a valid argument. Cat per WilliamThweatt.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2!} 07:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Catergorise per Dacium. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 13:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- midly interesting Astrotrain 15:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Categorize into three different categories. Koweja 15:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Which categories? -- saberwyn 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic list. The topic will never be the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. A Train ^{take the} 16:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and do not categorize. Otto4711 16:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree, do not categorise, its an incomplete list and its fails WP:NOT#LIST.Tellyaddict 18:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Agree with User:Tellyaddict. Fails WP:NOT#IINFO
• Delete per nom Bucketsofg 21:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, interesting. – Alensha ^talk 22:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:INTERESTING-K@ngie^meep! 23:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. List of movies about an object, only useful to a few editors. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 23:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This list is incomplete, but it's not listcruft and it's not even close to indiscriminate. As for the charge that the list imparts no information -- it clearly does. And haunted hotels and talking toasters are in different parts of the list for that exact reason. Items that are possessed or sentient are not two incompatible concepts. The point with both is that they are "animated inanimate objects."--JayHenry 22:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I've seen entire books on this concept (for example "Possessed Possessions" by Ed Okonowicz) and it is a recurrent major theme in horror fiction and film. Why would this be listcruft? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This article is a Wikipedia classic. Macarenaman 08:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unmaintainable list --Hobit 22:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the Mermaid. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:35, 2 March 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:06Z

[edit] List of documentary films about foreign adoption of Chinese children

List of documentary films about foreign adoption of Chinese children (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-notable and highly specific topic. Not surprisingly, the list appears to have stalled at the second item. Croxley 00:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Categorise the one film if you want. Far to specific.--Dacium 01:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Waaay too specific. When the title is longer than the content, this might be a hint that it's not really needed. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 02:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Almost comically narrow and specific. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Pigman--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete before we get junk like List of steampunk role playing games using the Active Time Battle system. JuJube 03:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as overly specific. Each list member can be linked to the other through a "see also" section if appropriate. Otto4711 16:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, could be WP:SPEEDY under Empty. Mkdw^talk 17:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete too specific to be notableAl-Bargit 17:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Al-Bargit, it could warrant a speedy deleton.Tellyaddict 18:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as overly specific/narrow. I don't knot if it's really speedy-able, as there is some content. -- Black Falcon 20:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 21:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Question: Is there an article on foreign adoption of Chinese children this list (with added context and sources) could be added to? -- saberwyn 22:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps One-child policy. The topics are directly related and I'm sure there are studies on it. Pomte 08:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Would weak support the addition of a paragraph on the existence of the documentar(y/ies) to the Abandoned or orphaned children and adoption section of the One-child Policy article. -- saberwyn 09:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Too specific list. S.D. ¿п? § 00:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to some article about the foreign adoption of Chinese children. I'm sure there must be some somewhere. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone Usedup

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:05Z

[edit] Terry/Kane Orlando

Terry/Kane Orlando (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Doesn't meet WP:CORP criteria Samw 00:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Don't see notibility for WP:CORP standards.--Dacium 01:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - reeks of self-promotion, too. The Flash website is just strange. - Richardcavell 01:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Self-promotion, fails CORP. Daniel5127 | Talk 05:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, comments above. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 05:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. bd2412 T 12:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Fails WP:CORP. Mkdw^talk 17:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not much info, just lists, it does fail WP:CORP and it generally not relevant.Tellyaddict 18:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Gets hits on Yahoo searches but article reads like an advert and does not establish notability as per WP:CORP. Ronbo76 21:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 21:47, 24 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:04Z

[edit] List of American cities with personal names

List of American cities with personal names (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

An arbitrary collection of facts, it seems to be in opposition to WP:NOT. Corvus cornix 00:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Violates WP:NOT. bibliomaniac15 01:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT, no meaningful association between cities.--Dacium 01:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. A useless list. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delet per nom and WP:NOT. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 02:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Means violates What wikipedia is not. Daniel5127 | Talk 06:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Dacium's observation that there is no real relationship between the entries on the list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - directory counter to WP:NOT as has been noted. Otto4711 16:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Original research. Mkdw^talk 17:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT#DIRECTORY - its a total failure of this!Tellyaddict 18:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. -- Black Falcon 20:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Fails Wikipedia:Attribution#No original research. Ronbo76 21:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 21:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above, and also - since it is possible for anyone to be christened after their place of birth or after any "nice sounding name", any city could have a personal name. Grutness...wha? 23:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Shlomke 00:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Censorship in Iran, which I already did. (There were more keep votes, but the mergists were more convincing, plus AfD is not a vote) --Wizardman 19:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of films banned in Iran

List of films banned in Iran (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Article appears to be little more than a cut and paste of an IMDb search (which isn't a particularly reliable source). It doesn't say if these are the only films ever banned in Iran, or if they are merely a few titles out of thousands of banned films. I've tried using these titles as a starting point to find references, but all I get are Wikipedia mirrors. Croxley 01:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Interesting info. --Paukrus 01:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Censorship in Iran which is overly focused on Internet censorship and not enough on other forms of censorship. FrozenPurpleCube 01:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all verifiable info into Censorship in Iran, per FrozenPurpleCube. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge content and delete article. Some interesting and possibly relevant information (depending on the reliability of the source) but not suitable material for a stand-alone article. Verify and merge into Censorship in Iran, then delete this article.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not an option to merge and delete, as the GFDL requires a record be kept of the edits, thus if a merge is made, this must be kept, even if redirected. FrozenPurpleCube 03:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have done a merging from this list to Censorship in Iran. Please see. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A well-defined list that just needs some expansion and more sources.Perhaps also explain why it was banned for each instance. --Nehrams2020 06:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect following the merge by Dwaipayan (which was slightly premature due to this thing being on AFD, but never mind). Media and censorship policies in Iran are just as valid topics as equivalent laws in other countries. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above. An interesting topic, but length means it can easily go into Censorship in Iran. A keep would be justified if there were some context about each film with reliable sources. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- important to know what the barbaric regime in Iran is banning Astrotrain 15:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete now that the list was merged. Koweja 15:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable topic. I don't think a merge is necessary. Surely there have been more than 11 films banned in Iran? This list can probably be expanded, and explanations added as to why they were banned. --Aude (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, for now. I think the topic is well worth having a list for, but the lack of references is a deal-breaker. We must always insist on sources. I think this is a notable, encyclopedic topic, and if references appear by the end of this AfD then I'll happily change my vote. A Train ^{take the} 16:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without redirect as the likelihood of someone searching for the specific search string List of films banned in Iran is very low. Otto4711 16:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Why not List of films banned in Somalia? Al-Bargit 17:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, why not? That isn't a good reason to delete. Koweja 18:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and "List of films band in Somalia" would be a great idea too. Worthy concept. Sounds perfectly encyclopedic as a subject, but any expansion of the list or more in-depth treatment would be even better. Noroton 18:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Censorship in Iran per User:FrozenPurpleCube. It's notable information, but does not warrant it's own article whilst the general topic of censorship in Iran is available. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 18:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Where are the non-IMDB sources discussing the films which have been banned in Iran? I don't deny their existence, but it would be nice to see them first before we assert the particular films that have been banned. GassyGuy 21:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge' to Censorship in Iran If and Only If reliable, third-party, fact-checked sources can be found for Wikipedia:Attribution purposes. Failing that, delete outright. -- saberwyn 22:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is exactly the sort of article that prevents a blanket "no list" rule. If ever Wikipedia were going to keep a notable, encyclopedic, list, this would be it. Especially because this is not merely a list on Wikipedia, but an actual "real world" list determined by the government of Iran. -- Richard Daly 01:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• That's lovely, but it would be nice if somebody could show us where the government of Iran had documented this. I would be the first to support this is we had some sort of evidence that these films really have been banned. Isn't this the sort of thing somewhere outside of IMDB should be cataloguing? I can't imagine that's how the Iranian government has disseminated its banning info. GassyGuy 05:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from nominator; Just to clarify - my reason for nominating this list is the lack of verifiability of the titles on the list. Merging with Censorship in Iran as FrozenPurpleCube suggested is a good idea, but the information must still be verifiable. I've reverted the cut and paste merge that Dwaipayanc carried out, not only because this AfD discussion is still ongoing, but most importantly the titles are still unverified. Moving them to another article doesn't solve that. Croxley 05:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The page title can be adjusted, and individual items verified But the topic is N, and a list is appropriate.DGG 07:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think the question still is, how does one verify individual items? GassyGuy 09:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • News articles, press releases, statements from the Iranian government... anything that can be reliably WP:Attributed stating "Film X has been banned (or equevilant terminology) from showing in Iran" would be the way to go. -- saberwyn 09:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I certainly agree with this. I guess my question was, does anyone have any such sources so that the work could be done? GassyGuy 10:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - notable subject. Needs sources, but not deletion. Rename to media banned, though. - Peregrine Fisher 18:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - notable. WP:NOT#PAPER. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into Censorship in Iran per all the reasons that have already been given. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and add references or trim; also it would help NPOV if each entry explained the cultural or political reasons involved in each ban and the period of the ban, where sources can justify that. John Vandenberg 12:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable and interesting subject. Article should be improved with sources added. Shlomke 00:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Useful information. Captain panda In vino veritas 22:54, 1 March 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 02:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lunchtime soccer

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

Clearly violates WP:NFT and notabllity guidlines. Soccer is notable, but there is no significant verifiable source that I know of for Lunchtime soccer. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 01:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• The page lunchtime soccer should not be deleted. It is a good place for people to reference when they are in dispute of the rules which they play by. Particularly at my school the players are very passionate. They have even become violent because they are not clear on the rules. This page is a reference to stop these things happening. It is also a log of luchtime soccer/football communities around the world. There are many other wikipedians i know who have found this page a good reference. Therefore it should not be deleted because it doesn't breach any of the wikipedia rules and it only ever helps people. The verifiable source is other wikipedians. And the millions of people across the world who play the beautiful game, the world game. A reaonable person would know how popular soccer/football across the world is. More people play unofficial soccer than any other sport. - jensen 198 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-24 01:43:42
  • Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "...reference to stop these things happening...", as you have said. More people playing unofficial soccer does not make it more notable than soccer, a notable sport. And yes, it does break a notability criteria guideline, WP:NFT, and even WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and WP:NN, contrary to what you have said in your comment. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 02:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed, This is for the minors. To share their experiences on a minor scale. Why should Frank lampard or Ronaldinho get their own page but not us? They are not special and nor are they more importatnt than us. At our school (the Friends' School) it is great fun and very passionate. Sometimes weve even stayed fifteen minutes after were supposed to be in class! What you say about our school and its competitions is dirtying our legacy. We want people to know just how important, soccer(thats not even on a major scale) is to the people in a small city in Australia. There is nothing wrong with this page, anymore than there is something wrong with Harry Kewell's page, it is merely us sharing our views off soccee andwhat is wrong with that? Tell me please. - Sam v1.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samv1.0 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-24 01:50:37
  • Frank Lampard and Ronaldinho both have won awards for their expertise and performance in soccer and Harry Kewell has had media coverage from multiple, verifiable sources- just look at the articles! Importance does not put one in Wikipedia, notability does. Also remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a group of proses. I find nothing offensive or wrong with your article- morality does not govern whether an article stays or not. But verifiability and notability through multiple sources keeps an article in Wikipedia. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 02:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • A verifiable source doesn't nescessarily have to be on the internet, tv or in newspapers. It can be a person who has not published their information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-24 02:45:55
      • Wrong. If it's not published, it doesn't get into Wikipedia. Please read our Wikipedia:Attribution policy. Uncle G 02:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • • But how do you prove what is published is actually true

• • • • Before refuting my arguments, please look at the Wikipedia guidelines I have shown, if not more. Thank you. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 02:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Please explain exactly which section of these links it has breached —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-24 02:47:53

• Delete per the two comments above. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Informal soccer competition at an individual school. Doesn't meet our notability guidelines. Capitalistroadster 02:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• This is not something thought up in one school day, or by one school or one town or one country even. I have visited countless schools arcorss the Asis-pacific region and everyone plays soccer during there breaks. And, in effect, they all have similar if not the same rules. It is clear that this page is verifiable and needed by many people - jensen 198 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-24 02:32:54
• Delete There's nothing wrong with it, it just shouldn't be on Wikipedia. If you want a page on this subject, by all means go ahead somewhere else. Geocities hosts free webpages. - Richfife 02:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn't breach any wiki rules though -jensen 198 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-24 02:41:43

• Comment- How is notability criteria guideline not Wikipedia rules? Again, you contradict your argument by saying "...everyone plays soccer during there breaks. And, in effect, they all have similar if not the same rules..." Why don't they just read the Soccer page for info? If you want to keep the article here, you need to present multiple, verifiable sources by the media (newspapers such as the New York Times, news channels such as CNN, or even an independent report). You need to read the guidelines I presented a little more carefully. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 03:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me exactly which rules they breach. not the links or the over all thing. tell me exactly. i've gone over them and i don't see the problem. i'll give in if you say exactly what

• Delete non-encyclopedic violation of WP:V and WP:NFT--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT, specifically violates clause "Wikipedia content is required to be verifiable." which requires, "that articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Also note that, "Wikipedia is not a free wiki host for you to use for your own purposes." This would be better placed on a freely hosted website. - Mocko13 03:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Its not for my own use its for the use of the milllions across the world. Where else can people want to find the rules of a sport and the variations of those rules, they go to an encyclopedia. I will publish my information then it will be verifiable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs).

• Comment- Rules breached-
• WP:A#Key principles
• WP:NOT#OR
• WP:NFT#Resist the temptation
• WP:NOTE#The primary notability criterion
• WP:RS#Aspects of reliability

I play golf, table tennis, played basketball, mind you. Feel free to publish your info! Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 03:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment- Your sarcasm and comments on an irrelevent subject is not encouraged. Also, please sign your comments. Thank you. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 03:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non verifiable information that violates WP:NN and WP:MADEUP. Article seems to be original research and therefore prohibited in Wikipedia, WP:OR. As many people pointed out, unless its published from a independent source, it isn't considered notable.--K.Z ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 03:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This page is useful for millions it shouldn't be deleted. whether it breaches rules or not it is encyclopediac content and many people would agree —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs).

Comment-As long as it breaches Wikipedian policies, it shouldn't be included. If you feel so strongly about this, I suggest you put it in another website, or find enough sources to make the article notable. --K.Z ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 03:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment- Jensen 198's consensus vote and comments should be disregarded, as his basis of argument is contradictory of Wikipedia's guidelines. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 03:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting sources i already have one there are more coming—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs)

• Delete as not being remotely encyclopedic and thought up at school one day (or over the course of several days). What was that AfD in about September last year about another high-school lunchtime game that turned into a farce? I can't find it in my contribs anymore. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This page is not original research it is simply a collaboration of information gathered from different sources, rather like an encyclopedia.

• • Would you be able to cite these sources? Either here or in the article, it doesn't matter. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The sources: AIS Singapore, Roselea Public School, Sydney, Taroona Primary School, Hobart, The Friends' School, Hobart. Jensen 198 05:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You mind giving us links to these sources? --K.Z ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 06:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

They do not have internet sites that i know of however i will try to find some for you.

If they aren't internet sources, what sources are they? Text? --K.Z ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 06:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Links to sources:
- http://www.ais.com.sg/
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_International_School_Singapore
- Mention of Roselea on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlingford,_New_South_Wales#Public_primary_schools
- www.taroonaprimary.tased.edu.au/
- www.friends.tas.edu.au
- it doesn't seem to recognise the last two but type them in and they will work. There you go.

Those demonstrate the existence of schools, yes. How does that demonstrate that this particular variant of soccer is played at those schools (let alone anything else)? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Do any of these sources actually mention "Lunchtime Soccer" or are me meant to assume they do? If so, please point them out to me. --K.Z ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 06:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Textbook example of WP:NFT. eaolson 04:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. I suggest that those defending this article quit resorting to personal attacks because it doesn't help their case in the least. Most of us at Wikipedia aren't going to be daunted by being called nerds; indeed, quite a few of us would probably embrace the term. Catbag 04:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as this page is very subjective. Thiere are no official lunchtime soccer rules. The article is also not written in a formal encyclopedic tone and seems to be original research. 71.176.150.42 05:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I repeat that "This page is not original research it is simply a collaboration of information gathered from different sources, rather like an encyclopedia." There is no official definition of the word or phrase "y'all" although i believe there is a wikipedia page about it's definition that has no sources and yet still has not been put up for deletion. Why is my useful page being targeted? Jensen 198 06:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

CommentWhat are you talking about? Y'all has five sources in the article. --K.Z ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 06:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Additionally, the fact that there are articles you feel should be deleted doesn't mean that an article you argue to be useful should be kept. If you feel that an article you've found is unsourced or should be deleted for some other reason, you're welcome to list it at AfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable per notability guidelines. This is more suited to a personal website. Wikpedia isn't a reference guide. Solent 07:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete: Notability; the article does not asset notability, nor does it provide sources to back up notability. The guideline here is WP:NOTE. The article is totally unattributed - all information on the encyclopedia needs to be attributable to reliable sources which are verifiable. This does not achieve any of these. Also, this article appear to be made up and is original research. WP:NFT! --Haemo 08:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 10:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete soccer rules for an individual school are about as un-notable as you can get. Suriel1981 13:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Suriel1981 --Zabadab (Talk) @ 15:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This article is poorly written and these sort of rules for soccer would vary depending on your school or where you live. Its not written from a neutral point of view as some local teams for some place are mentioned, I mean Fry & Oats means something to someone (but the rest of us dont have a clue who they are). --PrincessBrat 16:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Fry and Oats are famous Quakers. I'm sure if you google search their names you will get some information on them. The rules for soccer do not vary and they are not for an individual school. As per above they are from many schools and they are the rules that you would find nearly everywhere in my continent+. There are other articles in wikipedia and other encyclopedias that note the information may vary slightly in different areas. Jensen 198 00:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not notable or encyclopedic. Adambro 16:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. It looks like another one of those made up games from high school that could even fall under WP:NEO and WP:OR. Mkdw^talk 17:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

How can you possibly say soccer is another one of those made up games from high school. Don't you realise what soccer/football is???

This is the same fallacy as the one on my Talk page (namely "My school is notable, so you can't delete what we do there"). Yes, soccer/football itself is notable. The rules that you and your friends play by in your lunch breaks at school, however, are not. That's the key difference. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as not ready for the big league. Jensen 198, if you want to keep developing this article, consider copying the wikitext into a new user page, User:Jensen 198/Lunchtime soccer. John Vandenberg 01:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I will, although isn't that making my user page a blog, which you can not do. How ever this is encyclopedic content and i still don't see why it should be deleted. Jensen 198 01:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Consensus here is that the article isnt encyclopedic content, so rather than contest it, prove it by taking the article onto your own userspace and improve it until it is. This will not save it entirely, as someone may list it on WP:MFD, but if you are actively working on the subject, and find real reliable sources for the statements made in the article, then people will leave your user page alone until it is ready for prime time. John Vandenberg 02:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• In what way is it encyclopedic content? Other users have demonstrated the policies which this article violates, thereby explaining why it should be deleted. "Encyclopedic content" is not a synonym for "information". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, oh my, this is about an encyclopædic as the contents of my fridge. Lankiveil 03:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, the contents of your fridge could be encyclopedic....an apple, a half eaten pizza....no, seriously, I can't believe this discussion is taking so long...Article should be thrown into the trash a long time ago. --K.Z ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 03:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't pick on my page. It shouldn't ever be thrown in the trash you fridge loving fools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 25 February 2007

• Nobody owns Wikipedia articles, not even the creator —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richfife (talk • contribs) 17:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete in its present form. An articles about informal games of soccer would be appropriate, if sources could be found, and regional variation could be accommodated. But this totally unsourced article shows obvious signs of being based on a single school, and of policies which have never been written down. I find it odd that it should have attracted quite this much debate, since the total absence of all the customary WP standards is so very evident. What the supporters should do, is try to write a proper article.DGG 07:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • We actually already have articles on various kinds of street football, such as rush goalie. Uncle G 13:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This article however refers to rules played in playground games in one particular school. Suriel1981 10:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Lunchtime sex ;-) Ohconfucius 06:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for its extreme non-notability. --Roisterer 09:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 11:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete pretty much as non-notable as it gets ChrisTheDude 11:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable non-verifiable variant of the sport. Qwghlm 11:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This page rocks don't delete it. Jensen 198 22:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You've already said that. Additionally that's not a great reason to keep it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete However, I don't know if I'm just making more of a mess here, Note that there is already an article for Street football which covers the ground of the massive popularity of informal football games. I say that without any comment as to the notability of that particular article... Robotforaday 16:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Street football. Lunchtime soccer. Aren't they the exact same at the end of the day. Just leave both of the articles alone and stop wasting everybody's time. Jensen 198 01:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not in the least bit. The Street football article seems to deal with an international competition. This article, on the other hand, deals with the rules that a bunch of friends play by. There's no proof that the variant of the game under discussion here is played anywhere but in one school - such sources as have been provided simply show that other schools exist. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia, I don't think that you grasp the knowledge of how important it is to keep this arcticle. Your statements mean nothing compared to the vast seriousness of my arguement. Please, for the good of all, don't delete it. Orlando Mason

Dear Mr Mason (or Jensen198),

The editors of Wikipedia are yet to see the argument that you claim to be vastly serious advanced anywhere. What has been said (ad infinitum) so far is that this article is about a variant of soccer/football played by some friends at a certain high school. No proof of that has been provided, and no proof has been provided that it is played anywhere else. If you believe that the article should not be deleted, please provide sources showing its existence and its notability forthwith. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The sport of lunchtime soccer is an extremely interesting variant of normal or even casual soccer. Many people around the world will be enlightened on the beauty of the World Game.Orlando Mason —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 20:52, 28 February 2007 (talk • contribs) Jensen 198.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (defaulting to keep). Trebor 12:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ştefan Pelmuş

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

Fails to meet the WP:BIO standards Ozgod 01:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - The subject is a well-known artist in his region. The article currently doesn't meet WP:BIO, but I say give it a little time to develop.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No justification for notability. Article has existed for six months and has not developed, beyond minor edits in that time. No hits on google, for either the artist or any of his artwork (though the latter is per a notability criteria still under debate at Wikipedia:Notability (artists). - Mocko13 03:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  Comment "Stefan Pelmus" gets over 600 google hits (mostly in Romanian). I was not aware the article has existed for six months, but I still say "Keep". We have stubs in all categories that have been around for longer than that.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I have taken the initiative and expanded the article and added a few references. My Romanian is not very good (actually non-existent, but Romanian is decipherable with a working knowledge of Latin and Spanish), but there is plenty more available sources for a good Romanian speaker.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 04:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete The current references in the article are really quite weak for notability. He may be a notable artist but all I can tell is he's had gallery shows. References should give a little more substance beyond a bio blurb. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 05:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Per WilliamThweatt.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The artist has works displayed in multiple countries. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The artist's displays are public and across many (primarily non English) non-cultures, so I suggest sources will be easy to find by those familiar with the subject and languages, especially Romanian. (edit) Also, I am not familiar with the awards, but those alone might suggest notability (end edit) Also, consistent deletion of this type of article without sourcing in the native language, will lead to systemic bias. —siroχo 16:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Romanian artists are as notable as American ones Al-Bargit 17:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as an award-winning artist, whose article has been significantly improved by WilliamThweatt. -- Black Falcon 21:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The URL linked to the last statement about his award mentions that his artwork is internationally exhibited which would meet the proposed notability guidelines for artists. Ronbo76 21:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The evidence here shows a working artist with facts that remind me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhaskar Hande. There's an international dimension of some sort, but no expositions at notable galleries or museums; and there's an award (or two) of unknown notability. Independent evidence that he's well known in his region - as far as I can see - is as a name in a list, like [1]. So let's be consistent and delete it, without prejudice to recreation if/when better evidence is found. Mereda 14:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, my concerns are not about the notability of the artists but about the article lacking sources and references. If we cannot reach at least WP:V in an article I strongly advocate it must be deleted regardless of the subject Alf^Photoman 14:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Mereda & Alf. No press refs at all Johnbod 03:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete reluctantly despite the extra work on the article there are no news articles or other published works (magazines, paragraphs in books) about him. He may have shown internationally, but he doesn't meet the criteria for notability. The Gh. Patrascu award is given at the National Fine Arts Biennial Exhibition in Romania. But I couldn't find a news story about Pelmus and the award. --Bejnar 22:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep - The nomination was probably bona fide, but it is the 3rd in under a month. The article was renamed in the meantime (spacing), making it easy to have missed the previous two. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J. P. Calderon

J. P. Calderon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article isn't that relevant as this isn't well known nor was he great in Survivor: Cook Islands. People who were in the jury deserve to have an article I believe. Willbender 01:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep and close This is the third AfD for this article in less than a month. The previous results were no consensus and keep. Notability is asserted by the individual's Survivor appearance, his professional volleyball career, his modeling career, and his appearance on The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency. Seriously, though, third AfD in less than a month. --Maxamegalon2000 01:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: It's a different member nominating it (I know my good friend Otto is going to allege that this guy is a sock of mine... AGAIN, but I assure you, I had nothing to do with this afd), I see no reason why the AFD shouldn't be followed through. Recently, Survivors who finished SECOND AND THIRD in the show have been going through afds and losing, so it was only a matter of time before somebody targeted this article. I'm sick of the wikipolitical philosophy that articles that survive 2 afds should automatically be kept, if people who finished THIRD and SECOND aren't considered notable, how is a guy who was voted out fourth and was in a couple episodes of a low-rated cable show notable? -- Scorpion 01:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speediest possible keep and step the hell off the article - As noted, this is the third time in a month that this article has been AFDed. The first closed with no consensus and the second, opened just minutes after the first one closed, was closed with a KEEP. There is absolutely no justification for nominating and renominating and renominating this article. The subject clearly passes WP:BIO. "The article isn't relevant" is not a valid criterion for deletion. "This isn't well known," in other words WP:IDONTKNOWIT, is not a valid criterion for deletion. "Nor was he great on Survivor: Cook Islands" is not a valid criterion for deletion. The nomination does not cite any guideline or policy that the article violates and while I am doing my best to assume good faith, the constant attacks on this article are absolutely ridiculous. The matter of Scorpion's continuing hostility to this article and his extremely poor conduct regarding it are not relevant to this discussion, as much as he would like to make this about me and him. Otto4711 03:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It's called precedent. Other Survivor contestants who were in the show considerably longer have been judged unfit for a page. See the following CURRENT afds: Bruce Kanegai, Brandon Bellinger, Ian Rosenberger, Sundra Oakley, Burton Roberts , Lillian Morris, Ami Cusack, Gregg Carey, Jennifer Lyon, Rafe Judkins, Becky Lee, all of whom made the merge, several of who made the final and all of which are heading towards deletion. There will probably be several more coming too. Also, it's been more than 30 days since the last nomination, so why do people keep saying "3 nominations within a month"? And, has this guy done anything of note on JDMA? It seems to me that all he has done is appear in a few episodes of 2 reality shows. As for the "sources", notability is more than counting the number of published pieces on any given subject. -- Scorpion 04:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Taking your points in order: 1) "Precedent" is certainly something to consider, but each article is to be judged on its own merits. This article has been judged on its merits and the consensus was to keep it. That some other contestants may end up deleted is irrelevant to whether this article should be kept. 2) This article was last nominated for deletion on January 30. It was nominated by you 37 minutes after the previous AFD closed. The second AFD closed on February 5. Today is February 24. It has been 25 days since the article was nominated for the second time and 19 days since that second AFD closed. 3) Yes, he did something very notable on JDMA. He came out of the closet on national television and landed the cover of an internationally distributed magazine. 4) Notability guidelines require that a subject be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Calderon has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, including as previously noted an internationally distributed magazine. Otto4711 04:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• But was the entire series focused around his coming out of the closet? Going back to precedent, several of the early Survivors were on the covers of US Magazine, People Magazine and Entertainment Weekly and yet they don't have pages. And like I said, I had absolutely nothing to do with the nomination of this article. -- Scorpion 04:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• The entire series doesn't have to be focused on his coming out for his participation to be notable. And I'm honestly not sure why you are not grasping the concept that every article stands or falls on its own. Every single article on every single person who ever even heard of Survivor could be deleted tomorrow and it means nothing to whether the Calderon article is kept. If you think some of those other contestants should have pages, and you have the requisite multiple independent third-party sources for them, then write the articles and if they get AFDed I'll stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you to defend them. But for god's sake, stop using them as the whetstone for the axe you're grinding over Calderon's article. Otto4711 04:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep per above, as you can't just keep nominating an article for deletion because you didn't like the outcome of previous AfDs. Catbag 04:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep You have got to be kidding me another one in a month?? AfD is not a once aweek process when you don't like the outcome of a previous one. EnsRedShirt 05:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep and Close. You can't just re-nominate because you don't like the previous result. Besides, I find the article suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 05:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Once again, I had nothing to do with the nominating of this article. I think the nominator is a newer editor who had no idea the article had previously nominated. I didn't nominate it because I knew people would just use the "It's survived before, let's keep it" principal, which is why Wikipedia is stuck with some pretty useless articles. It's insane to think that there are many TV characters from well-known shows that don't have pages because they aren't "individually notable" and yet, this guy has one. -- Scorpion 05:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe that Scorpion had anything to do with this nomination. As for the nominator's awareness of the previous AfD's, I did reply to his comment about this article at Talk:Survivor: Cook Islands. --Maxamegalon2000 06:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep As per precedent. Other participants of the show have had articles --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, many Survivor, Big Brother, Apprentice and Amazing Race contestants are losing their pages and seeing as he is the earliest voted out Survivor that has a page, it was only a matter of time before somebody nominated it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep Meets the notability requirements. Diego Cervantes 14:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep yes, consensus can change, but not in this time. No new reasons for deletion have been added and this seems like nothing more than an attempt to re-vote until you get the result you want. Koweja 16:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, I don't need to explain notability, but I want to chime in that the number of times this has been nominating is absurd. When nominating an article, please ensure that it will not be a rehash of a previous nomination. That implies either new evidence is provided, or a significant amount of time has passed. (Generally on the order of months) —siroχo 17:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, most of these numerous nominations are appear to be out of bias for this person. He certainly has had enough media attention to be considered notable under WP:BIO. This article does require some wikification, but this should ultimately be the last AfD for this article. Mkdw^talk 17:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Yes, consensus can change, but not this fast. I won't say that the nomination is WP:POINT as the nom may not have checked the talk page. -- Black Falcon 21:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong if not Speedy Keep per WP:BIO notable outside show, needs some slight cleanup to verfify references. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 05:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and if possible a policy that closely-spaced repeated AfDs are disruption of WP. DGG 07:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Third AfD since January is verging on the abusive. It may warrant deletion, but current consensus appears to consider even 4 months as insufficient time for a renomination, regardless of the article's merits. Ohconfucius 06:48, 26 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:04Z

[edit] Awareness Loves Life

Awareness Loves Life (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Page putatively created solely to promote the book "The Little Book of Awareness" and the website http://meaning-of-all.org (which is merely a portal that links to http://ucadia.org). The page has been created by User:Architect of ucadia (contribs) which has also edited the article O'Collins, the name of the book's author. Cacycle 02:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable promotion. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as promotion. Article seems to be written by the author of the book it promotes, as seen in other edits concerning his surname and in the username chosen, which is also the name of the only sites google flags it for besides Wikipedia and Yahoo Answers. - Mocko13 03:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable pseudo scientific book Al-Bargit 17:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete Incorrect association originally made by Cacycle that entry a promotion of Transplexity/Hoffman et.al. Article has been edited and conforms to Wikipedia Policy, removed of any promotion comments. No reference to O'Collins at all in article and is a legitimate alternate theory. Architect of Ucadia 04:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC). It is grossly unfair that upon the removal of all reference to O'Collins because of the original complaint that additional users now have voted for deletion based on the absence of notations. I plead and ask all those who keenly advocate the elimination of this entry for guidance- am I supposed to include legitimate references to my publishing and work and be damned by you as a nobody, or not include myself and this reference be damned as having no central notation? Please, I beg before another user happily posts their negative comments that one of you with infinite wisdom and experience to tell me what you expect? Thanks Frank O'CollinsArchitect of Ucadia 12:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete The citations are over 20 yrs old, and while they may relate to the general idea of this theory, there is no reason to think they relate to it in any specific way, as much of the OR speculation is based on more recently fashionable concepts. There would have to be references to N for the particular formulation under this particular name. DGG 07:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the references cited do not support this theory or support its notability. While the references are valid, they are only valid in the sense that they were referred to when this article, which appears to be original research, was created. The author claims it is "a legitimate alternate theory" but offers no references to back up that claim. Hatch68 06:36, 26 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 14:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Al Gore criticisms and misconceptions

Al Gore criticisms and misconceptions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Created yesterday as one of the most blatant WP:POV forks in history from Al Gore controversies. No recent talk by forker on the original page.[2] Derex 02:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The edit summary for the creation of the page is pretty much all you need to see. "Since media criticisms + explanations are removed from Gore controversies page(for the fact of not being a controversy) this page explains media misconceptions and criticisms of the public figure Gore". And as Derex alludes to, you have to go back to November 2006 to see the article creator even editing the source article he forked from -- and back to June 2006 to find him posting to the talk page of that article. Even as a last resort POV forking is not acceptable; as nowhere near a last resort it should be shut down hard. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. I've seen discussion on how having the "controversies" article is a POV fork (a way to keep the negative stuff out of the main article). So why are we forking out content again? The large majority of the material is copied from the controversies article, so there is a lot of redundancy. This makes me think that we do not need a spinout article for this already spinout article. Also, the creation intentions (and some recent editing over at the controversies article) leads me to lead that this is nothing more than a POV fork. I'd like to hear a defense of this as a simple spinout article. -Andrew c 03:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All of the stuff here has at one time or another been inserted into the "Al Gore controversies" article and subsequently deleted because the info is either not notable or spurious. Some discussion on the controversies talk page indicates that particular article could be construed as a POV fork, and this ridiculous off-shoot is even worse.-Hal Raglan 03:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: In my experience people are generally too eager to construe a spinout article as a POV fork. From what I have seen Al Gore controversies has discussed the controversies from both sides and so has avoided being a POV fork. This article, however, practically announces in its very title that it's going to take a side -- and it does. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • All of the information on here is sourced and documented. Actually any info on here that was on Al Gore controversies was removed because of people saying it was non notable or it did not generate a 'storm of controversy'. How is it not notable when it appears in major news outlets?? Not every story that makes the news generates a storm of controversy, yet is very important, especially political stories that do not get front page news for political reasons. All the stories on here are from major news sources, the Washington Post, Newsweek, the New York Times, etc. At least these stories should be merged on Al Gore Controversies and not wholly removed.--The great grape ape is straight out of the know 02:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment As an editor on the controversy article I would be happy to have a chat on the discussion page about what should be included. You don't do that.In fact, you just added material to the article that I tagged as plagarized and ignored all previous talk page discussions on other controversies. Jiffypopmetaltop 02:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Incredibly blatant POV fork, no redeeming value. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing more than POV and original research --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. POV fork. Guettarda 07:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, textbook case. Gazpacho 12:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep the subject is useful and serious. I get the idea from comments about politically controversial articles that merely addressing a controversy is itself POV. If POV is a problem with something like this, then let other editors add the other point of view or edit out bias. Serious subjects deserve articles on Wikipedia. Noroton 18:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • We already have one. In case you missed it, see Al Gore controversies. Derex 21:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: "I get the idea from comments about politically controversial articles that merely addressing a controversy is itself POV." No, that's a fairly frequent misconception, but addressing a controversy is not POV. What is POV is addressing only one side of a controversy, or trying to arrange boundaries of discussion of a controversy that would limit discussion to one POV. That's what this article does, as it is titled "Al Gore criticisms and misconceptions". -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• DeleteIn my opinion, people should not have criticism articles. Huge pov fork.Jiffypopmetaltop 18:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment So why the Criticism of George W. Bush page?--The great grape ape is straight out of the know 02:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• CommentI don't remember making that page. Jiffypopmetaltop 03:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge(parts) The article is actually a good read and theres a lot of references but its too much of a POV view, especially since hes a living person. I think that some of the content has merits and perhaps the most well written, notable and well reference of it could be merged into a critique on the actual Al Gore article. . In any case this is just far too much, mostly non notable, criticism for an encyclopedia, espcially the Al Gore quotations criticized by the media section. LordHarris 04:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 20:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a rather POV rewrite of ionformation that could better be merged into other articles if it's not already there. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• MergeI apologize if my methods are in the wrong, but my thoughts were to show content that critiques with explanation of the media and Al Gore. I attempted to reference it all with sources and boths sides of view the best I could, and hope some of it can be merged without POV in a way that I have obviously failed to do. I believe the information is relevant to show all sides of a person, seeing that the 'good' side is shown with no mention of past actions that show a different story. I only hope such diligence and effort that is shown here also will be shown on the Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies, Criticism of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney hunting incident(does this really need a page?) CNN controversies and allegations of bias(allegations are allowed but not documented points against Al Gore?), Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, and other polictial controversies and criticism pages. Thank you --The great grape ape is straight out of the know 02:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Dick Cheney hunting incident(does this really need a page?) Gosh no, why would we need a page on that, it got barely a mention in the media, why it's as if it never happened, almost. NPOV much? Gzuckier 21:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: "Allegations" does not inherently contain a viewpoint that the allegations under discussion are valid or invalid. "Criticism" does not inherently contain a viewpoint on whether the criticism under discussion is well-founded and proportionate. "Misconceptions", however, inherently advocates the viewpoint that one side is the truth and the other is just "misconceptions". -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge I've said it before and I'll say it again...why is Al Gore not allowed to have a criticisms section, either as a separate article or (better) on his main Wikipedia bio page, when almost every other public figure from Presidents to stand up comedians on Wikipedia does? The "controversies" page is not a criticism page, it is an obnoxious fork intended to split off and then remove criticism of Al Gore from his Wikipedia biography. How can we justify treating him completely differently than any other public figure and still argue that the main article has a shred of neutrality? As it stands now, his Wikipedia biography reads like a press release for an upcoming election bid. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.38.150 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment You make a very good point. In order for Al Gore controversies to not be a POV fork of Al Gore, Al Gore must contain NPOV summaries of the major controversies ("major" meaning we don't really need to make room for something like the "Gore said that Love Story was based on him and Tipper" thing or something else that non-substantial). However, even though there is an Al Gore#Controversies header, there's nothing there but a link to Al Gore controversies, and the only one of the controversies I see touched on in the article is the "created the Internet" kerfuffle. This is not acceptable and must be addressed, either by creating the appropriate NPOV summaries in the main article or by merging back to the main article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I would suggest that both articles be returned to the original under the title "Controversies and Criticisms", as was suggested once before, and they can then be summarized and NPOV'ed by the usual editorial process. As it is, both articles basically exist outside of the Wikipedia process and represent dueling POVs. There is information in both articles that, unless it in some way represented in Al Gore's main biography, gives us an incomplete view of the man. If we continue to allow this kind of splitting off (even at the short term gain of some civility or stability in the editorial process) we'll lose the heart of the main article.
  • Comment No criticism pages. Really those are the worst things you can do to wikipedia. It's just my humble opinion but no living person should have a criticism page. They are nothing more than pov magnets. Controversy pages are fine (Al Gore does have one) because there has to be some sort of legitimacy behind accusations. This page has little or nothing to merge. Jiffypopmetaltop 04:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I understand your feelings about criticisms pages/sections, we are probably all sick of them. But the fact is virtually every article on Wikipedia on a major living public figure contains a criticism/controversy section. I'm not sure how we cannot have one on Al Gore and argue that we are being neutral. As you say, they are POV magnets but that doesn't remove our responsibility for addressing these issues in a NPOV way in the main Al Gore article. It sure makes it easier not to have them in the main page, but it doesn't make the article better, it makes it worse. I'm very leery of just having a section called "Controversies" without the term "Criticisms"; semantic debates on the definition of the term "Controversy" have been used in the past to delete large sections of biographical material on Gore, and it's become a sore point for some contributors. I'm not saying those sections shouldn't have been deleted or edited, I just would have liked a better argument for dumping them than that they don't fit a strict definition of the term controversy. I think our primary focus should be on making better articles, even if that sometimes makes things harder for us, having to deal with POV nuts and flamers. As things stand now, I'm worried we are copping out of our responsibilities. No doubt, the Al Gore page is a magnet for attack right now because of his visibility, but many pages go through these periods and still maintain a civil discussion process and ultimately a neutral POV. If we have problems with this article and the "Controversies" article, I think it is best to return them to the main page and deal with them there, fact by fact, issue by issue. Just deleting them or favoring one over another is going to cause a justifiable resentment to the whole process. We'll have avoided dealing with the issues and over time it will just get worse.
• Delete - POV pushing rewrite. Most inappropriate. The title itself is simply very awkward. Smee 08:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete as per op --Kim D. Petersen 18:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep or at minimum Merge Precedent has been set with George W. Bush. Wikipedia currently has pages named Criticism of George W. Bush, Public perception of George W. Bush, and Fictionalized portrayals of George W. Bush and within the Bush article itself there are George W. Bush Domestic perceptions and George W. Bush Foreign perceptions sections. As a matter of fact, even the Al Gore article contains a substantial Criticism of Bush Administration section! --Jayzel 18:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia also has articles titled Bushisms and a 115 kilobyte long joke called Movement to impeach George W. Bush. --Jayzel 18:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Then there is the fabulous article entitled George W. Bush substance abuse controversy which accuses Bush of being a "Dry Drunk" on the word of some unknown hack from Iowa without a license to practice medicine adn without ever meeting the man. Seriously, people, Wikipedia is never going to be taken seriously when this blatant bias is allowed to run rampant here. Any and all negative information regarding certain select politicians is continuously segregated from main articles or censored altogether while other politicians are smeared repeatedly. This has got to stop --Jayzel 19:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Jayzel, one reason the George W. Bush substance abuse controversy article was created was because a number of editors (myself in particular) spent 4 months arguing to keep it out of the GWB article. After a "vote" the majority of editors compromised to create the daughter article...so some of the articles you mention are actually cut from the main GWB article either due to a need to follow summary style or to have a place to expand on the precise issues. There is also the George Bush military service controversy...we can't forget that one!--MONGO 11:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not questioning those articles right to exist, I'm questioning the attempt to delete this article when precedence has already been set with the creation of the Bush articles. Many of the Bush criticism articles have survived AFD, therefore this one should as well. --Jayzel 13:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must have missed a memo. I didn't realize our mission statement had been changed, so that we are now honor-bound to assist the public in determining what is significant and in forgetting the vast quantity of trivial dreck which they are fed each day. Because there are already a zillion sites devoted to "the 10 most important uncovered stories of 2006" etc. which we could follow. Gzuckier 14:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So you want to smear all politicians equally. I don't think that any of the articles you mentioned should exist. Why create or sustain another article that shouldn't exist in the first place. Also, I hope that our past conflicts aren't playing into your decisions here. Jiffypopmetaltop 22:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't the slightest idea who you are and I'd appreciate it if you did not put words into my mouth (In addition to attempting to censor my comments on the Talk:Al Gore page. If there are valid criticisms of public officials they should be mentioned and articles should exist; If there are well-known and documented smears they should also exist. It is not up to us to determine if something is unfair. If the info can be validated by reliable sources that is all that matters. However, it is hypocritical and extremely damaging to this website to try to delete an article dealing with criticisms of an important public figure without a Wikipedia-wide purging of all criticism of everyone. --Jayzel 23:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Holy cow, I've read the main Al Gore article I don't know how many times and never connected the fact that, in an article where we don't allow a criticism section about its subject, there is a long criticism section of another public figure (Bush). I guess by logic, if we want to see public criticisms of Gore or his administration we need to go to the Bush page. In all seriousness, I think this illustrates the problem with not having a criticisms section. As it stands right now, the article allows Gore's criticisms of other public figures and topics, but doesn't allow any criticism of him or his actions. This policy just can't be regarded as fair or non biased and its a recipe for long term disaster. Ultimately it will make the article one sided and neuter the subject.
• Delete. One article per topic oughta do it. Gzuckier 21:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Warning to all concerned User Jayzel is drumming up support on other pages trying to influence the vote and also adding unsigned comments to this page in order to persuade the discussion. Check the history of this page and of Jayzel contributions. Jiffypopmetaltop 00:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean like this drumming up of support from the nominator?

Al Gore criticisms and misconceptions, created yesterday, is clearly a WP:POV fork of Al Gore controversies. It should be AFD'd. Derex 02:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That notice was left on Talk:Al Gore which is both standard and appropriate.Derex 02:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As for your other charge, libel is not taken lightly. You'd better have a solid case. --Jayzel 00:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Case? Is court now in session. Anyway, I am cutting off contact here. I will stay away from you, you stay away from me. Just like our old unspoken agreement. Have fun. Jiffypopmetaltop 00:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats are not taken lightly either. User has been blocked indefinitely by an ANI admin. Derex 07:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In your dreams. --Jayzel 13:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If we can get back to the discussion now, I see that the main Al Gore article has had the above discussed "Criticism of Bush Administration" section removed. I don't see how this helps things or the article; these are Gore's own words and personal beliefs, I can't think of much more essential to summing up a man. I think we are better suited by publishing Gore's criticisms of other people and the criticisms of him, just like every other public figure on Wikipedia. It is essential that we have both sides of the story if we are going to understand him as a man and try to give a clear view of his life. At this rate the article will have absolutely nothing left except that Al Gore owned a dog, and then that section will be removed by someone who owns a cat. BTW, so that everyone can clearly know my bias on these issues, I own a cat.

I think we should delete the dates of birth (and of death, where appropriate) of people. I mean, what possible use could that be to people? Gzuckier 15:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL Humorous, but please sign your comments. Regards, --Jayzel 01:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• delete, POV fork. Andrew Levine 02:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I an going to be Henry Clay here. Everyone shouls come to an agreement on how this article should be worded. If you don't think an article on Al Gore's downsides should be included in Wikipedia, that's fine. But you should have a criticism section on his regular article. All politicians have their downsides and none of them, are perfect. George Bush isn't perfect and Hillary Clinton isn't perfect. Come to an agreement on what to do with this article.

Mrld 23:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Once again, POV fork. And redundant. Not to mention unprofessional and unencyclopedic.--Jackbirdsong 04:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The redundant argument carries no weight as the Talk:Al Gore controversies page shows, large portions of text have been deleted with the argument that the text was regarding criticisms of Gore and not regarding controversies of Gore. Therefore, a "Criticism of Al Gore" page is needed to cover the deleted information. --Jayzel 13:53, 1 March 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.

[edit] Janemba

The result was speedy redirect. No reason for this to be at AfD. A Train ^{take the} 16:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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

This is an article on a character from a single Dragon Ball film. Its content is almost exclusively a plot summary. I'm recommending a redirect, because I am reasonably certain TTN has already adequately merged any salvagable content into a main list. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of aliens in Dragon Ball#Janemba per above. This has been way to drawn out. Nemu 03:11, 24 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 redirect. No need for this to be at AfD. A Train ^{take the} 16:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bojack

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

This is an article on a character from a single Dragon Ball film. Its content is almost exclusively a plot summary. I'm recommending a redirect, because I am reasonably certain TTN has already adequately merged any salvagable content into a main list. Also note that despite the title, this is actually the first nomination for this particular Bojack. I am reasonably certain the first is a completely unrelated topic. The title here is for disambiguation purposes only. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of aliens in Dragon Ball#Bojack per above. This has been way to drawn out. Nemu 03:12, 24 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 redirect. A Train ^{take the} 16:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tullece

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

This is an article on a character from a single Dragon Ball film. Its content is almost exclusively a plot summary. I'm recommending a redirect, because I am reasonably certain TTN has already adequately merged any salvagable content into a main list. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball#Tullece per above. This has been way too drawn out. Nemu 03:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• There is already an article on Tullece in List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball so we should delete this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghadden (talk • contribs).

The point of redirects are to be able to link to the section (which is not an article) or article it belongs in. Nemu 03:58, 24 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 Merge. Rlevse 21:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Google distance

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

The paper that defined this wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal, nor, as far as I can tell (from citeseer/citebase) were any of the three article which cite it (and two of those are by the author of the original paper). It has a reference from New Scientist (here, which is offline, see archived version) and one from Baseline (here, which I've never heard of, and which may have been written by the author of the original article as well). I believe that the lack of references from reliable published sources independent from the author of the article which originates the term indicates that this isn't a notable term. Sopoforic 03:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• delete It seems more a definition which would be better in wikitionary or whatever it's called. I can't see any particular information in the article so I can't see any reason to keep it. Mike 15:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- irrelevant and fails to meet Wikipedia policies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Astrotrain (talk • contribs) 16:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

• Weak delete. Vitanyi is an established scholar; I'm not concerned about the lack of peer review yet. But though his paper has attracted around 20 citations in Google scholar, it's not clear how many if any of them are about this "Google distance". A better source would seem to be The Google Similarity Distance by the same authors, but that's also a preprint with no citations yet. It seems premature to consider this encyclopedic. —David Eppstein 03:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with Bejnar: Merge into Semantic relatedness, Semantic similarity, or both (after those two are also merged). —David Eppstein 22:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• very Weak keep The present evidence for N is that New Scientist thought this worth an article. Many items in this field are now published only in arXiv, even by the very best scholars. But since this isn't peer-reviewed publication, they would have no be established by citations of the articles from unquestionable sources. All the alternatives to conventional peer review make use of subsequent citation as the test for quality--which is reasonable because such citation is from the same group from whom the reviewers would have come. I would consider one additional one to New Scientist enough. I think if necessary this might prove to be a good test case for how to deal with these non-conventional quality control systems, but it would not do so until it has been widely cited in convention publications. I suggest re-creating it at a later date with the references that will have accumulated. DGG 07:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree that enough citations, even from non-peer-reviewed sources, would make this worth keeping. I'm only just on the side of deleting this, which is why I mentioned everything I could find in the nomination; a few extra (reasonable) sources would make me think this ought to be kept. It is written (somewhere, probably, I think) that things published by known scholars on e.g. their own webspace should be considered also as probably reliable. I just think that this probably isn't notable enough, yet. --Sopoforic 12:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I found this announcement for a refereed paper that's supposed to appear next month. I also found this paper, which defines a different quantity as the "google distance". With two substantially different definitions wandering around, it may be too soon to write about this concept for Wikipedia. DavidCBryant 17:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - With all due respect the arguments for deletion strike me as weak.

1. The article provides more than a definition by providing the algorithm used for measuring Google Distance and this is of some interest. What's provided may be insufficient but this merely justifies a Stub tag and not deletion.
2. I'm just flummoxed by the suggestion that this concept is irrelevant since the way Google measures website popularity and related notions has been in the news and the subject of lawsuits.
3. If there is confusion between the concepts of "Google Distance" and "Google Similarity Distance" then that should be cleared up. But I don't see how that in itself is grounds for deletion.
4. The article mentioned by David Eppstein is in the IEEE Transactions of Knowledge and Data Engineering , The Google Similiarity Distnce

Also, four articles came up on the ACM digital library in regards to "google distance", and, what can I say, found over 800 hits when I googled "google distance". There is no question that the article needs to be improved, but I'm not seeing how any of these are grounds for deletion. Could something cite the specific Wiki policy that they think is relevent here? A B Carter (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The policy I was concerned about when I nominated it was WP:N. Specifically, the part about being the subject of multiple independent non-trivial works. Granted that a google search for "google distance" yields a few hundred results, but a fair number of those are unrelated, and many of the related ones are from blogs and such. I agree that the case for deletion is pretty weak--I just also think that the case for keeping the article is pretty weak. Basically, especially given how happy the media is to report on google, I'd expect that if something like this could be called notable, a couple of newspapers/magazines (in addition to new scientist) would have mentioned it. That may have happened, and, if so, we ought to keep the article; however, I couldn't find such mentions.

Incidentally, as far as I can tell, this Google distance isn't Google's celbrated sorting algorithm that they use (i.e. pagerank), but some other thing which happens to use google as a tool. So, I don't think that the notability of google necessarily implies that this is notable. --Sopoforic 01:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I was initially confused on this point. I would also agree that as a consequence notability is an issue, though I'm still for a weak keep. A B Carter (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment "… some other thing which happens to use google as a tool." It's a measure of lexicographic similarity. It's one of the first attempts to use the actions of a large number of individuals (their choice of words for web pages) as the basis of artificial intelligence. If you haven't looked at the article recently, you might want to read it again. DavidCBryant 13:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete lacks notability. SakotGrimshine 20:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Merge per Bejnar. Many references to "google distance" in google scholar. This is a rather similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurolinguistics. John Vandenberg 13:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Not all that convincing. I only got 19 references of which 6 referred to articles by Vitanyi, 3 to "google distance learning", 2 to Poesi which appear to offer a different notion of "google distance" and 5 of unknown origin. I'm still a weak keep but this offers no additional support, in fact, it kinda weakens it for me. A B Carter (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Semantic relatedness. This is not a new idea, "semantic distance" has been measured for years using a variety of different algorithms. See for example [3]. This does not deserve its own article. --Bejnar 22:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we have a winner! Merge is an excellent option. The entry is clearly on the cusp: I wouldn't have given it an entry but now that there is one I'm reluctant to simply delete it. A merge allows us to keep the contribution in some form; if later research supports it it can always be split off into its own entry. A B Carter (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge seems an excellent choice. There is not enough here for a separate article.NBeale 10:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• merge into something and leave a redirect to that page. Reason: reading the article I actually found what is the formula. It is more appropriate as an example in an article about semantic connectedness or something like that. Having an article by itself probably is not justified, but erasing the whole info?..:Dc76 00:13, 3 March 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:01Z

[edit] List of techie films

List of techie films (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Image:List of techie movies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Another vague list attempting to create a connection between films that actually have little in common. Croxley 03:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Inevitably POV and OR. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Travelbird 08:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as indiscriminate list and directory. Otto4711 16:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:NOT. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 18:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep doesn't fit the reason given to delete it. I don't see why the other voters consider it "vague" POV and OR. I don't see any of those problems in the article. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete "techie" is vague, and the list is filled with vague inclusions. There is a bit of merit to lists of this ilk; consider List of films that feature computers, or List of films that feature Linux, List of films that feature Apple and List of films that feature Microsoft OSs (by feature, I mean really feature; I'm sure another word would be more appropriate). John Vandenberg 13:46, 27 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 nomination withdrawn: the Heymann Standard at work. Thanks to Dhartung for his efforts on this. Chick Bowen 17:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tired and emotional

Tired and emotional (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article has several problems. Chief among them is that it does not cite its sources and relies on original research. Since it refers to popular usage its assertion of notability is not verifiable. Most importantly, there are living persons issues, since it implies an accusation of drunkenness. It has been transwikied to Wiktionary, but I doubt much of this material will be used there for the same reasons. Chick Bowen 03:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete per nom, which is a shame since it's kind of entered popular culture. It might be possible to dig up some citations for people being described in this manner, but then there's the issue of figuring out whether it's being used euphemistically or whether the individual was really just tired and emotional. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep now that sources have been added and the potential (which IMO is always going to be there, but there's nothing we can do about it) for a BLP violation reduced. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup as there appear to be plenty of sources showing the origin from Private Eye and its currency (i.e. discussing same) as a bit of newspaper jargon (as opposed to slang, which it isn't clear it is). The phrase is included in the Oxford Dictionary of Idiom. --Dhartung | Talk 04:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Other references in which it's included: Cassell's Dictionary of Word and Phrase Origins, Brewer's Dictionary of Modern Phrase & Fable. A biography of Brown was actually titled Tired and Emotional. --Dhartung | Talk 04:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your work sourcing this. It's still on the edge as far as I'm concerned, but you've certainly made progress. I removed the section I considered a WP:BLP problem. Chick Bowen 04:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Now that there are some sources, the page is worthy of inclusion. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 04:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article is definitely worthy.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep. --JuntungWu 12:51, 24 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:00Z

[edit] Ed Reams

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

Non-notable and vanity; please see article text and history. Takeel 03:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Lack of an attempt to assert notability (unless every TV production staff member is notable by default...) and a lack of reliable sources leave the article devoid of any encyclopedic value. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. John Reaves (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of notability --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Travelbird 08:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Keep I userfied the one line he wrote. However, Ed Reams is mentioned on the WHSV article as the director. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 12:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. A TV station director is rarely going to meet the primary notability criterion, and this one certainly doesn't. A Train ^{take the} 16:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no sources, no attempt to assert notability, fails WP:BIO.--– Dakota 23:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment He was formerly a reporter at TV-3 (a dab page), if that means anything to anyone. John Vandenberg 13:52, 27 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 14:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Online Poker Players Tour

World Online Poker Players Tour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Entirely non-notable vanity entry linked from and to article creators only other (unrelated) article. Apparently it is just an affiliate's idea of running tournaments at various sites. Even if it were something other than advertising, the first event was just a few days ago so it has established zilch notability yet. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. 2005 03:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure what the correct procedure to respond to this is, if I'm doing something wrong here, by responding here, please let me know the correct method. Was surprised to see someone marking the article for deletion before I had even finished writing it, but I'll respond to the concerns here. Firstly you mention linked to an unrelated article, as clearly indicated on both articles, the relationship is that the company it is linked to is (UTC)sponsoring the page in question.

The site is clearly content based, with a small number of advertisements for companies supporting the venture. It is primarily a community for enthusiasts to compete in a worldwide competition and a site with tutorials and guides for new players.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Julesl (talk • contribs)

• Please read this section of "What Wikipedia is not." And in the future, please sign your comments using four tildes ~~~~ or the signature button at the top of your edit screen.--Vbd | (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks for the tip. Yes I did read that link, as far as I understand it, my article is posted from a neutral point of view and, I believe, written in an unbiased style, no claims are made, simply statements of fact. --Julesl 04:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability, so probably fails WP:WEB. No one seems to link to it, either [4]. eaolson 04:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. See WP:CORP for notability guidelines specifically for corporations and organizations. Primary criteria include independent and reliable sources, neither of which are included in the article.--Vbd | (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I have to say I wanted to know how long Jules1 had been a member of Wikipedia because before I say anymore if this person is a newbie can Wikipedians please remind themselves of the policy 'dont bite the newcomer.' Aside though, I have visited the poker site link on the article and on the front page it says it is new and therefore is not notable yet. I speak from experience that I created an article which was quickly deleted - so I know how it feels! --PrincessBrat 11:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. SmartGuy 21:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can certainly understand the point of view that the website/organisation is not "notable" enough yet. --Julesl 13:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As others have said, this organisation isnt notable yet, and it is pretty decent of Julesl to acknowledge that. Good luck with the venture and if you want to hang around, there is a "WikiProject" for poker that you may be interested in. :-) John Vandenberg 14:11, 27 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, with no prejudice against subsequent re-creation. DS 14:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Gemini Awards

This is a list of nominees for a People's Choice Award; it does not even designate the winner. It is an example of what WP is not: a directory or an indiscriminate list of information. It is non-notable and non-important. (It is also misleadingly entitled "2006 Gemini Awards" when it only provides information about a single award.) Vbd | (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete It lacks focus and context, and it fits the description of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There's no need to record every nominee for a single award in one article. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, it's a list of nominees and nothing more. - Denny 05:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or at least Cleanup. The Gemini Awards are a notable Canadian award, but this is just an indiscriminate and unordered list of supposed nominees. --Charlene 08:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gemini Award until a proper article for the ceremony is written. Caknuck 08:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Caknuck. Notable award, the Canadian version of the Emmy, and as such an article on the 2006 award ceremony is notable and justified, but I don't get why someone would simply create an article for a single award category. 23skidoo 13:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Clarification per nom. Please note that there is a Category:Gemini Awards and a subcat Category:Gemini Award winners. This Afd is just a random article included in the former. There are no pages about the Gemini Awards broken down by year; there are articles listing the winners of specific awards, such as the Earle Grey Award. I would support the creation of an article for the "People's Choice Award" that lists its annual winners, not all of the nominees in a given year.--Vbd | (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --JianLi 08:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as this article can be cleaned up. Would you ever suggest an article on the Emmy Awards be AfD'd? So why the Canadian equivalent? -- Zanimum 15:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This isn't an "article about the Canadian equivalent of the Emmy Awards". It's a list with no context of nominees for 1 award in 1 year of said award show. Who's going to clean it up and what should it be in the mean time? Leebo⁸⁶ 15:16, 27 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:00Z

[edit] VH1's The Nations Favourite Lyric

VH1's The Nations Favourite Lyric (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Meaningless article with little value and no supporting detail. Grimhim 04:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable list of a one-time survey on VH1. - Denny 05:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Travelbird 08:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Useless. Should be mentioned on LyricWiki... ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 16:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete arbitrary and no added value.05:55, 25 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 02:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colby High School

Colby High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable, would fail Wikipedia:Schools John Reaves (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Alright, yes, I'm going to be completely biased because this is my high school, and I am the author of the original article. It has survived since October, and I've kept an eye on it for maintenance. I will admit that I wrote the article tongue in cheek, and it certainly needed some citations. NOW, though, user Noroton (talk · contribs) has done an amazing job of assembling (factual) information on Colby High School. And, though some of you may argue that it's not an article worth having on Wikipedia, I wholly disagree. As Sefringle (talk · contribs) commented, Wikipedia has many articles over schools many people wouldn't hear of otherwise. The notable alumni definitely helps my cause... it's not every opera singer that pops out of a conservative NW Kansas school. If you haven't been here, let me tell you, not succumbing to the pressure to be a farmer or housewife is an accomplishment (we live in 1950). By the way, Colby High School is on Google. --Buglindseybee 01:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unfortunately as it's a suprisingly well-written article, but makes no assertion of notability and a Google search isn't turning anything up. Catbag 04:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Well done article as said, but fails to assert notability for schools. - Denny 05:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep considering we have articles for hundreds of other non-notable high schools.--Sefringle 07:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Denny. We indeed have thousands of other articles on high schools. As long as it's a real school that is publically licenced I don't see a ground for deletion. Travelbird 08:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, or WP:BJAODN You guys are kidding right? Are we reading the same page? From the article "Until 1995, Colby High School was located on Third Street, but the need for a larger building was recognized, and thus emerged the building that accommodates the students and teachers now. The building makes up for its lack of windows and originality with a large technology lab and a fully-stocked art room." This article is rediculous and unsourced, though it did give me a good laugh.EnsRedShirt 09:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep removed most if not all the copy vio. But it needs to be sourced badly... EnsRedShirt 04:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but only as a stub. It's a real school, but most of the information in this article is either original research, or a copyvio from http://www.publicschoolreview.com/school_ov/school_id/30941 . Strip out the speculation/satire and stick to the facts, and then the article's worth keeping. --Elonka 10:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -per nom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Astrotrain (talk • contribs) 15:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep This is one of the better written notable high school articles. The article however; is original research and copyvio. Tagged with clean up, cited sources and added a reflist for the sources. --Masterpedia 16:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep High schools are inherently notable, as I argue here. Noroton 18:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Noroton, and I endorse much of his essay. Newyorkbrad 19:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. I'm not sure where the concept of "inherently notable" comes from, but this Afd does not meet the WP notability guideline for organizations (which includes schools). The argument that it should be kept because WP has articles for hundreds of other non-notable high schools is specious -- we should be deleting those articles for the same reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vbd (talk • contribs) 22:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete Agree that high schools are important to those who attended them but this one, and many others, fail to meet the core notability requirement for any organization which includes schools. Warfieldian 23:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Schools are NOT inherently notable, and WP has thankfully been cracking down on these (I remember last summer it was almost impossible to delete an article on a high school if the school was real). This is just another non-notable school. TJ Spyke 00:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Noroton, though I think this article needs a few references and could to with a wikify.LordHarris 04:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Notable alumni has always been regarded as a factor in N. In this case there are, two, one widely known and one less so, which as the only N factor is borderline but in my opinion enough. DGG 07:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep WP:SCHOOLS is not a policy, I'm not sure how this would fare with beefstew, but there is a minor claim to notability in terms of the fact that there are multiple notable alumni. Willie Stark 19:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• With all due respect, I haven't been able to find a guideline that says that having "multiple" (in this case, two) notable alumni makes a high school notable. Can someone please point me to a source that says so? I know WP:SCHOOLS isn't a policy or guideline, but WP:ORG is and it doesn't mention notable alumni in its criteria for notability (neither does WP:SCHOOLS).--Vbd | (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's not a policy as much as it is implied and relies on common sense. If a school has produced multiple personalities which are notable for WP:BIO, the school is notable. You see something similar to this in WP:MUSIC when a newly formed band has multiple notable members. Policy mixes and changes. Willie Stark ^{"Believe in Me!"} 01:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It is a notable school, with notable alumni. --Carioca 03:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article does not have adequate independent references; since this is a bedrock requirement in our community the article fails. I don't feel that the claim of notability on alumni grounds is adequate, as everyone has to be educated somewhere. If notability transfers from a student to a school, why does it not transfer from a customer to a shop ? I do note that both cited alumni are musicians; if it can be shown that the school specifically develops musical talent in its pupils I'd be inclined to change my view, but otherwise I feel this should go. The assertion that all schools are notable I have addressed in many previous AfD debates; I am opposed to the idea that we should relax standards of notability for the special case of schools. WMMartin 15:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Its a interesting read and has a bunch of new Wikipedians contributing that haven't yet been formerly welcomed. Buglindseybee (talk · contribs) is doing a good job of keeping the vandalism under control. The claims to notability are borderline, but given a bit of time and guidance, additional rationale for keep may be found. If not, it can be renominated after a month if its not improving. John Vandenberg 14:33, 27 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of films with a pedophile theme

List of films with a pedophile theme (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No context or information, just a list of (largely unlinked) and unreferenced titles. I've seen quite a few of the films on the list; many of them only feature a brief sub-plot about a pedophile, some don't include any pedophile themes. Croxley 04:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - probably impossible to verify, and moreover almost certainly consists of original research, and surely will be an endless honeypot for it, since it's highly subjective what constitutes a "pedophile theme" (not to mention the broken grammar in that phrase. --Haemo 08:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as is, but not as a bar to a better-titled article restricting itself to listing films for which an independent citable source had discussed a significant element of pedophilia(I'm sure plenty could be found for, e.g., Lolita). bd2412 T 12:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as indiscriminate list and directory. Otto4711 16:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Responding to comments above: all films are clearly linked by the topic of pedophilia - sometimes as the major them, sometimes as a minor theme. A much more detailed list with back up infomration and links etc can be found at Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films. That article, which I 'maintain', is divided into sections and is quite long. This list, which is (I agree)to some extent a duplication, puts all the films into one alphabetical list and so may be more useful for some wikipedians. It is easy to verify all the films though the above article and by visiting Imdb or Amazon etc. Most wiki lists are structured like this one. Tony 17:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Tony ps Haemo is strickly correct on the grammar, but 'List of films with a pedophiliac theme' would be clumsy and most learned articles on pedophilia now use pedophile as an adjective as well as a noun. Pedophiliac is seldom used.

• Convert to cat: This list is pretty much a duplicate in purpose of Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films neither serve any purpose as an article that couldn't be better served as a category. A category would have the additional benefit of a tag on the individual articles that could then be verified by editors more familiar with the content of the films. --Monotonehell 18:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - notable aspect of films. Good use of duplication of imformation. WP:LIST - Navigation. - Peregrine Fisher 18:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - this is a significant common thematic element.--JayHenry 22:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for all the reasons given so far. This is certainly a notable topic. Also, it should be noted that Otto4711 has nominated a very large number of film lists for AfD and in AfD debates seems to hold the opinion that Wikipedia should be list-free. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Changing my vote to Redirect to Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• It should be noted that not only did I not nominate this article for deletion but your claim that I think Wikipedia should be list-free is a complete fabrication and utter misrepresentation of my position. I would appreciate it if you feel compelled to comment about me you would refrain from lying. Thank you. Otto4711 15:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• So far, I've never seen you argue to keep a list, and much of the time, most of your reasons given in arguments to delete lists boil down to little more than "lists are bad." Furthermore, knowing something about the sheer volume of list-related deletions you're involved in right now (most with a canned statement of flaws when you were the nominator) may put your comments here in context. If you wish to use strong accusations such as calling me a liar, please go to my talk page for it instead of cluttering this AfD. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that you have not happened to see me support a list does not reasonably translate into "believes Wikipedia should be list-free." Characterizing my nominations of various lists as "lists are bad" is another misrepresentation. And I will continue to call you out on your misrepresentations and fabrications when and where you make them, even if you do prefer that I hide them away on your talk page. Otto4711 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films. No need for the duplicate, so let's use the better article. --UsaSatsui 10:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable aspect of films. --Masterpedia 03:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect and Convert to cat as per discussion above --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 15:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films. I was looking at Category:Pedophilia and saw that these duplicate topics were included. I was going to consider suggesting merging them, when much to my surprise, I found onen of them up for deletion! This list doesn't constitute original research, though. Macarenaman 08:05, 2 March 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 02:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bulletproof Chinese

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

Likely neologism. No sources. Googling for "bulletproof Chinese" yields very few results, many of which are not relevant here. Contested prod. eaolson 04:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Likely the author's neologism, failing WP:NFT. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 05:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism, doesn't meet criteria; per nom. - Denny 05:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I thought this was the sequel to Bulletproof Monk. Croxley 06:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Is this even a real thing?--Sefringle 06:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism and/or hoax Travelbird 08:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Travelbird. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 19:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't think this is an actual hoax. For example, see [5]. I just think it's a term that hasn't caught on yet. eaolson 19:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Appears to be original research, and highly POV. Ohconfucius 07:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless a few reliable sources are added to the article. John Vandenberg 14:40, 27 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 02:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Zevita

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

American Idol Season 6 contestant who was eliminated in the first round of "Hollywood Week." (quoting from article) Clearly non-notable per WP:BIO. Bringing here to get consensus for deletion and salting because it has been created at this title and Rachel zevita no less than 4 times in all. Awyong J. M. Salleh 04:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails to meet WP:BIO that I can see. 5 minutes of fame isn't notable. - Denny 05:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Denny Travelbird 08:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, salt away. bd2412 T 12:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and salt as well. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 19:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE Other contestants who were voted off of American Idol have articles, so why not Rachel Zevita who has already accomplished more than most musicians and is on her way to being very successful. At least give her some time. Is it a requirement that an artist be famous to have an article on Wikipedia? She is obviously notable by that fact that her fans keep reposting for her and do not want her deleted. If Wikipedia is only a place where people can come to look up information on people they already know everything about, then what is the point of it all anyways?'Moellering2007'— Moellering2007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Awyong J. M. Salleh 08:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The fact that a person is voted off American Idol does not automatically guarantee them an article. The existence of other articles on people who've been voted off may simply mean that we haven't gotten around to deleting them yet; this article just coincidentally got nominated for deletion earlier than them.
  • "Is it a requirement that an artist be famous to have an article on Wikipedia?" - In a word: Yes. In many words: look here.
  • "She is obviously notable by that fact that her fans keep reposting for her and do not want her deleted" - The fact that a page keeps getting reposted does not mean a thing. Some automated programs post spam pages many times over as well; and last I saw there was a page filled with nonsense on the number pi that was created no less than four nine times. They don't want their spam/nonsense deleted either. How many times a page is created tells us absolutely nothing about its encyclopedic worth.
  • "Wikipedia is only a place where people can come to look up information on people they already know everything about" - you're missing the point. Wikipedia doesn't discriminate on who gets included as long as they're all notable. Awyong J. M. Salleh 08:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO --MaNeMeBasat 12:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No achievements other than having been on the show. Even extras get paid, but I don't think she was. Without doubt, does not pass any criteria of WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Ohconfucius 07:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not yet notable. John Vandenberg 14:46, 27 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. DS 15:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sky Haussman

Article on Sky Haussman, a fictional character in the Revelation Space series, is nominated for deletion because individual characters are not encyclopedic topics by themselves unless they're major enough according to WP:FICT, which this is not really. There is already an entry for Characters_in_Revelation_Space, and I have already moved this material to the listing that was already there for this character, at Characters_in_Revelation_Space#Schuyler_.22Sky.22_Haussman_.2F_.22H.22. Even if it were argued that this character were of enough encyclopedic interest under WP:FICT for his own page, there are several much more notable characters in the Revelation Space series than this one, and they are all happily on the omnibus Characters_in_Revelation_Space page; those more major characters would all have to be convincingly shown to be major enough for their own pages before this character. For example, while this character is a major character in one of the 'RS' novels and has a cameo in a second one, the character Nevil Clavain is a major character of two of the 'RS' novels and the central character of two of the 'RS' short stories - if any 'RS' character were to get his own article, it would be him. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 04:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This individual character article isn't notable enough for the FICT rules, or major enough. Delete. - Denny 05:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge You've moved the material? Then merger is the option here, not deletion. Make it a redirect and be done with it. FrozenPurpleCube 06:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, my mistake. Since it was actually a merger, already effected, I edited the original page to a redirect. No content has been deleted. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 07:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect (as-is) to help people find the content. John Vandenberg 14:48, 27 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 07:54Z

[edit] Pylorus (band)

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

Image:Pylorusmirror1.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Pylorusoutside1.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Pyloruspracticespace1.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Pylorus.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Pylorusanthony.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Trevorpylorus.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Nealpylorus.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Chrispylorus.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Anthonypylorus.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 04:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Clearly a non-notable band - most likely a vanity page. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 04:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't assert notability, or meet the Music guidelines. - Denny 05:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable band. Parts read like an ad. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Travelbird 08:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP is not MySpace. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 20:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE! just because you haven't heard of a band doesn't mean that they're not nottible.Scubster 17:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Please do not shout. While it is wonderful that you are supporting local music, garage bands are not notable by standards of WP:MUSIC. Calm down, and read the standards. Shimaspawn 20:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

ONCE again. there's a difference between a garage band and a band that has nottiblity in a different state that you live in. do you live in Indiana? do you know band that are from Indiana? didn't think so. my statement stands just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they're not nottible.Scubster 08:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, I do live in Indiana. In fact, I don't live all that far from where they're supposedly famous, and you know what? I still haven't heard of them. Shimaspawn 14:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe they're "nottible", but around here, we're concerned about notability, and there is none here. Can you show some published articles about this band? Do they have an album? There's notability guidelines that you're more interested in ignoring than checking out. And for the record, just because you have heard of them doesn't mean they are notable. --UsaSatsui 10:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not yet notable. John Vandenberg 14:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Poorly written, multiple breaches of POV and embarrassingly illustrated. No evidence they are anything but one of a million struggling bands yet to achieve success or recognition. Grimhim 00:13, 1 March 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 07:53Z

[edit] Holmwoods

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

Google searches for the title and the name of the supposed director turn up nothing film-related. If this movie is real, it's never been seen. Djrobgordon 04:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as likely hoax. Travelbird 08:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Very simple. If it is a notable film, then it would be possible to find something on the internet about it. I can't find anything about the film or director. It doesn't assert why the film, if it exists, is notable. Probable hoax. Adambro 16:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Someone trying to play around with Wikipedia, WP:V. Willie Stark 21:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I also tried and conclude it is a hoax. John Vandenberg 14:53, 27 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. When nominated, this was about an athlete, now it's about a porn star again. If someone thinks that person is nonnotable, they can renominate the article for deletion. Sandstein 18:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Andrews

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

Looks to be a biography of a thus-far non-notable individual and appears to be vanity. I would have nominated it for speedy deletion, but it seems to have an extensive edit history. Thisisbossi 04:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Article needs improvement. If the page is a borderline vanity, it should be userfied. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 04:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• I had considered userfying it, but with the edit history (which includes an apparent variety of editors), it just seemed odd that it would be such. Also, I can't tell if the ongoing edits by individuals are vandalism or not... everyone seems to change the entire context of the article and its very basic facts each time around. Not a single source when at least something is dearly needed. This seems to fail the Google test -- definitely doesn't seem notable. I'm somewhat thinking that all the editors may be personally involved with the individual which the article references. --Thisisbossi 04:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Did you try a Google search to see if this guy is verifiable? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 04:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yep: lots of Ben Andrews', but nothing as best I can tell relating to a guy from Portland other than the Wikipedia article, which tops the results. It's a relatively common name -- I know a Ben Andrews myself (though certainly not the Portlander)! --Thisisbossi 05:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment First of all, up until February 20, the article was about a gay porn actor of arguable notability. Then someone added something about a British businessman[6]. Earlier today someone replaced the article with the Portland HS athlete[7]. I believe we should revert to the porn actor and discuss notability for that version. --Dhartung | Talk 05:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for the present person--his HS athletic accomplishments if real are probably N, though the bio is Vanity. There are 2 independent sources although not of high quality on Google, after searching for "Ben Andrews" Parkrose. His MySpace page link doesnt work. Per Dhartung, it does seem like someone is playing an elaborate multipart hoax at out expense, looking for different people of this name. First step is to change the titles so we can tell them apart, and relist. Alternatively, just delete this and watch if they start again. DGG 08:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 12:36, 2 March 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 07:53Z

[edit] List of abbreviations for names

(View AfD)

List of abbreviations for names (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WP:WINAD. This article is merely a list of names and how to abbreviate them (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so they have been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted. There is strong precedent for this kind of deletion; recently, all lists of given names have been moved to Wiktionary and deleted.

• See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman praenomina, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Modern Greek given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish given names Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Swedish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latvian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kurdish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hispanic surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of hypocoristics, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of counterparts of given names, etc.

Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 05:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Clear violation of WP:WINAD. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 05:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete article lacks any genuine information, even such basics as the superscript writing of non-inital letters, regionalistic variances, etc., etc. ThuranX 07:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic, and already transwikied. A Train ^{take the} 16:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as transwikied. And unless this is somehow sourced, I would recommend deleting from Wiktionary as well. Who's to say that "Henry" should be abbreviated "Hy." rather than "Hen." while "Patrick" is abbreviated "Pat." instead of "Pck."? -- Black Falcon 21:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:WINAD and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE.--Vbd | (talk) 21:30, 24 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 07:51Z

[edit] Bopsta

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

Does not appear to meet WP:WEB. I got no hits on Google News, which leads me to believe there aren't a lot of independent articles about it. The site gets a ton of Google hits, but only twenty of them are unique. The site contains no original content. All videos are linked from other sources, such as YouTube and Google Video. The site's former name, "Google Idol" gets a good number of hits, but they're all blogs and ads. Again, no usable sources. The article is written like an ad. --Djrobgordon 05:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they contain the results of individual competitions hosted on this page:

Bopsta/ Pop Webcam Competition 4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bopsta/ Pop Webcam Competition 1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bopsta/ Pop Music Video Competition 1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bopsta/ Pop Webcam Competition 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bopsta/ Pop Music Video Competition 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bopsta/ Pop Webcam Competition 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bopsta/ Pop Music Video Competition 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bopsta/ Pop Webcam Competition 6 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bopsta/ Pop Webcam Competition 6 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bopsta/ Rock Music Video Competition 1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bopsta/ Rock Webcam Competition 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bopsta/ Original Competition Demo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bopsta/ Original Competition 1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bopsta/ Promos Competition 1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bopsta/ Promotional Competition 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Google Idol/ Rock Webcam Competition 1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Google Idol/ Promotional Competition 1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Google Idol/ Pop Webcam Competition 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Google Idol/ Rock Webcam Competition 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Google Idol/ Kids Competition 1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Google Idol/ Original Competition Demo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Google Idol/ Promotional Competition 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Google Idol/ Pop Music Video Competition 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Google Idol/ Pop Webcam Competition 1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Google Idol/ Pop Music Video Competition 1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Google Idol/ Kids Competition 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Google Idol/ Pop Music Video Competition 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Google Idol/ Pop Webcam Competition 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Google Idol/ Rock Music Video Competition 1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Google Idol/ Pop Webcam Competition 4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Google Idol/ Rock Music Video Competition 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Google Idol/ Kids Competition 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Google Idol/ Pop Webcam Competition 6 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bopsta/ Promotional Competition 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This one fails to meet WP:WEB. - Denny 05:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As per above --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Few independent sources = non-notable, non-verifiable. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the main Bopsta article (see the "Bopsta in the media" section at the end of the article), but delete the rest. -- Black Falcon 21:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Use the sources listed in the "Bopsta in the media" section to write a sourced, verifiable article for purposes of Wikipedia:Attribution... delete if this is not done before the end of AfD by someone with an interest in the subject. Delete OR Blank and Redirect all sub-articles to the main article. -- saberwyn 22:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Not notable. Does not meet web and notability guidelines. Bigtop 02:03, 25 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 per WP:CSD#G11. Sandstein 07:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ORGANISMuseum

Image:Organismuseum.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Article fails WP:WEB. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:49, 24 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 Merge to Christmas worldwide. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 07:49Z

[edit] Romanian Christmas traditions

Romanian Christmas traditions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is a stub, and has been for over 2 years. It has no reliable sources, and it is pretty clear that material to expand this does not exist or is scarce. I have moved all the relevant material on this article to Christmas worldwide, where stubs on this topic belong. Are we to have an article for every country in the Christmas worldwide article? There simply isn't enough material to warrent this having its own article seperate from Christmas worldwide, especially since some of the other countries Christmas traditions listed in Christmas worldwide have more content than this article, and they still don't have their own article for Christmas traditions. Sefringle 06:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect Odd, my edit didnt take. Redirect. Sources undoubtably exist in Romanian language sources, but no one's added them. Redirect, a content matter. Someone can always go back and re-expand the article later if they do the research or it's worthwhile. - Denny 07:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect until someone expands it into a useful article. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Christmas worldwide. The text of this article is already in Christmas worldwide, so it may have already been merged, in which case it must be redirected per GFDL. If it wasn't merged (i.e., if this is a fork), then still redirect as it is a plausible (if not entirely common) search term. -- Black Falcon 21:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect This could be a very interesting article but currently doesn't merit its place and doesn't have the sources. Suriel1981 09:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect for the time being. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect I can't say it better than Suriel1981 just did. Noroton 04:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yoni Raz Portugali

Yoni Raz Portugali (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable journalist, Google search in Hebrew returns ~250 results if you don't include wikipedia results. Article was deleted from the Hebrew Wikipedia as non-notable. First nomination could be found here. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 06:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 06:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fail to see non-trivial mentions independent of the subject Alf photoman 14:10, 24 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 02:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Clamecy

Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Clamecy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Cannot find any reference to this cathedral, even using variations of name and spelling. Original author has questionable history. It's a hoax or mistake. Glendoremus 06:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• delete No content--Sefringle 06:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'm assuming it's a hoax. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Likely hoax, based on these factors, or an error. - Denny 07:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's NOT a hoax. Dozens of online tour guides refer to tours of "Clamecy Cathedral" ([8] and [9], for instance). Clamacy has a collegiate church, but for something like 600 years it was the home of the Bishop of Bethlehem! (Yes, that Bethlehem.) The cathedral is 13th century and may now be known as the Collegiate Church of St. Martin. If so, and if tour guides call it a cathedral, it's a legitimate entry, at least as a historical seat. By the way, for those who aren't Catholic, a "cathedral" is merely a church that is also the seat of a bishop. It doesn't have to be big or fancy. Given that the original creator appears to be a major contributor to articles on French churches, I suggest that this is legitimate and that the cathedral really does exist, at least as a historical entity. --Charlene 07:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as sources are sparse and it's a redlink request on FR fr:Portail:Bourgogne. The real name seems to be Eglise Notre-Dame de Bethléem à Clamecy[10][11][12] (it's the flattish dome building, not the one with the classic gothic tower). Unsure about the "monument" part (though here's a French government listing) or even a construction date. It seems it hasn't been a cathedral since 1790. --Dhartung | Talk 07:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment According to the barge tour people, it's 13th century. It appears to be a notable tourist destination, but there may not be that much out there about it online. --Charlene 08:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It this the church that Clamecy, Nièvre#Sights tells us (without citing sources) is now part of a hotel? Uncle G 12:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Cathedral exists but the page doesn't provide any meaningful information as it is now. Either expand considerably or delete. Travelbird 08:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I expanded it a bit, and it should now be acceptable as a stub. Travelbird 17:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- cathedrals are very notable Astrotrain 15:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as a good faith stub. Some information from this afd should be added into the article. —siroχo 17:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Medieval cathedrals and formal cathedral churches ought to be "notable" per se, without any further showing of fame or widespread knowledge. The best thing to say is that they are, in fact, encyclopedic. All that should be shown is that they existed, and I'm satisfied that's the case here. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Dhartung and Charlene. It also seems that a rename may be in order. -- Black Falcon 21:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The Seat of the Bishop of Bethlehem from 1223 to 1790 sounds amazingly encyclopedic, and it now has several good references. Edison 23:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This was not an actual bishopric, but a titular bishop, the diocese no longer existing after the failure of the Crusades.

No, it was an actual bishopric in partibus infidelium (a status the church abandoned in 1882). A titular bishopric is one assigned to a bishop without an actual diocese. --Dhartung | Talk 11:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• keep because none the less , certainly any Cathedral is N. I don't think it was claimed otherwise, the difficulty was just in verifying the correct name to find the sources. DGG 08:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks for all the good input to my nomination. I'll concede the article is not a hoax but I do believe there's been a mistake--there is no church with the name Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Clamecy. There is a Collegiate Church of St. Martin in Clamecy (started in the 13th or 14 century); There is a Church of Notre Dame in Bethleem (built in 1926 or 1927); and there was another (smallish) church in Bethleem that may have technically been a cathedral at one time but has since been partially destroyed and converted into a hotel. [13] The article as it has been rewritten in the past 24 hours seems to be a pastiche of all three of these churches. My new vote would be to rename the article to one of the two existing churches and then add a second article to cover the other. The interesting and notable info about the Bishopric of Bethlehem could go with the Bethleem church or even stand alone as a third article.Glendoremus 17:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I found out the domey church was actually 1926 at some point yesterday, but I was too busy to follow up on my confusion. Interestingly, it is considered a landmark of 20th century architecture in Bourgogne[14][15], so probably deserves a listing. It isn't *the* former cathedral, but it's obviously the one with the frescoes! Now, the bit about the hotel seems to be that there is a chapel in what was a 12th century hospital established by Guillaume IV at the same time. It isn't clear to me that the hospital and chapel itself was the seat of the bishopric, but that seems to be what has become a hotel. Argh! --Dhartung | Talk 11:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no, it says so here[16]: Ancienne chapelle des évêques de Bethléem* 12ème remaniée 15ème (IMH), transformée en hôtel-restaurant. (Former chapel of the bishops of Bethlehem, 12th through 15th centuries, converted to a hotel-restaurant). That seems to be the clincher -- wish I'd found that 24 hours earlier! I think that the name Ancienne Cathédrale Notre-Dame-de-Bethléem (or Former Cathedral Notre-Dame-de-Bethléem is best; that is supported here[17]. I'll make a new article for the newer church as the architectural features are a small part of the article. For the record, I don't see that I confused it with the third church at all, but please point anything specific out. --Dhartung | Talk 11:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Or we could go with Chapelle des évêques de Bethléem supported by this[18]. --Dhartung | Talk 11:57, 26 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 02:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PSP 2

PSP 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Product does not exist, nor has it been confirmed to be an existing product in the future. Juggaleaux 06:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Wait until the product actually exists before making an article about it. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a rumour mill. Sandstein 07:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Crystal ball, rumors, etc - Denny 07:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:Crystal. Travelbird 08:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete till something solid comes, if ever. Whilding87 10:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as Crystalballing. To quote the article "There have been no official reports from Sony, all information in this article is only rumored." What more needs to be said? Koweja 16:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Worthless collection of rumors and speculation. As per WP:CRYSTAL. Adambro 16:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 20:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom under crystal ball criteria. There is no such thing as PSP 2 yet, so don't expect this until Sony confirms that there will be a PSP 2. For right now, it's too soon to tell and it's too early to announce. Bigtop 02:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Very Big Delete, it hardly has any info and even admits it's nothing more than speculation and rumours.DreamingLady 10:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above; when the product exists, it can have an article. Until then, it's just pure speculation. --Alan Au 23:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, use two balls here and close it now. —ptk✰fgs 05:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- Serpentes 19:56, 28 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 07:48Z

[edit] Workation

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

WP:WINAD, WP:ATT. Unattributed dictionary definition of a term, likely a neologism. Recreated after a PROD deletion. Sandstein 07:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as a non-notable neologism. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. Travelbird 08:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - clearly violates WP:NEO. --Haemo 08:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a neologism, failing the attribution policy and moreover, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Kyra_~(talk) 08:21, 24 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seven Cycles

Seven Cycles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article is blatant free advertising for a private business enterprise. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia--not an online "yellow pages." If allowed to stand, this article opens up the door for free advertising touting the product line of all private business enterprises. It constitutes a gross abuse of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Watson (talk • contribs) 2007-02-24 07:37:38

• Creator Comment Seven Cycles clearly meets the criteria for a company to be included in Wikipedia. It has recently appeared in several independent magazine articles, a list of which can be found here: [19]. If citations are a problem I can add them, if wording is the issue it is a wiki and open to anyone to help. Also, it's possibly worth noting that the nominator has (impropery) nominated almost every page i've created for AFD because I nominated an article of his that was deleted as neologism (AFD debate here: [20]). Goodnightmush 03:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete unless sourced If there are magazine articles, please add them to the article, for at the moment is has no sources not derived from the business--there well might be, for there ought to be product reviews. Even so, the existing article with the extensive catalog of models is unsuitable. There;s also the problem that the sources would have to indicate that the company was a major manufacturer, either in quantity or in terms of notabliity for special quality or other features. Might be possible--go try. There is no point in talking about personalities, because if the subject can be sown to be notable it will be approved. DGG 08:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll add several of the independent sources before the debate ends. Just need to get them together. Might be a day. Goodnightmush 18:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• UPDATE I have added numerous links to assert the importance of the subject of the article in the external links at the article. If I had more time I would incorporate them. However, in that section alone they should suffice to close this debate in favor of keep. Here are a few examples: Review of the company in Bicycling Magazine, Bicycling Magazine article about one model, Velonews Article Goodnightmush 02:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but the article needs a huge clean up. As already mentioned the listing of the entire range is going to leave the article liable to deletion as spam. Nuttah68 13:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling#Case study in constructive dispute resolution for an earlier dispute about a cycling-related page. We resolved that dispute by trans-wiki'ing the unencyclopedic portions of Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais to Bicycling Wiki. --Teratornis 20:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - this is simply PR stuff. WikiPedia is not an advertising billboard, and we can't have articles about every company that has ever been mentioned in any magazine. NBeale 10:55, 2 March 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. - Daniel.Bryant 08:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Workin Title:(Myspace Comedy Series)

This page seems to be a non-notable nonsensical article that might not quite meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy. I just tagged it A1. - Denny 07:34, 24 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Industry Nine

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

This article is blatant free advertising for a private business enterprise. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia--not an online "yellow pages." If allowed to stand, this article opens up the door for free advertising touting the product line of all private business enterprises. It constitutes a gross abuse of Wikipedia. Gregory Watson

• Delete. The AfD nomination was not complete, so I completed it. I comfortably agree with the nominator's standpoint. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 07:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Travelbird 08:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete spam advertising. Wooyi 20:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Creator Comment I don't why this article qualifies for AFD. There are over 160 pages about cycling manufacturers many smaller than Industry Nine. It has been reported on in independant reliable sources, including the most recent Dirt Rag and fairly recently in Mountain Bike Magazine. It is a large brand sold in hundreds of stores. I can see that it will need work to be a good article, and that's why its open to the public for merciless editing. I'll put in citations from those articles if the result is keep. Also, it's possibly worth noting that the nominator has (impropery) nominated almost every page i've created for AFD because I nominated an article of his that was deleted as neologism. Goodnightmush 03:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• weak delete unless notability is shown and sourced. Can you find outside sources, such as product reviews to show the the product is considered N in its specialty? DGG 08:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll add several of the independent sources before the debate ends. Just need to get them together. Might be a day. Goodnightmush 18:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Sources. I've added sources in the external links section of the article showing the notability of the company. For instance: Review at Dirt Rag Goodnightmush 02:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless multiple reliable sources confirming the claims of notability are provided per WP:V. Nuttah68 13:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling#Case study in constructive dispute resolution for an earlier dispute about a cycling-related page. We resolved that dispute by trans-wiki'ing the unencyclopedic portions of Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais to Bicycling Wiki. --Teratornis 20:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Very poorly sourced - we can't turn WikiPedia into a PR agency NBeale 10:57, 2 March 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 07:48Z

[edit] Producer Israel

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

Image:Muggggggg-1.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

This person in question does not seem to pass WP:NOTE, because there are no independent, multiple works attributed to him. This seems to be a promotional article of a person, which would defeat WP:NPOV and WP:COI. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 08:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Non-notable, and most likely a vanity page. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 20:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Vbd | (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not useing this as a promotion i'm just telling the people what i do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.61.31.105 (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep There is no promotional stuff in this article
• Speedy delete A7/G11, and per nom. Leuko 07:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete fails WR:MUSIC, WP:BIO and WP:CORP depending on how you read the article. Nuttah68 13:18, 28 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 02:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Special rights

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

Unnecessary content fork/POV fork from LGBT social movements. Fireplace 08:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or transwiki - this article does not have much to say about special rights other than a definition. Either it should go to Wiktionary (if it is notable, which I'm not sure it is) or just be deleted. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The term is used often enough to be considered notable. I've removed a decent chunk of the text than made seem like it was only applied to LGBT right. It is no longer a POV fork. Koweja 16:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Koweja. The article needs work, but the term has application beyond LGBT issues. It's widely used in relation to all kinds of affirmative action, civil rights, and hate crime debates. PubliusFL 16:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Koweja and PubliusFL. The article needs to be expanded a lot, but is worth keeping. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 20:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Koweja and PubliusFL. The term has general applicability and any orientation towrad LGBT issues has been removed by Koweja. -- Black Falcon 21:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, term has been in somewhat wide use for a long time. Dragomiloff 01:06, 28 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. Good work, people. DS 18:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Svalbard and Jan Mayen

• Delete. There is no such thing. Svalbard and Jan Mayen are two distinct parts of Norway, they are never treated as the same. They already have their separate articles. Note also the conspicuous absence of any such page at no: and nn:. Dagnabit 08:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Even though Google does give plenty of hits on the phrase, these two things are not well connected in any way. Such "and" subjects are difficult to cover meaningfully without duplication when we already have separate articles giving reasonable coverage, and disambiguation just seems meaningless as was illustrated at this AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. All meaningful information is already present in the separate articles, thus leaving us with an article which itself admits to being tenuous ("two separate parts of Norway" and the fact that they are linked only by a piece of "trivia"). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The article explains the rationale for keeping it: there apparently is an ISO 3166 country code "SJ" which stands for "Svalbard and Jan Mayen"; as a result there is also an assigned Internet domain set, .sj, with the same name. Someone seeing this code and not having heard of Svalbard and/or Jan Mayen may enter "Svalbard and Jan Mayen" into Wikipedia, and the search needs to lead the user to an article. Redirecting to either Svalbard or Jan Mayen would be inappropriate as the code relates to both locations and there is no basis for choosing the redirect target as between them. Accordingly, the short article we have is the best solution. Newyorkbrad 19:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the .sj page. Dagnabit 20:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That is appreciated, but it still doesn't address the need for an article on "Svalbard and Jan Mayen" in case people enter that query. People from locations far from Norway may not have heard of either place, and they may see the phrase and think "where the heck is that" and should get an article in response to the query. Newyorkbrad 21:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please cite the existence of "Svalbard and Jan Mayen". Dagnabit 21:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Will do: [21], [22], [23], [24]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.147.229 (talk • contribs)

There is no evidence that "Svalbard and Jan Mayen" exists separately from Svalbard and Jan Mayen on those pages. They are just long lists with various misinformation. The UN is plain wrong. Please cite reliable sources. Dagnabit 22:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the UN considered an "unreliable source", sir? Most sources will tell you that Svalbard and Jan Mayen were administered together from the 1920ies up until 1994. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.147.229 (talk • contribs)

The UN is certainly a reliable source that it is a term, even if the term is wrong, we can have an article explaining that the term is wrong, which is what we have. However can you please provide a source for your last assertion, that says they were "administered together from the 1920's until 1994"? If that is truly the case, it should settle it: if nothing else, it is legitimate as a historical entity. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

All right, sure: According to dates retrieved from this source Jan Mayen has been administered as follows:

1930-1994: by the governors of Svalbard

Since 1995: by the governors of Nordland County

This source quotes the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (on page 127) as stating that "Norway has restricted sovereignty on Svalbard (but not on Jan Mayen).

This is another source that briefly explains the current (i.e. post-1994) administration of Jan Mayen.

So, perhaps this reversion should also be overturned? 213.113.147.233

• Keep though make it more clear it's a disambiguation page. FrozenPurpleCube 19:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Newyorkbrad. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 20:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the .sj page. Dagnabit 21:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or redirect. Either keep per Newyorkbrad and clarify disambiguation per FrozenPurpleCube or redirect to .sj. -- Black Falcon 21:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. While I understand the two places are distinct parts, the term is used in ISO and many international documents. I agree with the points made by Newyorkbrad that there needs to be an article to explain "Svalbard and Jan Mayen". I think we can improve the current article to stress that the places are not administered together (see United States Minor Outlying Islands and for a similar situation). And finally, .sj is simply the ccTLD given to S&J, they're not the same either. Redirecting to .sj would likely confuse the reader more. Chanheigeorge 00:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

See also Scattered islands in the Indian Ocean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.147.229 (talk • contribs)

• Strong delete. Nonsense article. There is no such thing. This is like lumping Los Angeles and Dallas in an article, that's how close and closely related these islands are. TexasWalkerRanger 14:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. 129.241.71.164 11:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Please note that the article is not about the islands: the intro sentence says "Svalbard and Jan Mayen is a statistical designation". -- Black Falcon 17:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. For someone who knew almost nothing about the subject other than having seen the name on globes, rather near the top, I found the article quite informative. It explains the situation clearly, and answered several questions that I had. It's a shame to think that someone doesn't want me to read this information because of some nationalistic pov. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't follow the reasoning here. Nobody's trying to prevent anyone from reading about Svalbard or Jan Mayen. What people are arguing about, though, is whether it makes sense to have an article on the two of them together. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm talking about the encyclopedic information and links that are actually on this page, that are not present on any other pages. Why destroy access to that information, that may be of historical interest, for purely political considerations? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
      • • I still think that's an overreaction. The information (such as it is) can be moved to the pages on both islands if this article is deleted. Nobody's trying to "destroy access" to anything at all. I also totally fail to see where these "political considerations" are. As far as I can tell, the arguments are based on the validity or lack thereof of the designation, not politics. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Given that it is a statistical designation used by the UN and many others, it would not hurt to have a semi-disambiguatory article on the subject. The text of the article does not leave any room for confusion that the islands somehow belong together geographically or administratively. Please note that the article does not write that the phrase "Svalbard and Jan Mayen" refers to two islands, but rather that it is a statistical designation. -- Black Falcon 17:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. "Svalbard and Jan Mayen" may be a nonsensical misnomer, but it's a well-documented one (ISO 3166, etc.) which needs to be explained. —Psychonaut 02:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is the actual text of an ISO designation[25], the designation being the subject of the article, not the two separate areas - Sjakkalle is incorrect in suggesting that this is an "and" article . This might be made more clear in the article, to avoid the appearance that it is the name of a governmental administrative district or the like, emphasize Norwegian sovreignty, etc., or the whole article might be named something like "Svalbard and Jan Mayen (ISO designation)". Presumably Svalbard required a separate code because in some cases organizations would need to code for it separately, probably due to the signatory rights of the Svalbard Treaty. An interesting tidbit found here and perhaps suitable for inclusion in the article:

Since Svalbard was given a separate code in the ISO list, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs wanted to make it represent both Jan Mayen and Svalbard...An attempt to change the name of the ISO entry from ‘Svalbard and Jan Mayen’ to ‘Svalbard’ failed because the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not approve. - David Oberst 06:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Naturally, not to rehash the separate island articles, but to address the designation that is apparently used. A new article title (as suggested above) would be helpful to make this more clear. --Van helsing 13:41, 2 March 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. --Wizardman 03:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Legion Baseball in Wisconsin

It's actually a shame there isn't an article on American Legion baseball in general. However, I can't see a reason for this article to exist. American Legion ball is on the same level as Little League, and I can't see having state by state articles for that. Except for copy editing and adding cats, the article hasn't been edited in a year, and the only real contributor is the original author. That leads me to believe this will never be more than the chart-without-context it is now. Only two mainspace pages link to it. Djrobgordon 08:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related article, which is nearly identical and was written by the same user:

American Legion Baseball in Minnesota (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Merge info from both into an article on American Legion baseball. Better than nothing. bd2412 T 12:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If I'd come across these charts in an article on American Legion baseball, I probably would have deleted them as an unencyclopedic. The truth is, state by state tournament results just aren't that important. WP doesn't have state championship results for High school football or Amateur Athletic Union basketball, and I don't think we should. --Djrobgordon 17:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic. I have lived in Janesville, one of the champions, for most of my life, and I've never heard of this; maybe it's been up on the letter sign outside the Legion hall, but this seems unimportant even per WP:LOCAL. If the team is still active, it certainly isn't talked about much, so I assume it's of interest mainly to Legionnaires and their families. --Dhartung | Talk 20:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, no context given or assertion of importance. –Pomte 00:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brandon Schmitter

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

Not notable. Nog Google hits. Is not famous. Webstite is not even up yet (see talk page) Sander123 08:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO. Darkspots 11:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing that shows reliable non-trivial secondary sources Alf^Photoman 01:12, 27 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liselott Persson

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

Non-notable (at least outside of Sweden). I have been unable to find any English-language biographical information on her with which to expand this stub. Also, see comments here. Vbd | (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support If it can't be expanded it should be scrapped, and I can't find anything on her in any of the foreign language wikipedias. Lord Pheasant 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 12:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Erling Persson. Although lack of English language sources should not preclude inclusion of the genuinely notable, the subject would not appear to be notable outside of having inherited father's shareholding. Ohconfucius 07:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, let's see, several non-trivial secondary sources, referenced i.a.w. WP:V, the only foot we have to stand on for deletion is I Don't Like It. I.a.w. the rules it should be Keep Alf^Photoman 01:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO. A trivial mention in the Forbes rich list and a local paper reporting that does not provide any reliable sources of which the person the article is about is the subject. Nuttah68 13:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment being in the Forbes Rich List is only a little different to being listed in any other directory, which Wikipedia is not. We need better sources which attest to her notability. Ohconfucius 03:45, 1 March 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 CSD A7. See also the deletion log for Nicktropolis. – Steel 19:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicktropolis (online game)

Notability of the game is not established, reads like an advertisement Alex Bakharev 08:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Concur with nom. No assertion of notability, no references. A Train ^{take the} 22:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 06:08, 25 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexandria Potomac Little League

Alexandria Potomac Little League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An article about a NN recreational youth league. As long as it goes on, the article never attempts to assert notability. I did a Google search, which yielded a few mentions in local newspapers, but nothing more than scores and announcements. Apparently this page has been deleted before. Maybe we should consider locking the page, if the result is delete. Djrobgordon 09:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Originally listed with first nomination. I have split this out into its own nomination page and have fixed all the appropriate links. The first nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandria Potomac Little League -- saberwyn 22:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as no claim to notability or as a re-post if applicable. Either way, fails WP:CORP. Nuttah68 13:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete CSD G11. Most edits were done by APLL2004 (obvious acronym, single purpose account) and much of the article is written in the first person. Nothing in the article asserts any notability beyond any of the thousands of other youth sports organizations in existence. Caknuck 10:08, 4 March 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 07:46Z

[edit] Lists of surnames

Note that this is not a renomination. The previous set of surname lists were successfully deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames; these are more that were just transwikied to Wiktionary.

(View AfD)

List of Irish surnames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Hungarian surnames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Indian family names (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Indian surnames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

List of Scottish surnames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WP:WINAD. These articles are merely lists of names belonging to a particular language or culture (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so they have been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted. There is strong precedent for this kind of deletion; recently, all lists of given names have been moved to Wiktionary and deleted.

• See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman praenomina, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Modern Greek given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish given names Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Swedish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latvian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kurdish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hispanic surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of hypocoristics, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of counterparts of given names, etc.

Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 09:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all as indiscriminate lists of information, just like all the other surname lists. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 20:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per justified transwiki. All content is currently at Category:Surname appendices. -- Black Falcon 22:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Bigtop 02:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. Indiscriminate lists, not suitable for an encyclopedia. utcursch | talk 14:47, 25 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 07:42Z

[edit] Lovewrecked Posters and Movie Stills/Production Images

Lovewrecked Posters and Movie Stills/Production Images (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Image:Whyme.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Cheesymilk.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Reallyugly.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Whatever.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Pretzelbag.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Sillyhat.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Bynespeople.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Idiotsinlove.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Uglybynes.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Discalalovewrecked.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Byneslovewrecked.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

The following images not deleted since they are used by the article Lovewrecked:

Image:Lovewrecked film.jpg

Image:Lovewrecked.jpg

—Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 07:45Z

Image gallery with stills from a movie. Its only purpose is to serve as a repository of non-free images, which are not used for "critical analysis" (or are far too many to serve that purpose) and hence don't qualify as fair use. Delete page and all images hosted on it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. bd2412 T 12:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as copyvio. Koweja 20:20, 24 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 02:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secret Service codenames

Secret Service codenames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not notable and no WP:RS, Contested Prod DXRAW 09:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Perhaps the article could be better sourced, but it is useful information I would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Improve the article, but don't delete it. Johnn 7 10:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Useful to have this data in one place, though it needs to be linked and catted so people can actually find it. --Groggy Dice T | C 14:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Needs better sourcing, but that should be relatively easy to find. Agree with the above two editors - this is useful reference information and it makes sense for it to have its own article. JavaTenor 17:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP:USEFUL is not a valid criterion for inclusion. Otto4711 22:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic , IMO, and now sourced by recent edits. A Train ^{take the} 22:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The source that is being used lists a TV Program codename for Queen Elizabeth II That shows how it does not pass WP:RS DXRAW 23:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I believe the discussion here is about whether this is encyclopedic or not. If it is poorly sourced, that should be fixed, but it isn't a critera for deletion. Johnn 7 19:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The point i'm trying to make is that it the sources is incorrect and thus should be removed leaving something which is unsourced and also thus leaving nothing there so in a nutshell there is no article. DXRAW 20:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, but not per nom. This is at the moment just a list, and not a useful source of information on things such as how the codenames are given or when they are given. However, I am certain that a point like "some of the information in this article is wrong" isn't a reason to delete it, as that's not what WP:RS says. It says that reliable sources must be found. So ignore the WP:RS part of the prod nomination. Wittyname 21:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but expand it. It could be a useful and interesting list. Kolindigo 07:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a list, but a list is valid WP content (as opposed to WP:NOT#IINFO). The topic itself ("why is this information collected together?") here isn't OR (I just added some more cites that Secret Service actually does codenames, not just a Hollywood construct) and the scope is explicit and well-defined. DMacks 18:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • ...but rename/move. On further thought, if this is primarily a list page (as opposed to a page about Secret Service operations that happens to include some examples), it should probably be named List of Secret Service codenames. DMacks 07:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per reasons given so far. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. These are kind of obscure, but interesting and I believe worthy of inclusion. I have a book somewhere with more of these in them, I'll add them later on, perhaps. They have codes for more than just people. --UsaSatsui 10:13, 27 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. Although the discussion below is not favourable, the author has made a genuine and thorough attempt to source the articles, and to assert the notability of the subjects, toward the end of this discussion. I conclude that the reasons for nomination are now no longer relevant, and I thank JonHarder for helping the author during the debate. - Richardcavell 22:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animated Hero Classics

Animated Hero Classics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Animated Stories from the Bible (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Animated Stories from the New Testament (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

K10C: Kids' Ten Commandments (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bump from speedy. Non-notable animated series. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-18 07:38Z

• Delete all - notability has not been established for this animated series. There is evidence of conflict of interest with the Nest Famly — 65.166.221.68 (talk · contribs) and possibly X1a4muse (talk · contribs) — adding links to the for-sale parts of the Nest Family website. The article seems to have become more a vehicle for advertising than an informative article. These series can simply be mentioned in the Richard Rich (director) article, without the long lists of individual episodes. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 15:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all - articles don't establish notability, COI issues. Mentioning them at Richard Rich (director) is sufficient. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Adjust if necessary but to not delete - These series have been available for years and are very popular in the home educator and public school and library envirnment. Many teachers, parents, children and others doing research on the male and female heroes for acamedic purposes might want to know that there are video portrayals of those characters. Since many other children's movie series IMDB listings are included in Wikipedia it seemed appropriate to add those links here. The "long list" of titles has been here for some time, a couple folks (myself included) just recently added the links to IMDB. If ther are specific comments or links that you object to which you belive to be "vanity" or "adverstising" let's delete those - - but let's not remove the entire selection and therefore the ability for kids, teachers and parents that are researching these topics, such as Harriett Tubnman, Geoerge Washingotn, Moses or John the Baptist from finding IMDB references to additional resources.

Also, if you think this one is "advertising" then take a look at the Veggie Tales wikipedia citation for comparision. That citation describes nearly every episode indeetail, the actors etc. These sites just link to the IMDB.—Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryHero (talk • contribs) 20:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - It would be helpful for you and others interested in preserving these articles to look at the proposed notability of films guideline and provide independent, reliable sources that establish notability. I think you should be able to come up with something. Perhaps Christianity Today or another prominent publication has reviewed them? When those sources are provided, I will consider switching my opinion to keep. I don't have a particular objection the the imdb links, but would like to see the article dominated by descriptive prose. As it stands, it is somewhat of a link repository (see WP:NOT). ✤ JonHarder ^talk 20:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - As you suggest,I will look into the guidelines and revisit the content. But off the cuff, just so you know, these films are used regulalry for research, homework, lesson plans, etc. by teachers and students. The series and individual titles have received mutiple awards including the family approved seal from the Dove Foundation, The Parent's Choice Foundation award and the National Educational Media Association award, the "Award of Excellence" from the Film Advisory Board, the Director's Choice Award from Early Childhood News, they are endorsed by KIDS FIRST!, and received the highest rating from Practical Homeschooling. These educational movies are used in over 60,000+ public schools & libraries, 100,000+ churches of all Christian denominiations, by counteless home educators, and are streamed into public schools by Discovery Education's United Media Streaming group. They are a great tool for kids researching the heroes of history (Biblical and secular) covered by the series. As you suggest, I will look at the [WP:NF|proposed notability of films guideline]]to see how best to add more content and make it clear that these series and the individual movies are a serious research and teaching tool. Thank you again for the suggestion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HistoryHero (talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell ^talk 10:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Is notability now established? - As requested, I have added more information and background content about the series, its genesis, purpose and the reviews and awards it has garnered. Thank you again for your suggestions.HistoryHero 14:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The main problem now, as I see it, is that the information in the article needs to be sourced... where was this information found (what books, magazine/newspaper articles, reviews, etc...) If that can be added to the articles, per Wikipedia:Attribution, the odds of these articles being kept shoot up. -- saberwyn 23:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

    Things actually have taken a step backwards. On at least three of the articles, there are copyright problems. The new text that was lifted directly from commercial promotional material. The copied parts need to come out immediately or this becomes a speedy delete. Once that is corrected, the sources need to be provided, as stated above. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 01:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Clarification re attribution The story outlines were taken directly from the video sleeves. Looking at the attribution rules and other examples on Wikipedia, it seems that if I add a foootnote to the Story/Plot Outline section which attributes the source of the outline to the video sleeve and the video distributor all should be okay. Correct? HistoryHero 02:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  Basically the material needs to be rewritten in your own words. Borrowing complete sentences or rearranging borrowed phrases without permission is considered a copyright violation. Right now it is important to list the independent sources for the parts that assert notability; expanding the text in your own words can come after this AfD is settled in favor of the articles. When the references are added, I will consider changing my opinion to keep. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 16:00, 25 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orchestrator (strategy)

Orchestrator (strategy) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Rules of engagement (strategy) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Prime Directive (strategy) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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

Bumped from the COI noticeboard. Non-obvious but pure corporate vanity, as the creator Mike Cline (talk · contribs) is vice president of the company who made this stuff up (you're going to have to trust me on this one, as the evidence conveniently disappeared while it was on the noticeboard). John Warden is the president. Sources are self-published, notability is scarce. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prometheus Process. MER-C 11:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments from creator of articles

Please consider my comments on discussion page--Mike Cline 14:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

_{I have moved his comments here - some may not think to look on the AFD talk page CosmicPenguin (Talk) 18:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)}

My name is Mike Cline, I indeed work for a company that teaches and practices the concepts the four articles up for deletion embody. [26] I created the articles in good faith well before the COI was raised. Once the COI was raised I acknowledged it and ceased any work on the articles—therefore they are indeed incomplete and at this point, poorly referenced. The first deletion comment states—“of the company that made this stuff up.” That is not only untrue, but shows a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter of the articles. All these terms are widely used in the context of strategy and have long histories. For example the idea of Strategic Campaign was first introduced by Sun Tzu in “The Art of War. (6th Century BC). At the simplest level, google searches for the terms when associated with the word “strategy” return a remarkable number of hits

• Orchestration (strategy) (749,000+)
• Prime Directive (strategy) (77,000+)
• Rule of Engagement (strategy) (10,000+)
• Strategic campaign (63,000+)

Below are just a few specific references that use terms in the context of strategy.

• The Air Campaign - Online
• PERFORMANCE OF THE B–2 BOMBER IN THE KOSOVO AIR CAMPAIGN
• How To Command and Control a War
• Evolution of Air Power
• The Eagle in the Desert
• The Changing eStrategy Context

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell ^talk 10:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Other comments
• Keep per Mike Cline. Jtrainor 02:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all as per nom ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete The concepts themselves are certainly notable, and may or may not be worth real articles--they are surely covered in a number of places on WP--but not in the present context. Since the articles talk about them primarily in terms of the services provided by the company, principally the book Winning In FastTime, apparently published for the company by a vanity press, they are all primarily advertising. An attempt to piggyback commercial spam on dictdefs. DGG 04:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I checked the history for each one and read each one. What was that term MER-C used recently ... Vanispamcruftisement! (a.k.a. WP:VSCA.) Perfect. — Athænara ✉ 12:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per DGG. Perhaps valid articles could be written on this topic, but this is not it. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Articles can clearly be re-written with NPOV. Subjects are notable per references provided.--65.255.197.162 03:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve subjects notable enough --RockerballAustralia 08:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. IF someone can rewrite the articles in a context beyond advertising one company and product by the end of this debate AND provide reliable sources I am prepared to reconsider. However, the sources have to be about the subject, clearly discussing the theory, unlike those given above so far which appear to be random pages generated by entering the title into Google. Nuttah68 14:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please --Oceanside 21:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Keep these articles. All of the above are notable strategy topic, and can be improved to NPOV status easily. They are well researched and are a great example of strategic planning in action as well as in concept. I find them to be very sound

• Delete the article is trivial, says nothing and is very poorly sourced. If there is something useful, merge. it looks like an attempt to plug the book. NBeale 11:00, 2 March 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. Bucketsofg 02:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Year 10,000 problem

Year 10,000 problem was nominated for deletion on 2004-11-09. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Year 10,000 problem.

Year 10,000 problem was nominated for deletion again on 2006-09-15. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Year 10,000 problem (2nd nomination).

Year 10,000 problem (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article is blatantly speculative (WP:CRYSTAL) and full of original research (WP:OR). The only cited source is a dead link, and using Archive.org I found only a single passing mention, which I don't think is sufficient to establish notability. And none of the external links seem to be to serious articles, so they can't be considered reliable sources. Redxiv 10:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep possibility of OR doesn't mean that the article will stay that way. It's a real problem, right? Keep it. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's a speculative "problem" that might occur in seven thousand nine hundred and ninety-three years. And even then, it could only occur if (1) the Gregorian calendar is still in use at that time (not a certainty) and (2) today's computers are still operational (WP:CB comes to mind). But the accuracy of the speculation isn't even the issue. WP:CRYSTAL tells us that we only have articles of future events if they're both notable and verifiable. Speculation is innately unverifiable; if it could be verified it would cease to be speculative. Redxiv 11:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced, speculative article. (The only "reference" link appears to be dead.) —Doug Bell ^talk 10:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete None of the sources provided are reliable. This may be a real thing, but without sources, there's not a single piece of information that can be kept. For what it's worth, two of the first three Google hits for "year 10,000 problem" are this page and its answers.com mirror. 416 hits overall. --Djrobgordon 10:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This is certainly a real thing. It's the type of thing a computer programmer learns about when he learns "common" mistakes. Also, the fact that the top two hits are WP type articles is true about many searches I make in Google these days -- and that's a good thing! - grubber 19:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per Doug and per somewhat surprising nomination :) Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm an inclusionist, but not that much of an inclusionist. Redxiv 11:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I read this article long before it was nominated and has interesting information. It has links that work, I dont see what the problem is! Its also a fairly lengthy article on a future problem which will happen. its not crystal ball stuff, this will happen if something is not done - granted it wont be in any of our lifetimes (unless we can live that long). Can I also note although this is the articles third noimation, the gfirst was back in 2004 when the article may not have been as detailed? --PrincessBrat 12:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, or maybe (just maybe) merge into Year 2000 bug. The reason you can't find references via google is that it's probably more properly called the "Year 10,000 bug". Here are just a few I found with one search: [27] [28] [29]. -- Plutor ^talk 12:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • None of these pages are useful references (to put it mildly). —xyzzy_n 23:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. --JuntungWu 12:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- I nominated it back in the year 2004 and was surprised it was kept then. Hopefully by the Year 10,000 Christianity will have been abolished and so we won't even use this system of years anyway. Astrotrain 15:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment NPOV isn't just for articles: your opinion of Christianity is irrelevant to this AfD. -- Richard Daly 02:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep my gut reaction was to delete, until I remembered that I often find Excel 1900 dates really annoying because they don't go back to BC. I presume anyone dealing with software for astronomy, or anyone holding a database which extends scientific predictions for planets beyond 10,000 would find this a problem. There will be a controversy whether to use 4, 5 even 6 digits because some people do have data for predictions that far ahead and there will be a problem. There may even be some people producing equipment that is needed to last this long (nuclear repositories, space craft leaving the solar system), so there may be people alread having to deal with the Y10K problem - bit of a bummer since the world ends this century when all the fossil fuel runs out - but we can't all predict the future! Mike 15:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I just have to say that anyone designing such a special-purpose database that doesn't know how to create a database that will allow dates going as far into the future as they wish should get another job.  :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Real problem which has some reasonably notability to it, but it could use some clean-up. Might be redirected to a page discussing date issues in computers in general though, which could combine this page, y2k, y2038 and any others... FrozenPurpleCube 19:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a real concept. I'm not sure it's really a "problem" per se, but... Even if an article is OR, that is not grounds for deletion, merely rewrite. - grubber 20:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Assertion of notability without proof and practically unreferenced, failing WP:A. Software has been around for 170 years (if we include the analytical engine) and this problem won’t be relevant for a couple of millennia. Anything that has to handle data in that order of magnitude today can simply use signed long long counts of milliseconds or microseconds since 1970-01-01T00:00:00+0000 and avoid this problem (along with the year 2038 problem). This topic has no practical relevance except in cases of careless engineering and no recognisable theoretical relevance at all. —xyzzy_n 22:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It is not our role as WP editors to speculate on how likely this event is to take place. It has received coverage from multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources, and therefore meets WP:N. I don't see why the "External links" were discarded as "not serious" and no reason was given. If one search did not return sufficient results, try others like "Year 10,000 problem", "Year 10,000 bug", "Y10K problem", and "Y10K bug". That gives between 1920 and 4306 ghits (the latter figure being the sum of all four, although there are bound to be duplicates). -- Black Falcon 22:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Question to the ‘keep’ people: what exactly do you suggest to use for references? None of the links in the current article are seriously usable except perhaps to prove that some (but not many) people are concerned about undefined problems to occur on Y10K. —xyzzy_n 23:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Would a New York Times reference be sufficient? [30] --Richard Daly 02:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That’s a letter to the editor. It’s not usable as a source for the article. —xyzzy_n 02:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I'm not up on the specific policy WRT this, but how about a WSJ article in earnest[31], or an academic paper [32]? -- Richard Daly 03:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
      • That’s a search page, and they’re both the same. Using your query, I found only one article, of which there is a copy at [33]. The only part dealing with Y10K is ‘the five-digit date convention is needed to avoid the dreaded Y10K problem’ (which is misleading anyway). If I missed something, can you link to the ‘preview’ pages or cite author, date, journal and title (or equivalent information)? In general, Wikipedia:Attribution is the policy that requires sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources is a major guideline that advises on the quality of individual sources. Wikipedia:Notability is another guideline that sets a lower bound for the abundance of sources on an article’s topic. —xyzzy_n 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Not my night, apparently. The academic article I intended to link to is from the ACM.[34] With these links I am only seeking to demonstrate notability and address the crystal-ball issue. Specifically, Y10K was discussed as an issue in 1999 as one of the consequences of the Y2K fix. --Richard Daly 04:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Sorry, but that’s not an academic article and it’s not from the ACM. The RFC papers document and standardise current practices, protocols and formats related to networks, including the Internet. RFC 2550 is part of the fine tradition of publishing joke RFCs on April Fools’ Day (see e. g. [35] for a nice list, but be warned that some knowledge of the field is necessary to appreciate them fully). Basically, it’s a joke, written by three guys at Compaq who probably spent that year digging through very old code looking for Y2K bugs. In case I’m not being convicing, note that the RFC is identified as being in ‘Category: Stinkards Track’ or simply read it with attention to the details. I’m sorry I’m not being more constructive, but I am still convinced that Y10K is a non-issue. —xyzzy_n 04:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Delete I have been persuaded. --Richard Daly 04:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Redxiv/Doug Bell -- Ratarsed 09:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think our civilization will last till 10000 CE. Either cyborgs will replace us, or we will be back in the Middle Ages Al-Bargit 17:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Even though it's probably not a legitmate problem, it is a legitimate topic. It deserves an article, in my opinion. - grubber 18:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • What’s the topic, then? —xyzzy_n 19:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge a summary onto a page about problems with computer date-related problems. (This can also include the 2038 and a summary of the Y2K pages.) — RJH (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I've done a first pass cleanup. I'm a bit inclusionist so please edit away. New references are the Kermit daemon (I suspect jokingly) reserves a leading blank for Y10K in the database date field (have added a reference for that). The g77 runtime also refer to the problem (have added a reference). I have updated the Wikipedia April fools page for 1999 to include the RFC 2550 (and RFC 2549 and 2551) too as an aside. Still need to add in the broken y2k references if it's relevant. Ttiotsw 23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Well, it looks a bit better now. I'm not entirely sure it actually merits its own article, though; I like RJH's idea of merging into a combined page for computer date problems. Oh, and I really never thought I'd see the words "delete per Redxiv/Doug Bell". LOL. Redxiv 23:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Speculation, no verifiable info --Milo H Minderbinder 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It may not currently be verified but it IS verifiable. - grubber 23:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That would be easier to believe if you'd add some sources verifying it. Without them, how do we know it is verifiable? This article has been around for years and had previous AfD's - there certainly has been plenty of time to look for sources. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Doug Bell, xyzzy_n. I'm not convinced that Year 2038 problem should be a stand-alone either, but that's smergeable per RJH. Alternatively, we could merge this into Computing-related April Fool's jokes or something like that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This article is not a joke. This issue represents a real (and common) programming mistake. - grubber 23:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Year 2000 problem, which I'll probably do anyway if this gets deleted. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 22:33, 2 March 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 02:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israel Cannan

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

This had a notability warning, which I have since removed. I believe that this person is notable, however I'm adding this to AFD to see what the community says. The reason he is notable is that he recorded the latest theme song for Home and Away, something that is extremely notable. After all, almost all Australians (and more than a few UK citzens) know this song in their head. Ta bu shi da yu 10:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Seems borderline to me, but I don't know enough about Aussie labels to tell whether his LP's legit or not. I'll defer to the native on this one. --Djrobgordon 10:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 10:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as is there is nothing by what any reader could verify this article, therefore fails WP:V. If appropriate sources and references are added change to Keep Alf photoman 14:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Found two independent online sources which support the article's notability. Plus enough online chatter to demonstrate that he is noticed sufficiently to qualify for WP notability threshold. Probably should be tagged for more sources and cleanup. --Kevin Murray 14:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability established by sources added by Kevin Murray. If Ta bu shi da yu withdraws the nomination, I think this could be a case for early closure with "consensus keep". -- Black Falcon 22:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have no problems with it being closed early. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I have wikified the article and rewritten it based on Kevin Murray's references. I have changed the reference from Home and Away from recording the theme to appearing in the show which I could find sources for. Capitalistroadster 00:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought the theme song was sung by the Robertson Brothers? He's notable even as an actor, though, so that's not going to make much difference. JROBBO 01:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I've done a bit of tidy up work. John Vandenberg 01:29, 25 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NWA Upstate

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

Prod removed with no concerns addressed. Small non-notable independent wrestling promotion, no third party sources, fails WP:CORP One Night In Hackney 10:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable, failing both WP:Notability primary criterion and WP:CORP. A Train ^{take the} 22:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's part a of huge conglomerate in the NWA

• Comment The NWA hasn't been a huge conglomerate for many years, and even if it still was that doesn't make this promotion notable. Is every branch of McDonald's or KFC notable because they are part of huge conglomerates? One Night In Hackney 01:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep-But this is not McDonald's or KFC ONIH, this is a wrestling promotion and even so each promotion is genuine in it's self

--72.225.255.18 01:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps you'd like to show us some evidence the promotion meets notability guidelines DJ BatWave? One Night In Hackney 00:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - This promototion is not simply a local wrestling promotion. It pulls in top independent wrestling talent from all around, including Abyss (TNA Wrestling champion), Chris Candido (former ECW and NWA champion), and Teddy Hart. It also sponsors an annual tag team tournament that featues some of the top tag teams on the independent scene.

• Comment Please can you show some evidence of meeting the notability guidelines, instead of presenting unsourced wrestlecruft? One Night In Hackney_IRA 17:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete it's non-notable, v poorly refed, and seems to be a commercial plug. NBeale 11:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn Booshakla 10:25, 3 March 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.