Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 25

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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?)} 00:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Stanton

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

Non-notable bio about a person who created a non-notable blog American Patriot 1776 22:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Despite claims that person was "mentioned" in newscasts, the only reliable source I could find was this one from Computerworld. I don't think it quite makes the notability cut. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - looks like an ego page to me. Aleta 05:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete In addition to the Computerworld article, there is this online post from a Seattle PI staffer. Still, the coverage is pretty weak. Since these sources don't give us much biographical information and are instead primarily about the blog and its "impact", this article would be better moved to CanGoogleHearMe.com, if kept. -SpuriousQ (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing to Weak Keep per The Age story from User:Thefungusinmymilk. I see it was also reported on by the Idaho Statesman. It's borderline, but now I lean toward keep. -SpuriousQ (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep just check it's alexa rating. Itake 23:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Alexa rankings are generally not sufficient to establish notability, except perhaps in extreme cases, and at about 80,000 this person's blog is not one of those. In its current form, this article does not seem to pass WP:BIO or WP:WEB. -SpuriousQ (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It was the fifth fastest growing website last week (don't know if it still is), when several TV stations aired coverage of Aaron's trip to California, a bunch of radio stations followed suit, he's been written about in Australia's largest newspaper, there's been a song written about him, and of course, he's currently doing business with Google though the details are scarce due to the restrictions of an NDA. He's notable, with TV, radio, web, entertainment and business coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.109.213 (talk • contribs)
  • Can you provide more specific citations for this coverage? The Google News search gives only two unique reliable sources, and when I checked LexisNexis and Newsbank, nothing came up (probably because the news is too recent). The nature of his business with Google—beyond successfully holding a meeting with someone there—is unknown and unverifiable. -SpuriousQ (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as insufficiently referenced There are some claims above of references for notability, but they're not in the article and haven't been verified yet. If multiple reliable independently published articles or interviews about the person are provided I'll reconsider my delete recommendation. Dugwiki 22:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've put some refs in article. -SpuriousQ (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems like a short lived thing, not that notable either. Isn't this rather for the news? Meaningful username 11:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Certainly worth Including. Aaron Stanton's journey and Blog was documented in one of Australia's leading newspapers (http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/listen-up-google/2007/03/01/1172338721875.html) and his story is being researched in my University (http://www.swinburne.edu.au) as an example of the power of the Web —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thefungusinmymilk (talk • contribs) 02:32, 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. Trebor 12:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jurassic Park cast members

List of Jurassic Park cast members (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Redundant. Every film has a cast list. WikiNew 21:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Abstain I abstain Cman 21:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  What was the point of commenting, then? Delete because this can easily be converted into prose into the film articles (as in, not every single cast member). ' 22:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The reason I created it was because the category was up for deletion, and the consensus for that and others like it was to replace with a list. PAK Man 22:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A category for deletion does not make a list keepable. This sounds like something that is usually outsourced to imdb with an external link. -- Ben 22:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. All three film articles have better cast listings anyway. Korranus 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Ben. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WilliamThweatt (talk • contribs) 01:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete as redundant to the film articles, List of characters in Jurassic Park, and the actor articles. The list doesn't usefully replace the category in this case. Pomte 02:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is better for the actual film articles. If one expands enough to warrant it's own article then fork it then (e.g., an Alan Grant article). - Denny 06:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Usually, it should be placed in the respective film articles, so I don't know why it needs a separate article--JForget 00:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Seems highly superfluous. Meaningful username 11:21, 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 Redirect to Daughtry (album). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:57Z

[edit] Home (Daughtry song)

Home (Daughtry song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non notable song, unsourced article, nothing can be said if the speculation is removed. Natalie 00:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete; as stated, if we removed the WP:CRYSTAL-balling, there's nothing in this article, and the song does not appear notable. --Haemo 00:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not even released.--Dacium 01:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Daughtry (album). There's yet to be a confirmed second single. It can be un-redirected when it is released, as it likely will be. GassyGuy 01:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Note that this article is about the song, not entirely the rumored single. The song was already on the album Daughtry (album). That being said, there's nothing to say about the song that can't be said in the album's article. If it is released as a single, then there would be reason to create an article for that single, but just having an article about the song isn't enough. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It can be covered in the album for now, until it gets more noteriety or released as a single. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 04:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unreleased, maybe it could be re-created when its nearer the time of its actual release.Tellyaddict 11:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep' the band and show ameircan idol are very notable and so this article should be kept. Smith Jones 16:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect Per redirect vote above. ThePurpleMonkey_{(talk•portal•contribs)} 18:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect Per above. Dfrg.msc 23:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not appear to meet any of the proposed Song notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per Jamie. Can be recreated if it ever becomes notable.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 01:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep again - its not fair that this article should be deleted just befcause it isn't notable yet you all damn know that it will be notable soon enough you should just leav eit be and stop deletionism. Smith Jones 01:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Vote stuck through to prevent double counting. Please do not vote more than once. Natalie 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • sory i didnt mean for it to be couned as another vote my mistake. ~~
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A1octopus 13:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect until officially confirmed as a single. The bit about the song being this season's American Idol loser's theme should definitely be incorporated into the Daughtry article in the meantime. - eo 02:34, 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 08:07Z

[edit] Jury Scrutiny model

Jury Scrutiny model (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Appears to be unsourced original research. Single author, tagged with {unreferenced} since July. No indication by the author as to any source for this. I couldn't find any obvious references to this out in the world. - David Oberst 00:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom - David Oberst 00:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete No notibility for the model is shown. Not verifiable either.--Dacium 01:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• 'Delete. No assertion or evidence of notability. No sources. --Shirahadasha 02:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article is original research and it could be considered as a move to wiktionary as its a definition.Tellyaddict 12:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Arnoutf 17:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original research essay.-- danntm ^T _C 21:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a political science professional, I have never heard of this term used for what is described. It gets no google hits other than Wikipedia mirrors (I know this isn't a criteria yet, but it does indicate notability). It is Original Research.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 01:31, 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 speedy delete per {{db-author}}--Wafulz 03:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inuyasha: Demon Tournament

Sorry about all this. I created this page, and I think in falls under the "unnotable" deletion clause. -Litefantastic 00:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment you can request deletion of a page you've created, provided you are the only major contributor, which you appear to be. Just tag the page with {{db-author}} and it will be deleted a lot faster than an AfD process. Natalie 00:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notible. fails WP:WEB etc.--Dacium 01:11, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grillionaire

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

This is a new term, not noted anywhere else. BankingBum 00:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NEO, a Google search brought up nothing relevent. TJ Spyke 00:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failing the policy on attribution, and as such, failing both the primary criterion on notability (as there are no sources to confirm the notability), as well as the guideline for neologisms. Kyra_~(talk) 00:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Its a neogolism--Dacium 01:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO. --Haemo 01:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion or evidence of notability. No sources. Fails WP:NEO. --Shirahadasha 02:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks reliable sources to support how this neologism is notable. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - things made up in school one day. - Richardcavell 03:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to grillion. John Reaves (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't find anything on Google. In response to the author's comments on the talk page: the domain "www.grillionaire.com" is for sale and therefore there is not actually such a site; Wikipedia is not "a source to people about words and their meanings," but rather an encyclopedia; Wikipedia is not "racist about trends that are happening anyway," but does include attributability as a core policy; and Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --N Shar 04:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Its an irrelevant definition and its Notability is lacking, it also fails WP:NEO.Tellyaddict 12:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above ThePurpleMonkey_{(talk•portal•contribs)} 18:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as an unsourced and unverified WP:NEO, see also WP:NFT.-- danntm ^T _C 21:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This must be some kind of joke. Korranus 22:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per Neologism. Daniel5127 | Talk 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Pile on. Dfrg.msc 23:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NEO. TonyTheTiger 23:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable neologism. - Denny 06:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete trash. I've never heard "grillion" used this way (and grillion redirects to a page that mentions the word in the context of casualties). JuJube 06:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. (Also a contested PROD.) FreplySpang 23:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Indefinite and fictitious large numbers, which grillion already redirects to. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentI would agree if the word were notable as a ficticious number, but there is no evidence that it is. Pointing to the Indefinite and fictitious large numbers article is just a way to skirt the neologism rules. //BankingBum 08:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC) ^$$
    • Comment redirects have very low notability requirements. And they're useful if anyone searches for the term. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:03, 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 No consensus to delete, default keep. Merge to Fishers, Indiana was suggested. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-03 08:10Z

[edit] The Artists' Studio

The Artists' Studio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local community theater Feeeshboy 01:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for now How about giving the author more than 5 minutes! the page was just created. If the place has reviews and mentions in big magazines/papers it might be notable enough. Give some time for the author to show it.Dacium 01:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If that seemed remotely likely, I wouldn't have nominated it. As it is, the only reason I didn't nominate it for speedy delete was the possibility of regional interest, but in reality, an article that's created without a claim to notability isn't likely to develop one. Feeeshboy 01:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's a small-town community theater, rather new - I can't see what notability it could have. I'm sure it is a fine place, but it doesn't need an article here. --Brianyoumans 01:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• 'Delete. No sources. Need sources with evidence of notability per WP:ORG to survive deletion scrutiny.--Shirahadasha 02:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now, at least, so I, as the starting author, can throw some more on it. A lookup on Google of The "Artists' Studio" Fishers (a look up of The Artists' Studio is too vague as many claim that or a variation of that name) gets about 13 thousand entries, which may seem insignificant, but a related article, Indiana Repertory Theatre, gets only about 58 thousand entries. Considering Indiana Repertory Theatre has existed much longer as a theatre, The Artists' Studio is apparently getting it's name out there. The Google search being said, I was unsure as to whether it really was Wikipedia worthy or not.

Reasons for keeping are: "Notability is not popularity" (This theatre has made an impact on theatre in Indiana being one of the few of it's kind to feature a more family setting on a regular basis, especially on classes on non-covered material as of yet [also known as: give it time]).

"Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this". . ."only of interest to [some group]". . ." (To those that do know it, which in context to the world is not many at all, this article could be of quite a bit of use in informing people about the theatre and history of itself. The fact this theatre is new should not detract from it's effect on the surrounding community, no matter how small you may consider it to be in the grand scheme of things)

"In order to have a neutral article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources" (This theatre has been featured in articles ranging from very local to statewide in Indiana, though many may not be published online.)

"Obscure content isn't harmful" (Just because you don't know it doesn't mean you need to get rid of it. It also doesn't mean YOU even need to read it, though it would be nice if you did when it was anywhere near ready :))

Reasons for deleting are: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." (An argument can definitely be made that this article is nothing more than a business entry, but the fact that there is a history, and that a decent size article can be made out of it, almost shoots this down.

"The subjective nature of notability is merely an issue of defining a guideline for it." (Clearly, if you don't agree with the selections I pulled above from WP:NOTE then you don't agree with keeping this article.)

But seriously, this article WAS given only SEVEN minutes before it was nominated for deletion. How about allowing a chance for anything other than a single edit (with only text and linking for that matter, not even tags, such as "stub", pictures, or even complete text/history, much less sources, etc.) before the final decision is made. After all, the classes the Artists' Studio provides and contributions to the surrounding area haven't been put in place. In fact, this article is only a fraction of what it could be, but creating a full article takes TIME. Even that section that was written took a fairly substantial amount of time. Enhanceddownloadbird 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep Are we strangling articles in the crib now? How was this article even found for AfD? Are editors combing through recent changes and killing new articles? This is distasteful. --Richard Daly 03:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment This article is not being considered for deletion because it is incomplete. It is being considered for deletion because it does not assert notability beyond a local level, and without some basic assertion of notability, there is no article. That's not something that takes time to develop. Basic notability should be evident from the start. That's my opinion, and you're welcome to yours, but uncivil comments are not necessary. Feeeshboy 03:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Apology I apologize for my uncivil tone. --Richard Daly 04:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for now to give time for the article to be properly put together, with no discrimination against re-nominating if it doesn't meet the notability guidelines, etc. 23skidoo 03:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - regardless of how fast this article was nominated, it is now on AfD and will be for 5 days. Enhanceddownloadbird, I strongly recommend that you take that time to provide sources for the article. If you don't provide sources, it is almost certain that this article will be deleted. You say above that the theater has been featured in statewide articles; it would be best if you could be as specific as possible (links to something online are clearly the most helpful, but even if the mentions aren't hosted online, someone might be able to check out any references you provide if you tell us where to look). References that are independent of the theater, high circulation, and specifically about the theater (rather than just mentioning it) are important. -- Jonel | Speak 03:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article is currently well referenced and easily passes Wikipedia:There is no deadline , Oops I mean it easily passes WP:N Good job to User:Enhanceddownloadbird for cleaning it up nicely. ( I found and added a couple references also) Jeepday 04:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the additional references, I was more than happy to add them in! And thanks for the pat on the back too! Nevertheless, back to work. Enhanceddownloadbird 04:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the (continuing) improvements by Enhanceddownloadbird. Also, it somehow strikes me as inappropriate to nominate for deletion an article that has existed only for a few minutes and which is not speedy-able. Adding it to one's watchlist, bookmarking it, contacting the author, or at most proposing it for deletion seem far better choices. -- Black Falcon 06:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The Google (UK) search results returned about half a million results, although some of these were for different locations, it notability is still high.Tellyaddict 12:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's a nicely referenced article and does indeed seem to pass the notability requirements. *Zelse81 20:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep In current form, should be kept. Dfrg.msc 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep If community high schools can sometimes be notable, then certainly community theaters can be--there are many fewer, they typically are important to a much larger area, and there ought to be sources. (The actual ghits for "Artist's Studio" + Indiana are 9,000, not 500,000, but a number of them are RS. )DGG 01:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the current version, but I don't agree with the criticisms of the original listing. Someone writing an article should store intermediate versions on his or her hard drive, not on Wikipedia, and post it only when it's ready. That saves everyone's time. JamesMLane t c 05:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Has likely legs, no reason to kill it. - Denny 06:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, looks like it will most likely be expanded with more citations added in the future. Smee 21:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep. My personal view is that this is a loathsome article, and it breaks my heart that an encyclopedia on which I work should cover such a trivial institution. I say that with explicit regard to its position in its local community: certainly it's important there, but in the broader scheme of artistic endeavour it is of no significance whatsoever, as a cursory reading of the numerous reviews referenced in the article makes very clear. Sadly, when I check the references it is easy to see that this article meets our criteria for notability: adequate references are there, and the subject of the article clearly meets WP:ORG. Thus, with a sigh, I have to say that under our current community guidelines this article should be retained. This article is one of the best examples of why we need to tighten up our notability criteria, but until we do, it should stay. WMMartin 13:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I am quite happy to rest upon WP:IGNORE here; this may technically meet notability requirements, but when one uses common sense, one sees that no real claim of notability is made or even really attempted in this article - it is just a small community theater of little or no interest to anyone outside the local area. The founders may have some slight notability themselves, but if so, they should have articles of their own. If this deserves a mention in Wikipedia, it is in the Fishers, Indiana article, like any other local institution per WP:LOCAL. --Brianyoumans 19:17, 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 Speedy deleted by Pilotguy, CSD A7. BryanG^(talk) 03:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phoebe Marie

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

Seems to be a vanity article. If this is a singer, I don't find anything about this person anywhere online Entheta 01:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Very few ghits, mostly either on myspace or unrelated to subject. Feeeshboy 01:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; conflict of interest and no reliable sources: only 25 ghits on "Phoebe Marie Arriaga", and MySpace and CD Baby (where anyone can publish) are neither reliable sources nor evidence of notability. Antandrus (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as stated by Feeeshboy. Stormbay 01:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - copyvio from [1]. So tagged. MER-C 01:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Need reliable sources showing evidence of notability per WP:BIO to avoid deletion. Currently there are no independent sources at all, all sources are from the subjects own web sites. --Shirahadasha 02:39, 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 no consensus. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curry chicken

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

There seems to be nothing encyclopedic to say about this dish other than that it exists, i.e. the mundane fact that chicken meat may be cooked with curry powder in a variety of ways, none of which are individually notable as far as I can see. (Come to think of it, might even be speediable under the letter of WP:CSD#A3, but seems too wordy for its spirit). The main interest of the article's creator seems to be to exhort the world to mind the subtle differences between "chicken curry" and "curry chicken"... –Henning Makholm 01:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Although some of your reasons for deletion may be thought about, The article has further been enhanced with a history section. In addition, your arguments for deletion also apply for various articles such as Roti, Aloo gobi, Fried_rice etc. This article has now some historical content. It seems the creator is a newbee, and thus It would be appropriate if we help the author by further adding to the article. I guess the best way is to, add the various cultural histories of the curry chicken dish. In addition, this article can not be added to the curry article because it is not a curry dish. This is a chicken dish, NOT merely a curry dish. In addition, the contents of this article is quite large, and it will become even larger when other lovers of the curry chicken dish from different culture backgrounds, add their own historical history of this dish.

• Sorry, I sometimes talk in the third person, when I am adamant in seeking justice. Thatopshotta 09:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
  • You are the creator, Thatopshotta (talk · contribs). There is no need to talk about yourself in the third person, and it is not a good idea to do so, because it can be construed as misleading.

Uncle G 19:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I agree, this is not an encyclopedia article, it is a quibble. --Brianyoumans 01:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. As a second reason for deletion, no reliably sourced, and hence no verification of the various distinctions the creator exhorts us to make. No idea if any of these distinctions represent a mainstream POV or not. --Shirahadasha 02:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out, to verification of the distinction between chicken curry and curry chicken is simple. If you look for recipes of the two dishes, they are summed up by what the article says. Nonetheless, the article has historical facts that are sourced, and is not merely distinguishing between curry chicken and chicken curry. The distinction is just there, to clarify the two dishes.Thatopshotta 02:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete:not an encyclopedia article or a cookbook article. Stormbay 03:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There's no encyclopedic value to this article except to point out that it exists. It's a wordy dictionary definition. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Also, this would not be eligible for CSD A3, that is for articles that have no content whatsoever, only links perhaps you meant A1-no context. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A3 does, however, allow for external links and "a rephrasing of the title". –Henning Makholm 03:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I do think there's a bit more information than is required to delete under A3. It's not a lot, but it's moot since we're discussing here at AfD - it can run its course. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to curry. John Reaves (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as OR or Redirect to curry. If deleting, do so without prejudice to proper (i.e., sourced and more encyclopedic) recreation. -- Black Falcon 06:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as valid search term to curry, which mentions chicken quite a few times with images. Pomte 08:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect per John Reaves, it does make me want some chicken though. TJ Spyke 08:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article is a little encyclopedic but not its overall notability is low, it also fails WP:NOT#IINFO.Tellyaddict 12:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to curry. I don't see any encyclopedic and sourced information in the article. Curry chicken is a popular dish in Asia, but it just needs a section in Curry. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 15:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Curry. There is something interesting there, but I think that should be merged into the curry article. Arnoutf 17:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect to curry, as per Arnoutf. Zelse81 20:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect This article gets us nothing that the curry article couldn't. --Gwern (contribs) 21:27 25 February 2007 (GMT) 21:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• I like this article As a native of India, I loved my chicken curry. As I travelled the world, I met many wonderful people. I got to taste this curry chicken dish, and I was extatic. The article has hit the point, about the subtle difference between curry chicken and chicken curry. But more than that, the historical section seems interesting. I will be doing research when I get the time, to find out some other culutural histories of curry chicken!! Great Article! --Mary from Canada —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.11.98.150 (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

• Keep or Merge There is legitimacy in there, which deserves to be preserved. Dfrg.msc 23:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia isn't a recipe book. Curry sufficiently covers prepared curry dishes. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There is a distinct, legitimate point in that article. I have been to many countries, US, Canada, France, England, India, Pakistan, Jamaica..., working temp-work, mostly as a part-time chef. I have noticed for example that when I cook for a Hindu or Pakistan community, we create the dishes with very few chicken and mostly curry. This is spread over rice, and used like Dahl. However, when I have cooked for Jamaican, and West Indian communities, we/I have prepared chicken by soaking it in a special curry sauce, and so on. I am pleased to see that this article points this subtle difference in these two dishes, and I hope it can remain. I must say, I shall try that Ultimate Curry Chicken recipe on the link provided, looks fantastic!! GobtaNIndia 07:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)GobtaNIndia

  After reading the discussion, I must say Aloo gobi and Fried_rice and Garam_masala and Chicken_tikka_masala (Also, chicken tikka massala picture on the link looks alot like chicken curry? But not curry chicken!) and many more articles I have noticed, all are similar to this Curry chicken article. All the points being made above apply to these articles also. Just a thought. | YaYa its Gobta 23:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Then it's possible that they should be nominated for deletion or merged into something else. Leebo⁸⁶ 02:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry, that's ludicrous. What one earth has Fried Rice got to go with Curry Chicken, apart from having a similar photo? As for the others, it would be like calling for an AfD on Cherry Pie because it's almost the same as Apple Pie. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I am sorry that your sorry, I think my explanation above gives reason what fried rice has to do with curry chicken. The point is, after reading these arguments above, saying "should be merged with curry article", then why is not "chicken tika masala" not merged with curry or masala. Why is "Garam Masala" not merged with masala. Why is "Aloo gobi" not merged with aloo, or gobi. That is the point. I say they should not be merged, and therefore this curry chicken should not be merged with curry. It deserves its own article, as those the articles stated in my statement. GobtaNIndia 07:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)GobtaNIndia

• Update Interesting Trivia, the curry chicken article continues to grow, with facsinating facts. There is no way in my opinion, this can fit under the curry category, but above all I continue to insist that it doesn't even belong in the curry section since it is a chicken dish. Also, it has become encyclopediac content with the new updates.

Sorry, but I am a newbee, and did you not tell me only post once under one comment? Leeba?

Thatopshotta 02:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You can post as many comments as you want, if you're responding to other comments, but don't put a Bold word at the beginning of more than one and not sign them as if you are two people voting. Leebo⁸⁶ 02:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete ...or redirect to curry as suggested. Curry goat is better anyway. - Denny 06:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
•  :: on further consideration, Keep. There seems to be precedence for this sort of article, and it looks sourceable (google for "curry chicken" plus news). I stand by my curry goat comment, however. - Denny 16:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep - there are lots of articles on single food types/items. It's a notable food, especially in the Caribbean where it is considered a major local dish not just in Trinidad, where almost half the population is Indian, but also in Jamaica, where the Indian population is small, and other islands where there has never been much of an Indian population at all. Merging it with curry would require a complete re-write of that article. Guettarda 13:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This might be a stupid question but what notability guideline should apply to food? - Denny 14:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep There is certainly a major distinction between this dish and chicken curry, as the article rather haltingly states. It could do with a rewrite though, and probably a name change - after all it's not just chicken that's prepared this way. A merge into Curry would be misleading, but it could certainly find its way into an article on West Indian cuisine. Cuisine_of_Trinidad_and_Tobago, possibly? EliminatorJR ^Talk 16:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, unique and interesting piece that could become more encyclopedic on Wikipedia than any other location if given the chance... Smee 21:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep. Food items are encyclopedically notable, and this is not an uncommon or obscure food item. -Toptomcat 15:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Curry Chicken is an important part of many cultures around the world, and it will be discriminating if this article is not given chance to portray itself. Also, it deserves its own article and not be merged with curry. Alanacomet 02:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)alanacomet — alanacomet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete one of my favorite foods. Should be covered in Curry. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - i agree w. Smee, and the chef above. I think it's a decent article that has some singular facts. It could use more sources, but my vote is keep.--Debsuls 01:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Popular and varied dish. Also passes the Brittanica Test: If I see an article in Brittanica about this, I won't think, "why did they include this?". (Google tests aren't policy, but just a note: [2] "curry chicken"] gets 436,000 results.) - ElbridgeGerry t c block 00:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - These articles that are being brought up maybe a part of a country's cuisine section. Also not everyone makes Curry chicken the same. Sure Curry maybe the most pronounced ingredient but there's various ways it can be prepaired. I also find it funny based on the bias on Wikipedia that someone would call this a "Mundane" article yet there's one on Spaghetti Sauce. I bet that same crowd would say *that* was a very importaint article. CaribDigita 17:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  You don't really have any basis to claim that just because someone says "delete" for curry chicken that they want the spaghetti sauce article to stay. In fact, one should remember that inclusion is not an indication of validity. In other words, just because something "mundane" like, say butter, has an article (a featured one at that) it doesn't mean that every food item deserves an article. Leebo⁸⁶ 17:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  Oh, I also see you believe that there is an "American Deletionist Cabal". So, I figured I'd point that out before I'm accused of saying delete just because I'm American. Leebo⁸⁶ 17:23, 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 Redirect to Brain Candy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:08Z

[edit] Stummies

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

Non-notable. Fictional drug that was featured in one movie. Croxley 01:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence the subject is notable independent of the movie it appears in. No reliable sources showing notability. --Shirahadasha 02:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable fictional element in a single movie. The article doesn't even give clear information on it either. Leebo⁸⁶ 04:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Brain Candy. John Reaves (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Brain Candy without a merge (any potentially useful information on the drug is already contained in one sentence in the main article). -- Black Falcon 06:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A fictional drug featured in one movie, this is fictional and has no notability, it could be merged.Tellyaddict 12:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect No-brainer - no significant notability outside its role in the movie. --Gwern (contribs) 21:28 25 February 2007 (GMT) 21:28, 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 08:08Z

[edit] Rahajan

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

Non notable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, non-verifiable. -- Jeff3000 01:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Agree no evidence of notability and no reliable sources--Shirahadasha 02:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no sources. Sounds as if it is made up. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 04:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Probably is made up, only three Google hits for "Rahajan religion" (none relevant) John Reaves (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per comments by John Reaves, as-well as this it does fail WP:NN and even if this was kept it would need some copy-edit, wikifying and overall cleanup.Tellyaddict 12:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Al-Bargit; Mešaism is equally notable (8 hits in google)
• Delete per Shirahadasha --Gwern (contribs) 21:29 25 February 2007 (GMT) 21:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. Daniel5127 | Talk 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete religioncruft. JuJube 06:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• DeleteNo evidence not notable

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, and I can hear Dr Claw's catchphrase in my mind right now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Frost Middle School (Fairfax County, Virginia)

Robert Frost Middle School (Fairfax County, Virginia) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

a non notable middle school in Virginia; recently survived a multiple AFD which was closed as "no consensus"; the deletion review endorsed the closure, but "mildly encouraged" relisting... thus, here we are. I can see no claim of notability at all for this school. Brianyoumans 01:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable middle school. TJ Spyke 01:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, as most middle schools are. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of Notability. No sources. Article needs to include multiple independent sources demonstrating notability per WP:ORG in order to avoid deletion. --Shirahadasha 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Middle schools generally aren't notable. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 04:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Why should this school be singled out if the others were kept? Jordan 05:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Because people complained that AFDing all the Fairfax County middle schools at once wasn't good procedure, I am relisting them one at a time. I'm not saying this was the only non-notable one in the previous AFD - I'll get around to the others. --Brianyoumans 05:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I agree, with respect why should this article be singled out than other schools across America, there will need to be references added though.Tellyaddict 12:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • So, it's it's all or nothing? --Brianyoumans 14:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable middle school. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 15:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, non-notable ThePurpleMonkey_{(talk•portal•contribs)} 18:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (1) There is no specific criterion which says that middle schools are not notable. (2) lack of references is not a reason for deletion, it is cause to tag for better referencing (see guidlines for delation). (3) Given that it is an established public school it is likely that verifiable sources are available. --Kevin Murray 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Most of the delete "votes" above seem to be expressions of subjective opinions which are specifically discouraged by WP:NOTE. --Kevin Murray 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - this school is very significant in its community, is very large for a middle school and the test scores are hugely notable; there is no point in people saying 'not notable' without explaining why. TerriersFan 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Kevin Murray. There's a thousand other articles on different middle schools, and I don't see anything in here that's so different from all those others that this page needs to go, and for that reason I suspect this AFD is in bad faith. Maybe we should slap a notability tag on it instead? Korranus 23:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete there is no intention to single out this school, but rather to treat it like other nn schools. DGG 01:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Kevin Murray. It is a large middle school. --Carioca 03:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 18:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - let them have their page. What's the problem? I see none. Wikipedia has millions of useless articles, somebody in Fairfax County, VA might want to read about their local school. That's what Wikipedia is all about IMO - you won't see this middle school written about in Encyclopedia Britannica, but you can on Wikipedia. 167.206.107.110 18:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No sources to show notability. The precedent has been to delete articles about run of the mill middle schools. This one has nothing to satisfy the proposed WP:SCHOOL]. Contrary to what was claimed above, we do not need a "specific criterion which says that middle schools are not notable" to delete a middle school article. If there are references, it would be far better to simply add them than to claim they must be out there somewhere waiting to be discovered. It is my very "objective opinion" that this article lacks multiple independent reliable sources having it as a primary subject and that it is therefore non-notable. Inkpaduta 23:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability, no reliable sources backing up said assertion. Alternatively, merge anything verifiable to Fairfax County Public Schools and redirect. Shimeru 18:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, intriguing bibliography section, needs citations though. Smee 21:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
  • intriguing bibliography??? It consists of a listing in a business directory website, and the page for the school on the website of a local neighborhood group. How are those intriguing? --Brianyoumans 20:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability neither asserted nor evidenced. WMMartin 13:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. We really need that schoolwiki! Vegaswikian 23:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Public schools have an inherent claim to notability the same way that small villages and highways do. Sourcing is not a problem here, and the article is decent enough that I don't see a benefit in merging, which is what I normally suggest doing for primary and middle educational institutions. RFerreira 07:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Schoolcruft with no mainstream media mentions. No assertion of notability, etc. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 00:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, and merge. No argument made as to why merging would not satisfy "notability" concerns while not destroying content. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:08, 5 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 08:09Z

[edit] WWE Beat the time Sprint

WWE Beat the time Sprint (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about non-notable series of matches that took place from January 5 through January 12, 2007. Listcruft. -- bulletproof ^3:16 01:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmackDown! Sprint --Aaru Bui ^DII 02:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete (speedy delete if possible since it was just deleted a month ago). My reasons haven't changed since the last AFD. TJ Spyke 02:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete should be made speedy deletion. Davnel03 11:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If this matchtype was a regular event then it might deserve a mention in a specialty match subsection but currently it's just listcruft. Suriel1981 11:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I would have voted keep but it appears per the comments above that it has been recreated.Tellyaddict 12:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A minor event --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 20:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete maybe if it's used on a regular basis but so far it's been a one off thing that isn't notable in itself MPJ-DK 21:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete ye, as above. Govvy 10:13, 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 Redirect to University of Kent; if someone creates an article on Student life at Kent University, it would make sense to merge this there. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 07:08Z

[edit] Kent University Conservative Association

Kent University Conservative Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (2nd nomination) – (View AfD)

Local student political group - doesn't seem encyclopedic or notable. See also previous AfD from 2005. Eastmain 01:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- Eastmain 02:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- Eastmain 02:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge to the University article, or possibly to a new "student life at Kent University" article, since the university article is getting rather long. Unless unusually notable, student groups should be covered in university or college articles. --Brianyoumans 02:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of independent reliable sources demonstrating notability and permitting verifiability. This a minimum requirement of every article regardless of other considerations. --Shirahadasha 02:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge per arguments of Brianyoumans and Shirahadasha. LordHarris 03:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- non notable Astrotrain 12:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable student group, no independent sources. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable student group.-- danntm ^T _C 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears only to have significance within the campus of the University, thus fails WP:ORG. Ohconfucius 08:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable soc. (Why isn't this speediable? It's failed an AfD before.) AndyJones 14:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. After viewing the edit history log and seeing the edits largely come from one source whose only contributions have been this article, I believe this to be a vanity/promotion article.--Ozgod 03:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable. cs 19:53, 5 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:10Z

[edit] Yang Fu

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

Unreferenced and article fails to meet WP:BIO requirements. Ozgod 01:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per CSD A1 - no context. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• DeleteThis article is probably the most out of contexted biography ive ever seen. It took me a lot of looking at the other wikilinks to other ppl to even find the date/context of this persons life (2nd/3rd century). If another user is willing to expand the article, look online or elsewhere for some references and try and make the biography more notable than im willing to change my view, but for now its a delete.LordHarris 03:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

* Delete. Unclear whether real, but even if real not notable enough. --Nlu (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 07:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Found reference in Records of the Three Kingdoms, his Chinese name is 楊阜 and has a whole biography to himself in Wei Book, vol 25. A complete rewrite is recommended. _dk 02:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Now that Deadkid dk pointed out that it's 楊阜, it's clearly notable. --Nlu (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Significant figure in Chinese history. May need expansion but not deletion. User:Dimadick
• Keep Reasonably important figure in the Three Kingdoms. Shimeru 19:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, interesting historical stub. Give it time, if no more citations show up for the next time around, discuss again. Smee 21:36, 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 Speedy Delete A7. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loganville High School Soccer

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

Article about a non-notable high school soccer program. Prod/prod2 tags removed by author. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• As the prod2, Delete. I don't see anything coming close to WP:N/WP:ORG, etc. Leuko 02:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Previously deleted twice should be protected after deletion to prevent reposting. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I don't see any sign of notability here, and it's a recreated article. --Brianyoumans 04:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that CSD G4 doesn't apply, as the article must have been "deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted."--TBCΦtalk? 16:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete- agree with Brian- completely non notable Astrotrain 13:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD A7.--TBCΦtalk? 16:38, 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 no consensus. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yang Chou

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

Articles contains no references and fails to meet WP:BIO standards. Ozgod 02:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per CSD A1-no context. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article appears to be on a figure in Chinese history who, despite the article's lack of sources and style issues, may possibly be a notable historical figure. However, every Wikipedia articles requires multiple reliable sources demonstrating notability and permitting verifiability to avoid deletion. I believe the article, despite its difficulties, provides enough contextual information that speedy delete is not warranted and would give the creator time to come up with sources during the regular delete procedure period. However, if sources are not forthcoming, the result should be Delete. --Shirahadasha 02:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not sufficiently notable even if real. --Nlu (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 07:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect or disambiguate While I'm not sure of this Yang Chou person, the spelling itself is a variant of Yangzhou (there is already a redirect at Yang-chou), so this should at least be a redirect if not a disambiguation. FrozenPurpleCube 10:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Disambiguate (or redirect) As I understand it, Cao Cao and his associates are pretty important figures in the history of the Chinese, it would therefore be prudent to clarify this article if it is indeed relevant to that history. Zelse81 20:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Not all of Cao's associates are notable, I'd think, and again, I don't know if this person is real, and there is no indication that he is. --Nlu (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep and ask for sources. This is not a valid speedy. I would be very cautious about historical figures from a period about which i knew very little, particularly given the problem of establishing the correct name. Would have been a suitable prod. 02:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a person from the Three Kingdoms period and is in Sima, Guang (1952-1965) The chronicle of the Three Kingdoms (220-265) Chapters 69-78 from the Tzu chih t'ung chien Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. OCLC 419919 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by --Bejnar 17:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As I wrote, not all historical personalities are notable. Most who even warrant a couple lines in historical texts would, but this is really not. --Nlu (talk) 17:44, 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 g1, a7, nonsense biography, already speedied once before. NawlinWiki 02:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Europimp

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

Non-notable 'web personality', article contains a lot of nonsense (eg "he lives in some sort of time paradox"); and is fairly obvious vanity. Steve Farrell 02:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• speedy delete Keep; it gave me a chuckle. He's notable for being on webcam on an internet game? Hah! Well I'M notable for editing wikipedia, here's my article - Empire Earth.--Empire Earth 02:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as hoax, so tagged. He time travels between Chicago and Manchester for soccer practice? Um, no. Otto4711 02:26, 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 08:12Z

[edit] Heron (programming language)

Heron (programming language) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Heron Programming Language (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Christopher Diggins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Heron programming language (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Original research, promotion, vanity. Page describes a now-dormant personal project. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Lacks third party sources to establish how the language is notable. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I looked for references and this one http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/255 summed it up, the author seems to have a primary occupation of plugging his product. Also note that Special:Contributions/Christopher_Diggins there may be some WP:COI issues in the article. Jeepday 04:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I did some searching to, and was unable to find anything that suggests that anyone uses this language, or that it's been the subject of any academic interest. Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If the decision is delete please note that some red links and redirects will need to be addressed. Special:Whatlinkshere/Heron_(programming_language) Signed Jeepday 15:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As C. Diggins indicates in his blog he may not work on Heron as a project anymore [3] and he also wrote that Heron is more-less dormant [4]. He now focuses (accdording to the blog) on another language, "Cat". The previous VfD had failed because of heroic effort of Diggings to keep it here, in spite of clearly being non-notable at this time. It is even less notable now due to no maintenance. Pavel Vozenilek 20:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No real claims of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:48, 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 deleted by Irishguy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:14Z

[edit] Jason Blades

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

nn person. The article claims television credits, IMDB begs to differ. No reliable sources to verify these claims. IrishGuy ^talk 02:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable, also, External links seem to have nothing to do with topic. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria. It also reads like the user has a conflict of interest Leebo⁸⁶ 03:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It reads almost like a resume with no real notability --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 04:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above (does he realize Frank Capra was born in the 19th century?). Velvet Violet should go as well. --Dhartung | Talk 04:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The author of the article, BerenTasartir, decided to start playing the sockpuppet game with Manulipulator and Cocoabrown. When confronted, he blanked both Jason Blades and Velvet Violet. They were then both speedy deleted as G7. IrishGuy ^talk 19:38, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:14Z

[edit] Yang Huai

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

Articles contains no references and fails to meet the WP:BIO standards. Ozgod 02:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

* Delete. Appears to be fictional, and even if not fictional not notable enough (although notability of ancient historical figures is trickier). --Nlu (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Found references in Records of Three Kingdoms and Zizhi Tongjian. Sufficiently notable, but should be re-written. --Nlu (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please reference article to avoid another nomination for AfD if you have references Alf photoman 17:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Zizhi Tongjian added. --Nlu (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 07:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per references by Nlu Alf photoman 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Zelse81 20:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keepper Nlu. User:Dimadick
• Keep Reasonably important figure in the Three Kingdoms. Shimeru 19:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above comments, although it would be nice to have more than one source about this subject. RFerreira 07:45, 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 delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yang Hong

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

Article contains no references and fails to meet WP:BIO standards. Ozgod 02:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Unclear whether real, but even if real isn't notable enough. --Nlu (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 07:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Not sure if this person is real or not, but there is a class of ships called the Xiang Yang Hong. I do not know Chinese, but if that means the class of ships was named after someone named Yang Hong, I'd say some article is warranted. FrozenPurpleCube 10:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Without seeing the Chinese characters, my guess is that the class is named after the city of Xiangyang (襄陽, in modern Xiangfan, Hubei), not after this person. --Nlu (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That is possible, but as I said, I don't know either way myself. FrozenPurpleCube 18:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep and ask for sources. same as the others. DGG 02:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't appear to be a major figure. Will investigate further tonight. Shimeru 19:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, just as Shimeru my memory is not so good anymore, I'll check for sources Alf^Photoman 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unclear notability, plus very poor quality. Meaningful username 11:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|^(talk) 13:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Does not emphasise notability Jammy Simpson | Talk | 14:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The article appears to be describing someone livivig around the 150CE period, so they have survived the test of time. However, without sources this article provides no context or details to base notability on. Nuttah68 14:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the above that unless this person is truely notable then it should be deleted. To say the person has stood the test of time, not much has been said in this article, and if he is truely notworthy then there should be plenty of info by which to make an article on --PrincessBrat 16:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• merge as I hope was done for the others. The nom should know by now that the characters in this group are in a major work of historical fiction, but based on real history & are thus to be judged on both aspects. (its only necessary to follow the links to find this out) Quite a lot of them a=have come up at AfD, and the obvious solution is for someone knowledgeable in the period to merge the minor ones appropriates, as is done with other works of fiction and some minor personages in history. I myself cannot say how important she is in the history or the novel, or just how it should be merged. DGG 02:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The Romance of Three Kingdoms has so many minor characters that it is, I feel, not worth it to merge really minor characters, and there is really nothing else to merge to. --Nlu (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article was created by an editor who has been blocked indefinitely (the list of deleted articles is approaching 800). I don't know if this one is a copyright violation or not, but if it is, it doesn't need an AfD debate. Fg2 08:06, 5 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 08:15Z

[edit] James C. McDonald

James C. McDonald (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Does not seem to be notable. The article was deleted by Prod but resurrected. Prod is contested Alex Bakharev 02:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, accomplishment is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 04:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A fine human being, but not notable such as to need an article. His accomplishments in his profession and elsewhere were not sufficiently great, imho. --Brianyoumans 04:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete While the subject was clearly notable to his friends and family, the article does not appear to pass WP:BIO Jeepday 04:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nice obituary, but not encyclopedic. ScottMainwaring 07:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Artaxiad 08:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's a not very good obituary. Good man maybe, but I won't be sending donations! Emeraude 15:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Sounds like a gentleman and a scholar, but not a wikipedia bio article subject. TonyTheTiger 23:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete No evidence for notability in the material provided. DGG 02:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete'per nom. I'm sure he was a great guy who lived a full life. However I cannot see that he passes the biography guidelines. Suriel1981 09:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete notability tests fail on this article. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:47, 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 Speedy Delete as copyright violation. Jersey Devil 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Niagara to GTA Corridor Planning and Environmental Assessment (EA) Study

A copy of a primary source, might be a copyright violation Alex Bakharev 03:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as copyright violation. Tagging it now. TJ Spyke 03:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per TJ Spyke and per nom. Bigtop 03:33, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:16Z

[edit] Roy A. Tucker

Roy A. Tucker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page is a stub and their are other articles about this man that contain more information. Heetbusters123 20:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - the fact that the page is a stub isn't a reason for deletion. Merge if necessary to the other articles mentioned by the nominator. I don't see why this was taken to AfD at all. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion, as User:Walton_monarchist89 points out. --Eastmain 20:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect - per User:Walton_monarchist89. If there are other (better) articles out there then, as the aforementioned user stated,

this shouldn't have been brought to an discussion.Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with this?)} 21:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Obviously prominent astronomer . His discoveries are mentioned as N. Appropriate tag would have been "expand" If there is more info on the articles about his work, it should be added here; we dont usually merge the bio page into the work.DGG 02:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a well-known astronomer, and hopefully someone will expand the stub. Royalbroil ^T : C 05:30, 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:15Z

[edit] Natasha_Fatah

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

Biography is not notable and has no sources. Celticeric 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep actually I think the external links are meant to be the sources, and they're good. They should be converted to footnotes. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per CanadianCaesar - External Links are article sources. On notability, the subject is a producer of nationally-broadcast radio show, a reporter on a significant regional scale (Ontario), and was a nationally-seen television programme host (Vision TV/News from the Muslim World). Dl2000 03:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep CanadianCaesar has done a good job giving clear citations to the article. She is notable per notability--Slp1 03:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. External links are often sources in stub-class articles. Also, the links have been incorporated into the text as citations. -- Black Falcon 04:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; sufficiently notable and external links are valid as sources. Bearcat 10:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Bearcat 10:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, if sources and references would have been in earlier we could have saved the work for this AfD Alf^Photoman 01:28, 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 for now based on other AFDs; find sources, please!. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:52Z

[edit] Yang Song

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

Articles contains no references and fails to meet WP:BIO standards. Ozgod 03:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Person appears to be fictional, as far as I can see, but even if not fictional should be deleted, as article contains no confirmed information. (I would, however, believe that this person, if not fictional, is sufficiently notable, such that a properly written article should be recreated at some point if real. if fictional, keep deleted.) --Nlu (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 07:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If he can be verified as existing historically, then the article should be improved with a few citations, but as it is at present it is not verifiable. Zelse81 20:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep pending sources. As with the other similar people from this period, there is no reason to assume they are fictional, The proper action wouldhave been an unsourced tag. DGG 02:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Reasonably important figure in the Three Kingdoms. Shimeru 19:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, sources are definitely insufficient Alf^Photoman 21:01, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:51Z

[edit] Nick Stubblefield

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

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

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 03:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Subject does not meet any of the standards of WP:MUSIC. The Uruguay concert is interesting but it appears to be more of a cultural exchange of young musicians [5] than a tour situation. Solid reviews of a released album by sources that meet WP:V would make this a keeper, but he's not there yet. Nice-sounding CD, I'm sure he'll be back. Darkspots 15:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Darkspots. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:50, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:17Z

[edit] Yang Qiu

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

Subject would appear to be a character in a historical fiction novel and the article lacks references and fails to meet the WP:BIO standards. Ozgod 03:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Real life persona of the Three Kingdoms period of China, one of the commanders during the Battle of Tong Pass...an underdeveloped stub does not imply a non-notable character. _dk 04:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a real person, and the article appears to have sources.--Danaman5 05:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Close call, but I think sufficiently notable. --Nlu (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 07:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to be notable. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Even if this weren't a real person, the "novel" in which he appears (Romance of the Three Kingdoms) is considered one of the greatest works of Chinese literature. The primary criterion of WP:BIO is, in any case, that the subject have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works; this article definitely passes. Please, read policies before citing them! Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think WP:BIO is intended to apply to fictional individuals. As stated, this person is not fictional, but if it were a fictional individual, a fictional character will obviously be in "published works." Doesn't mean that every single one is notable. --Nlu (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Significant historical figure. User:Dimadick
• Keep Reasonably important figure in the Three Kingdoms. Shimeru 18:59, 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. no real chance of being deleted... no need to leave the turkey on the article for 2 more days. W.marsh 13:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Seidlin

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

Non-notable. Aside from presiding over a few minor hearings in the Anna Nicole Smith case, he has not done anything to merit notability more so than any other Florida Circuit Court Judge. Hallibrah 03:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Why would anyone even consider removing a newsmaker. ~User:mikedowUser_talk:mikedow 03:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. He has had massive exposure, there are countless reliable sources discussing him, he is certainly notable as far as Wikipedia's standards are concerned. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep due to the media coverage about him, rather than about the case in which he was presiding. Not a valid Speedy case, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There is enough material covering the subject to pass the notability guidelines. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Certainly fails the 100 years test, but should probably stay around for now as it is relevant to current events. --Selket ^Talk 03:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Which is under the disclaimer "The following are proposed criteria for notability, which have not necessarily received consensus support". --W.marsh 03:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment on Comment. If that's the case (and I tend to agree with your theme) when DO we eventually delete it? When the furore dies down, or do we have a set time? I say skip all the politicking and just delete this thing now! Thanks for your time and advice, Hallibrah 03:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Notability is generally permanent, as if a topic has once met the notability criterion, the sources which demonstrate notability continue to satisfy the criterion over time. Kyra_~(talk) 03:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as satisfying the primary notability criterion; the subject of the article has been the subject of multiple, independent, reliable, published works, namely Fox News, ABC, and the BBC just to name three of the references. Kyra_~(talk) 03:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Clearly meets WP:BIO, quite possibly without the Anna Nicole thing even (I know they love to write newspaper stories about the state judges here). Suggest a speedy close of this if no one but the nom wants to delete. --W.marsh 03:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now In paper encyclopedias, the practice is to go through and get rid of topical articles that are no longer of interest after a while. Wikipedia may eventually want to do the same. In 20 years, no one will care about this guy one whit, except as a footnote to the convoluted story of a minor celebrity of the 2000s. Brianyoumans 04:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Question Where can I find the 100 years test and debate its lack of merit? An encyclopedia is a reference: the whole point is that it preserves knowledge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Daly (talk • contribs) 06:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Response: WP:BIO#Proposed alternative criteria: "100 year test (future speculation) -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?"
• Keep he is an important figure in current events (ie anna nicole battle) it should be kept, their is enough info on his page to keep. Mcoop06 06:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now He may get what he obviously wants, a show on tv, at whuch point his cultural significance, however distasteful or peculiar would, I think warrant his retention - if nothing comes of his endeavour - I'd say flush him as quick as we can! Stevingtonian 12:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete His exposure is far from "massive," and is generally limited to a few internet articles and as a chuckle-worthy piece on the Jay Leno show, in my opinion not notable. If he does get a TV show, he might merit a place in wikipedia, but a Lower Court Judge in Florida who has presided over one notable case, and made no landmark decisions is not worthy of inclusion. I seem to be in a two-person minority in this opinion but, whatever. Thethinredline 13:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not at all limited to that... he has been given massive coverage on TV, and you would probably be hard pressed to find an article on the trial that didnt mention him, whether it be CNN or the BBC. It is anything but limited to a few articles... ~Rangeley (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the BBC article you mention proves my point, it doesn't cover Judge Seidlin at all, it mentions him. Does that make him somehow more 'notable' than just being a jurist presising over a case? I suppose some people might consider that to be so, but i am not one of them.

Also to say the coverage is massive is first of all subjective: I believe the coverage of the death of Saddam Huissein was "massive," not this story. Also to make any kind of statement about comprehensive coverage being given to this is also I would say, very US-centric. Thethinredline 17:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as much as I'd like this whole fucking mess to go back to the supermarket tabloids where it belongs, you can't deny that Judge Seidlin has become a lightening rod for debate and discussion. To me this is the entire point to having wikipedia: whats the harm in including just about anything as long as the article itself follows wiki policy and there is even a slight case of notability? RoyBatty42 19:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Like it or not, this guy is now a widely-known celebrity. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep One of Wikipedia's strengths is its responsiveness to current events. Otherwise I'd go back to using stodgy old bartleby.com. Gusuku 23:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because of BLP and N problems. One case does not make a judge notable.DGG 02:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and I agree with Kyra that notability (for our purposes) doesn't fade. JamesMLane t c 06:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Easily meets WP:BIO. - Denny 06:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, definitely notable. Everyking 08:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now, for the same reasons that Stevingtonian mentioned; that aside, if he doesn't get that television show he's clamoring for, it certainly won't pass the 100 years test. --PeanutCheeseBar 13:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:BIO, not everything in wikipedia is related to rocket science, nuclear physics or world peace --rogerd 17:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Why be so persnickety about what stays or doesn't? Sheesh! ~User:dwaconUser_talk:dwacon 03:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep either bad faith nom or someone who doesn't understand the criteria. Clearly the product of multiple non-trivial works. Quadzilla99 19:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - judges probably merit a brief page anyway, and this is news. Classic test - was reading an article on law.com about the case and turned to wikipedia to find out about the judge. Wikipedia serves its function. BYF
• Weak Delete Otherwise nonnotable judge who cried in front of the cameras in his 15 minutes in the spotlight, thereby getting trivial mention in articles about the case. Wikipdeia is not a tabloid newspaper. See WP:NOTNEWS, a proposed guide for news stories not always justifying articles. Inkpaduta 23:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• ""Keep Keep Keep"" This man was a major palyer in an event that captivated the attention of celebrity gossip if Kevin Federline and Lance Ito get an article than so should Larry Seidlin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.185.36 (talk • contribs)
• Keep There is enough material covering the subject to pass the notability guidelines. Bnguyen 05:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep passes notability guidlines. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notability established. Google news search come back with over 6000 hits like [(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21265702.shtml this] and this, which are about Larry Seidlen, not just ANS. - Peregrine Fisher 07:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think somebody confused what and who should be news worthy, and what's worth having on wikipedia. I don't think this guy should be in the news so much, but since he is, he's notable enough to pass the requirements for wiki. Prgrmr@wrk 02:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep JimmyTrump79 21:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This was not merely a trial about a dead body, this was a trial about a woman who has been shrouded in controversy for over a decade. This stub deserves to remain on Wikipedia simply because the news covered the trial due to it falling within the public interest - the trial, and especially Judge Seidlin, captivated the nation for a week straight. With this in mind, I believe it should remain on the site. Punchyourself187 20:13, 28 February 2007 (EST)
• Keep This article meets the primary criteria for being a notable person. You don't spread knowledge by deleting information. --JHP 07:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per pretty much, well, everyone. RFerreira 07:50, 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 York City F.C.. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-03 08:07Z

[edit] Nick Bassett

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

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:BIO. Nv8200p talk 03:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete I marked it as Speedy A7. - Denny 06:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep I messed up my Googling at first. Appears to be somewhat notable locally. Probably fine as a stub. - Denny 06:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability of the subject of the article. References provided are about the York City, with Nick Bassett mentioned or interviewed as an employee of the club. If someone can provide a reliable source about Nick Bassett I will reconsider, Nuttah68 15:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not very notable. Meaningful username 11:28, 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 {{wi}} soft-redirect to Wiktionary. If a new article High-maintenance relationships were created, this could redirect there. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:49Z

[edit] High-maintenance

High-maintenance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is simply a dictionary/slang definition of a term, and provides no context or attribution that would make it an encyclopedic entry. Per WP:WINAD, it does not meet standards, and should be deleted. -- Haemo 03:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article is certainly in bad shape, but it could be turned into something decent. This is a pretty common phrase. --Selket ^Talk 03:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the term is frequently used in the circles that I move in. The article needs to be improved, but this provides a basis for that improvement. - Richardcavell 03:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - agree with above comments, article needs expanding and improving, not deleting (added expand and wikify templates). LordHarris 03:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, this is just across the line from pop psychology; high.maintenance+relationship on Google Books garners 615 results. Of course it also applies to e.g. clients, cars, yards ... so it can be expanded beyond the boy-girl dynamic.--Dhartung | Talk 04:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That's an argument for articles on high-maintenance relationships and automobile maintenance and repair. Adjectives alone do not generally denote subjects. Is it your opinion that this article be renamed and refactored? Uncle G 18:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is currently just a dicdef (although I disagree that it gives not context), but it can be expanded into an encyclopedic article. The 1,2 million ghits seem a good indicator of notability. -- Black Falcon 04:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per my comments below. -- Black Falcon 19:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. How, exactly, can this be turned into an encyclopedia article? --N Shar 04:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm confused about this too. Other than giving examples of traits deemed to be "high maintenance" - really, what more is there to say that "this is what this slang term means". --Haemo 08:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I was going to ask the same question. wikt:high-maintenance lists this as an adjective. Adjectives by themselves rarely denote encyclopaedia article subjects. They have to have nouns accompanying them. Uncle G 18:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Despite my best efforts, I could not envisage an article that is about anything other than the term itself. It could be an article that discusses the multiple uses of the term, the origins of the term, people who have been described as high-maintenance (a bad idea for a section, I think), and so on, but these are all about the term itself. Thus, delete per nom. Unless ... is there a noun equivalent: high-maintenance..ity? maintenanceness? maintenancousity? Ah, forget it. -- Black Falcon 19:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete like any other slangdef. The prevalance of a slang term does not make it appropriate for an encyclopedia. Gazpacho 09:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. While this is obviously a real phrase, it's just that - a phrase, without any noteworthy cultural context - and hence belongs on Wiktionary. Hey, look, there it is! Some text might be worth merging, but none of it belongs here. Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Since it's already on wiktionary, and is apparently just a slang definition... Zelse81 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as undefined slang--and the term is used in many other ways also, as of a girl-friend who requires expensive gifts. OR, and poor job of it:DGG 02:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.-- danntm ^T _C 04:02, 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) 2007-03-02 08:46Z

[edit] Nick Willsher

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

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

The subject of the article does not meet the guidlines for notability per WP:BIO. Self-promotion. Nv8200p talk 03:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Lacking reliable sources to assert WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable. Creator of article also the creator of the image (of the article subject) in the article; possible conflict of interest exists. Carolfrog 05:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Real96 04:59, 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.--Húsönd 05:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holly Lindin

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

Vanity. Non-notable Entheta 03:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP:MUSIC states that an artist needs multiple albumns on a major label which Holly Lindin does not have. meshach 17:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC; not AllMusic guide entry, either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As per nom. Fails WP:Vanity. A1octopus 10:32, 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 08:21Z

[edit] Full Blown Entertainment

Full Blown Entertainment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Greenspoint's Finest (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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

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

I'm also nominating the article Greenspoint's Finest, a mixtape under this record label. I cannot find any evidence that this is a notable record label. Google search for "Full Blown Entertainment"+"Yung Blue" results in 0 hits (Yung Blue is the founder of the label). The official web page is on MySpace. Prod removed by author with the reason "It is a real label, notable releases, CD's are sold in major stores in Houston such as music depot." Unfortunately I can't find any mention in reliable sources of the albums online, either. Delete due to lack of notability. ... discospinster _talk 03:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - just because you can't find him (Yung Blue) on google doesnt mean anything, he has even been on tour with Magno, if you live ibn Houston you can find him no problem —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Homicidal King (talk • contribs) 06:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Wikipedia readers are not expected to have to perform primary research to verify articles. To make a case for keeping this article, you have to refute the assertion that there is no way to verify it from independent, reliable, sources, by citing such sources, which you have not done. As discospinster says, the article is sourced to web pages that either do not exist at all or are not independent sources (e.g. are personal web pages of the subjects of the article hosted on MySpace). Uncle G 20:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:CORP. Gothnic 06:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - give it a chance to be expanded before knee-jerking to the AfD. Lugnuts 10:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This is it's chance. You have 5 days to cite sources to demonstrate that this company satisfies the WP:CORP criteria. AFD is not about expanding the article. It is about citing sources to demonstrate verifiability and that the notability criteria are satisfied. Making an unverifiable article bigger doesn't make it any the less unverifiable, and making an article on a subject that has no independent sources bigger does not change the fact that the subject is non-notable. Uncle G 20:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Uncle G is right that this is its chance to cite some sources. However, it was AfDd pretty soon after original creation, with no apparent attempt to engage in dialogue with its creator or request sources. On the other hand, I have the feeling that the creator will not be able to come up with the necessary sources. If they can cite some, I might be willing to change my vote. Carolfrog 06:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Just some kids and GarageBand. 66.177.173.119 06:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - a Google for the company turns up two Full Blown Entertainments as the top two hits. One's a booking agency for comedians, the other represents two musicians from Atlanta who don't appear to be notable either. I can't see this one meeting WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC. If sources turn up, however, always happy to reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete ... unless sources are cited Tt 225 18:35, 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 08:22Z

[edit] The Ding Dongs

The Ding Dongs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Very short lived comedy team. Not very notable, and simply just cruft better suited for a wrestling wiki. RobJ1981 03:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The only notable thing appears to be that they were disliked. I don't think they're notable for simply participating in the matches, so third party sources would be needed to establish notability, but it doesn't sound like anyone in the industry took enough notice to do that. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable and short lived tag team. TJ Spyke 06:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Davnel03 11:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as with Leebo. Suriel1981 11:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable ThePurpleMonkey_{(talk•portal•contribs)} 18:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete they had ONE match with this gimmick, if there was a page of horrible gimmicks it'd make a nice section at best MPJ-DK 17:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Aye there already is. Wrestlecrap.com! Suriel1981 10:42, 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 Dismissed; possible rename. Article was just created as a merge target. No prejudice against renomination at a later date. (The point of the article was to merge all the other minor fetish articles into one.). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 07:01Z

[edit] List of uncommon fetishes

List of uncommon fetishes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unverifiable listcruft. What kind of criteria makes a fetish "uncommon"? SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There's nothing listed at all! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (but see comment below). I can provide a complete list of fetishes: you can find it at Special:Allpages. Seriously, one can have a fetish for almost anything (okay, maybe List of asteroids/123001–124000-fetishism would be a little too weird). The author has stated that "this is a work in progress" but it's a project that never will be finished. --N Shar 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment/Keep. Please note the discussion on the article's talk page about changing the title to List of fetishes. This would include, of course, only fetishes which are identified in reliable, published sources (which Special:Allpages is not). The article has been in existence one day and its purpose is to get rid of a lot of stubs. Let's give it a chance at least. You are right about the asteroids, though. Who really cares about "123001–124000" when there's List of asteroids/34501–34600. Now that's something I'm sure everyone fantasises about! -- Black Falcon 04:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I like "List of fetishes" a lot better than "List of uncommon fetishes." Although the latter would seem to be a subset of the former, this is not the case -- "List of fetishes" implies that only notable fetishes will be included, while "List of uncommon fetishes" suggests that fetishes that are notable enough for their own articles will not be included, while other, less notable ones will. I support a move. --N Shar 04:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I'm sure the main article on fetishes has a list, with links to articles about major fetishes. As said above, one can fetishize just about anything - which to my mind means listing them all is pointless. Is there anything notable or different to be said about, say, mirror fetishes as opposed to chair fetishes as opposed to floor wax fetishes? I doubt it. --Brianyoumans 04:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Although one can fetishize everything, WP:Attribution will require that only fetishes that are documented to exist in published sources (and that therefore have official names--like phobias) are listed. -- Black Falcon 05:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Just because something exists doesn't mean we need to rush out and list it. I agree that phobias are a very similar situation, and that pretty much only notable phobias should be listed, with perhaps a few examples of more obscure types. --Brianyoumans 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree and think/hope the same principle (that you note for phobias) will be applied in this case. -- Black Falcon 06:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment/question I don't think this article is meant to be an actual list. It's been poorly named in that case. My understanding is that it is intended to be a place where several stub articles will be merged (after discussion on those articles' talk pages). Might it be a better idea to userfy the article until all the details of possible merges have been worked out? Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 05:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm trying to get articles that are currently stubs and fetishes to be merged into the article, I think It's a bit unfair that this is article is up for deletion the same day it was created, with out allowing me to add the content to the list. Most people find it rude if you just start merging pages without asking first.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 07:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Al-Bargit 17:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Delete What is a common fetish?
• Delete What exactly is difference between a common and uncommon fetish? It's subjective. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Changed to no opinion except about the name. I hoped to learn something about myself but the page is empty! And the word "uncommon" has simply no chance to be unanimously interpreted on WP. Pavel Vozenilek 20:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The page is empty because the article was created just 1-2 days ago and is currently subject of discussion on this AfD and its talk page. Please see the discussion on Talk:List of uncommon fetishes to rename the title, as well as the comments by Robotman and Honeymane above regarding the actual purpose of the article. -- Black Falcon 20:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Regarding your edit summary, I wholly agree that the article is inappropriately titled. -- Black Falcon 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge content into Sexual fetishism and Delete. TonyTheTiger 23:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Self-contradictory, impossible. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep there is material to be found on every one or almost every one, and there should be a chance to develop it. It is highly inappropriate to delete a major in the middle of active construction., DGG 02:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete "uncommon" = POV. This is unsalvageable. JuJube 06:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • At the risk of sound like a broken record per my reply to Pavel Vozenilek, please see the discussion on Talk:List of uncommon fetishes to rename the title, as well as the comments by Robotman and Honeymane above regarding the actual purpose of the article. Also please consider that the article had existed for a day before it was AfD'd. -- Black Falcon 06:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and let the talk page determine its new location and function. Pomte 06:52, 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 08:23Z

[edit] Willow Ridge

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

Appears to be a hoax, no relevant Google hits. See WP:MADEUP John Reaves (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find any relevant info either. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably a hoax per above, but even if it's not it's a WP:AUTO violation (see creator's name) and a WP:A violation. --N Shar 04:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:HOAX. A gang with 32,000 members and no sources (all ghits for '+"Willow Ridge" +gang -Wikipedia' seem to be about places called Willow Ridge)? Also, they killed 79 people with only 72 bullets (was there a shortage of ammunition)? Can snipers even achieve this? -- Black Falcon 07:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be a hoax. No sources. Carolfrog 06:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly a hoax, and not a very funny one at that. If there was a real gang with 32,000 members who carried out massacres then I think that we may have heard of it. Suriel1981 10:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• In addition I draw your attention to the creator's previous reprimand for creating nonsense articles. Suriel1981 10:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and permaban the person responsible for creating this and other such nonsense. RFerreira 07:50, 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 08:23Z

[edit] DR.K.K. SHARMA

DR.K.K. SHARMA (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

prod removed, likely hoax Travelbird 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless sourced and notablity established by end of AfD. janejellyroll 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete even if it's not a hoax, the article's quality is unsalvageably poor and the article is of no value. - Richardcavell 03:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failing the policy on attribution, and since there are no reliable sources to draw off of, the subject of the article also fails the primary notability criterion. Additionally, a search for sources fails to yield any. Kyra_~(talk) 03:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as a page containing only unverifiable, hagiographic material. A likely hoax, since the good Doctor only gets 2 non-Wikipedia Google hits, and they are primary sources. --N Shar 04:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no sources, no references = no notability Alf photoman 14:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep under the hope that sources will be inserted. The work when sourced will probably be N. This is another example of pages written carelessly by those who do not understand WP standards. The proper course is not to delete them, but to work at helping the authors improving them. This lack of knowledge tends to be substantial with subjects and authors from India, among other countries, and calls for extra effort, not removal.DGG 02:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The article contends that the author (born 1977 - but supposedly 26 years of age) wrote 120 (!) books on historical subjects. If the date of birth is correct, and assuming he didn't start until he was 17, that works out at an average of 12 books a year ! I'm afraid that without proper sources I'm not inclined to believe that this is genuine Travelbird 03:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reading more carefully than I did. My failure to read might be a result of the same automatically negative attitude that I was deploring--so particular thanks for making me aware of it.

Delete as probable hoax. DGG 04:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 06:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete this edit by the initial contributor is sufficient for me to consider this article vandalism or unabashed self-promotion. John Vandenberg 07:32, 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) 2007-03-02 08:45Z

[edit] Brown Stand-Up Comics

Brown Stand-Up Comics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Brown Standup Comics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Brown Stand-up Comedians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Brown Standup Comedians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Another article about a non-notable student improv stand-up group. The best claims to notability is that they were mentioned in a roundup article Time did about college stand-up groups. Additionally, I do not feel that hiring well known comedians to perform at their school makes them notable. Finally, although it is great three of their members were semi-finalists in the student stand-up contest on nibblebox.com, I don't know those members' individual achievements in this case are notable enough to make the entire group notable. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 09:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The members' individual achievements add up, as they were the majority in a late round of a notable comedy festival. The founder of the troupe has gone on to be on comedy central. A group that has multiple people in it get onto television is notable for a college group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FalconBob (talk • contribs) 19:03, 20 February 2007
• Comment: This is a stand up comedy troupe, which is not the same as an improv comedy group.—Preceding unsigned comment added by FalconBob (talk • contribs) 19:03, 20 February 2007
  • I can't seem to find any reference to this appearance. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 03:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • This link[[6]] has an article titled "3 Brown U. students make final 5 in HBO's 'Best College Comedian' contest." FalconBob 14:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • That doesn't mention comedy central at all. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 09:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 04:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This might merit a line or two in the Brown University article, but that's about it. I'm not convinced that the founder is very notable; I'm even tempted to afd his article. The list of "well known comedians" they have hosted is meagre and frankly not even up to what I would expect from a major university. The Time magazine article has about two paragraphs about them, it is about college stand up in general. Out!! --Brianyoumans 04:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete promo. The "Notable Comics Hosted by the Brown Stand-Up Comics" stuff is a dead give-away that these people are nobodies. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I'm not inclined to believe enough notability for an article. Carolfrog 08:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete The Time profile gives them the opening two paragraphs...but other than that they have three of the five semi-finalists at the US Comedy Arts Festival's Best College Comedian contest. Semi-Finalists aren't finalists, nor are they winners. The notability is almost there but lacking. IrishGuy ^talk 08:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per substantial precedent on student societies. Inadequate references, and notability not obvious. WMMartin 13:44, 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flashspring

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

Software with no evidence of notability (as defined by WP:SOFTWARE). Article cites no sources. Conscious 10:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I wrote according to Guidelines for writing about software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOFTWARE), without advertising or subjective points of view, only provided short info about oCPS Labs company and one of its products, FlashSpring.

Actually, today i found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articulate and didn't find a big difference between Articulate page and FlashSpring page. So far, i think propose for deletion to be doubtful, but still accept it.

I'll appreciate your assistance and point of view.

Sergeysid 13:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Would someone please add links to published reviews of this software? --Eastmain 21:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Thank you Eastmain, it seems some links are added. What is the next step? A word from Conscious? -- Sergeysid 09:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 04:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete advert. WP != free advertising. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yes, WP != free advertising, i didn't even mean it. When you state a fact, people name it advertising; when you write about something which is your own, people call it advertising. What if i wanted to give people more choice about their search? If Conscious also thinks my FlashSpring article in WP to be an ad, ok, i'll remove it and try to make a better piece - it's your kingdom and your rules -- Sergeysid 16:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Doesn't seem terribly notable, and the company that created it definitely isn't notable. Probably doesn't pass WP:SOFTWARE. No prejudice against recreation in the future if more notability is attained. Carolfrog 14:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the references establish notability. Since the article is now NPOV, I don't think it's an advertisement. --Eastmain 18:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• I'll appreciate if someone tells me what's next? The article can be at WP or not? Sergeysid 15:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The outcome of this discussion will be determined by an administrator soon. Conscious 11:53, 5 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 per nominator withdrawal RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Swan

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

non-notable artist withdrawing nom, article has since been cleaned up SERSeanCrane 04:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Definitely a commercial artist, but seems notable enough. You can get Fred Swan calendars, Fred Swan jigsaw puzzles, Fred Swan prints... and his paintings go for 5 figures. Brianyoumans 05:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This guy has a gallery dedicated to him in Stowe, Vermont. His prints run for 400 dollars, and I can only imagine what the originals go for. Definitely notable...why not? Fred Swan is a very famous artist. Bmrbarre 23:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - this article has only been created for three days!! Stubs need to be given time to develop. Yes, independent references are needed but that is a matter for article development not deletion. This is a popular artist with wide coverage. TerriersFan 00:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw your cleanup of the article am withdrawing nom. Great work. SERSeanCrane 01:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. TerriersFan 01:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep Notable artist in New England by the looks of it. - Denny 06:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep article needs a clean upbut it is well referenced RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:36, 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; reevaluate if new article is written. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:44Z

[edit] Kleinmann Family Foundation

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

No outside links, unsalvagably POV, probably not notable. --Hojimachong^talk_con 20:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, for now. We should let everybody have more than three days to work on an Article before screaming delete, but I am afraid that unless the article improves greatly it will soon be a goner. Besides, and this especially for new editors: you can write an article in your sandbox and not release it before you are confident that it meets at least WP:V Alf photoman 17:06, 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, Quarl ^(talk) 04:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speed delete cut-n-paste copyvio from [7]. No prejudice against recreation as an original text. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see signs that this foundation is terribly active or notable; looks like it sponsors a conference or two, has some archives. It is basically a private foundation (I bet "mandated by the government" simply means that when they filed the non-profit papers, they gave the government the purpose listed.) Out. --Brianyoumans 06:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• weak delete In this case I think the foundation might well be N, bu tthe existing article/essay/PR is hopeless, and a proper article should be written instead. DGG 02:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, article has not improved in the past 7 days so I am going to suppose that bothing is going to happen to it. In the present form : cut and paste, no references, no sources I think we dont have another choice. No prejudice against the theme itself. Alf photoman 14:50, 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 Merge to American ensign. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-03 08:05Z

[edit] American Merchant Stripes

American Merchant Stripes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No evidence that a flag of this name existed. ScottMainwaring 04:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - this seems to show that the flag is real. If not a keep then Merge into Flags of the United States - Peripitus (Talk) 12:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, described on US Navy page[8]: Since American merchant ships often displayed a simple red and white striped flag, there is a good chance that the striped jack to which Hopkins refers was the plain, striped flag used by American merchant ships. On the same page Benjamin Franklin and John Adams are quoted, "Merchant ships have often only thirteen stripes, but the flag of the United States ordained by Congress is the thirteen stripes and the thirteen stars above described." Little information on the flag is online, though. --Dhartung | Talk 19:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Flags of the United States. There are Google hits that aren't mirror sites, for example [9]. Suriel1981 09:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that flags of this design did not exist — the Sons of Liberty apparently used such a flag, as did (most probably) the Continental Navy (see First Navy Jack). I hadn't been aware of the Franklin and Adams quote, which does look like good evidence that this design was also used as a U.S. Civil ensign. Nevertheless, I have yet to see any solid evidence that such a civil ensign was named the "American Merchant Stripes"; a single flag retailer's site and a personal essay don't seem to me sufficient bedrock on which to ground a Wikipedia entry. Given all this, I would like to change my vote to Merge into American ensign. --ScottMainwaring 06:36, 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 08:26Z

[edit] The crystalline planet Dxun

The crystalline planet Dxun (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

As far as I can tell, this doesn't exist. The Chmmr article contridicts it (although that's unsourced as well, of course) and the GameFAQs walkthroughs I looked at didn't mention it either. Don't be fooled by the Google hits for Dxun, these all appear to be refering to the unrelated Star Wars moon Dxun. Even if it does exist, I don't think it would be notable. BryanG^(talk) 04:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Someone must have been very confused when he created this article. The GameFAQs evidence indicates that the planet does not exist at all: see this list of star systems in the game. --N Shar 05:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• comment: Dxun isn't in any Star Control game I can remember, it is, however in the star wars universe, and takes a rather central part in Sith backstory there... I would venture they really mean "Dxun the demon moon" which may or may not warrant a seperate article from the star wars articles. Wintermut3 09:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the nom, there is a separate article for the Star Wars moon at Dxun. In fact, the way I found this one is that it was erroneously tagged {{StarWars-stub}}. BryanG^(talk) 19:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 18:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete either a hoax or more appropriate for a gaming wiki. In either case not appropriate for Wikipedia. Koweja 18:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Whether or not it exists, it doesn't belong here. --- RockMFR 21:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Three sentences, wrong info and what's written also is not encyclopedic.DreamingLady 13:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The information is unverified, and the article is poorly titled. --Alan Au 23:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide; the information is wrong; the topic is not notable. —ptk✰fgs 05:45, 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. — CharlotteWebb 09:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MECWA

Unsourced article about a local charity. Speedied once as copyvio, this version seems clean on that score. No evidence presented that this has been the primary focus of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources, author has few other contributions. Guy (Help!) 16:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, additional sources have now been added,including references from local and state-based governments. Hootville 00:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - no evidence of notability; no external sources except their own website, so there's no proof of independent external coverage. Delete unless further sources are added. Walton monarchist89 18:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep per additional sources added. Walton monarchist89 18:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain 05:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Current set of references appear sufficient. JavaTenor 09:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per notability additions above ThePurpleMonkey_{(talk•portal•contribs)} 18:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Eastmain 21:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, they have a decent impact on society with a long history and $20mil/yr of services provided to the community. John Vandenberg 00:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per recent changes and history of notable contributions to their community. RFerreira 07:52, 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 keep. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Gevorg Sargsyan

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

Asserts notability, but the article reads like vanity, and the references are mostly self-references. Delete unless notability shown independently. --Nlu (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - very clear assertion of notability, although some of the claims need to be backed up by further referencing. I don't speak Armenian and haven't checked out the websites cited, but "www.opera.am" and "www.persons.am" sound like they probably qualify as third-party reliable sources, rather than vanity pages. Walton monarchist89 18:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. My guess is that the only reason notability is in question is that he's Armenian, and so most of the sources are in Armenian; if he were an American of similar level of notability, I doubt anybody would nominate him for deletion. --Delirium 08:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. What are you speaking about??? This conductor is one of the most notable and respectfull in Armenian music life!!! Check out the references, there is only 1000 names in www.persons.am and Gevorg Sargsyan has own place on that serious website directory... Sure, this article should NOT be deleted.--208.49.241.227 14:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with "Delirium". As above mentioned user said the question is just a nationality... However, www.persons.am web-directory is available in English at www.persons.am/en . I don't think this articl should be considered for deletion. That's wrong.--195.250.94.167 07:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. How long such kind of rasizm will be continued? Why it is considered for deletion? Because other nations are afraid, that there are too many talented and impressed Armenians with population only 3 mln... Don't count on nationality, look how famous and notable he is! --83.217.229.147 11:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - All of the references are in English. His entry on the "1000 Armenian Famous Persons" is no more than a name, a picture, and the line "Conductor of Armenian Opera Theater" ([10]). This person is not listed anywhere that I could find on the State Academic Opera & Ballet Theater website; most telling, he is not listed in the list of primary staff ([11]). -- Jonel | Speak 06:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - Don't think he meets WP:Music yet but may very do so in the future however wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A1octopus 14:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Thanks God Maestro don't see this everything... When me and other users are looking trough and making a comments about him he is working and bringing a joy to everyone who ever attemts his concerts. I know, that he has to conduct in Valencia ([12]) and give masterclass for students in Spain. What about listings on website([13])name and pictures are appeared almost for everyone. So, this is not a subject to discuss. WP:Music can not be complete list of notable and at the same time young conductors without name of Gevorg Sargsyan. If you search via google name "Gevorg Sargsyan" you will find out, that his name must be kept on WP:Music.

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yin Chang

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

NN actress. Has appeared in a few commercials and had some guest appearances on TV. Does not pass WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete - I would write her off for the ads, but appearing on a couple of tv programmes is far more convincing. --MacRusgail 19:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I agree with the above, MacRusgail, about the ads not being as notable however she has appeared on several television shows which is a strong reason for the article to be kept. I also checked her name on google and yahoo to double check her notability and she has quite a few links and bios on several sites--www.imdb.com,www.tv.com, www.blurtit.com, and www.tv.yahoo.com to name a few. Another note is that I've checked other actors/actresses wikipedia articles and they have not done as much as this person yet they are still able to keep their articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blake h297 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment -- Simply appearing on several TV shows is not evidence for notability. In none of these shows did she play a recurring character, she was simply a guest star. The other articles for actors and actresses you have checked should probably be deleted as well. I'm currently working on weeding out non-notable actors at the moment, thus this AFD. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Her article has been edited. As per "Blake h297", he/she noted her information on search engines. One of the reasons to keep this article is because she is "known on the web". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeremy76 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Two minor cameos on television and appearances in a few commercials don't seem to merit notability.--TBCΦtalk? 01:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I have to admit that I just created an account just for this topic. I was browsing around and it's ridiculous how you people are making a big deal. I, for one, believe that anyone who is even listed on IMDB should be notable. I say keep the article because she has been on TV--L&O:SVU. Although it was not the lead cameo, I still think that is pretty notable. Keep the article folks! Hkuatz27 17:32, 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) 2007-03-02 08:42Z

[edit] A. J. Khan

A. J. Khan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN actress. Does not pass WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep OK information SriKorange
• Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 13:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Appears to work solely in porn. As such, I can't verify notability right now, since I'm at work. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete per lack of sources. There's a lot on google about her, but I didn't see anything that makes a compelling case that she meets BIO.--Kubigula (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete pr0ncruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:44, 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 Merge to Neko-te. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:40Z

[edit] Handclaws

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

Long-term unsourced ninjacruft. Reads like something from Real Ultimate Power. Eyrian 20:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Neko-te. A bad article does not mean we shouldn't have an article at all. Let's fix this one. --Selket ^Talk 22:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - That article also has no sources. --Eyrian 19:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Neko-te, however you should note that Handclaws is a better article than Neko-te at this time. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • How is it better?--Eyrian 02:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Dragomiloff 00:54, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:40Z

[edit] Aras Corp

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

The entire article reads like an advertisement for Aras. Notability is very debatable. And, the author, InnovatorM seems to exhibit a conflict of interest. Hamitr 05:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• This company is probably notable, but the article as it stands is insidious spam, which is very bad for Wikipedia. I'd recommend speedy deletion followed by re-creation as a neutral stub. --N Shar 05:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The references establish notability. Style and NPOV issues can be addressed without deleting the article. --Eastmain 05:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I was hoping for deletion of history, but if that's not going to happen I'll just go ahead and nuke the article back to the Stub Age. --N Shar 05:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Done. It should be less spammy now.--N Shar 06:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I haven't looked at the earlier versions but the current text is a neutral report, not an advertisement. JamesMLane t c 06:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The awards support notability, as do some stories about it, like this Wall Street Journal one [14] --Oakshade 18:13, 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) 2007-03-02 08:38Z

[edit] John michael alvarez

John michael alvarez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Notability not asserted. Alex Bakharev 23:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral, does assert notability, but nothing particularly significant, does have a source, but not a particularly good one – Qxz 00:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - this article is very new, and got slapped with an AFD on the same day as creation. I've tagged with with an ((unref)) since the article is missing references, and should at least be given a chance before immediately being nominated for AFD. -- Whpq 21:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, for now. It is not helpful not to wait a few days while an article is being created, on the other hand one can create articles in his/her sandbox and put it up when it meets the guidelines. Alf photoman 00:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Article says "He acted with award winning actors in films and upon the stage", but there is no indication that his own work--as an actor or dancer--is particularly notable. Half the article is just a quote from an article of his that was presented, with no context given. The tone of the article makes me think that WP:COI issues are involved. janejellyroll 05:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Weak notability claim doesn't make the WP:BIO cut. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 07:24, 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:37Z

[edit] Northfield Park

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

Non notable local race track, {{prod}} was removed. John Reaves (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Wikipedia already has many articles on other notable horse racing venues. --Eastmain 05:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable race track. It is certainly a big part of Northfield's history. Also, the issue of casino gambling at horse tracks was on the ballot in Ohio in 2006, as noted in the article. The history section needs work however. Overall, this article does not need to be deleted. --DangApricot 20:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- Eastmain 20:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree with the above. It's a notable racetrack and there are 3rd party published works about it. --Oakshade 21:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There's no reason for a notable race track to be deleted. Suriel1981 10:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Google search for "Northfield Park" Ohio turned up 19,500 hits. Leaping to the 30th page of results revealed that the pages were still turning up exact matches. I think this is an indication of notability. Suriel1981 10:26, 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 Merge to School District 27 Cariboo-Chilcotin. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:27Z

[edit] 100 Mile House Elementary School

100 Mile House Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

150 Mile Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

non notable elementary schools (see one additional entry below). Nice articles, but there is just nothing interesting to say about these schools. Brianyoumans 05:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Also includes the article 150 Mile Elementary School --Brianyoumans 05:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both, nothing more than directories. TJ Spyke 08:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletions. -- Noroton 20:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete & Re-direct - 100 Mile House Elementary School to 100 Mile House and 150 Mile House Elementary School 150 Mile House, British Columbia - per the proposed WP:SCHOOL recommended course of action. Luke! 00:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to School District 27 Cariboo-Chilcotin. I can't find enough information to make this a substantive article. TerriersFan 20:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Both. Notability neither asserted nor evidenced. WMMartin 13:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to School District 27 Cariboo-Chilcotin per both LOCAL and SCHOOL guidelines. RFerreira 07:53, 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.

The result was Merge to School District 36 Surrey, School District 23 Central Okanagan. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:28Z

[edit] A S Matheson Elementary School

A S Matheson Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A H P Matthew Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A J McLellan Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

3 non-notable elementary schools in British Columbia (see additional listings below). Brianyoumans 05:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This AFD also includes: A H P Matthew Elementary School and A J McLellan Elementary School. Brianyoumans 06:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All NN schools, little more than directories. TJ Spyke 08:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a directory of schools. Catchpole 17:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to School District 23 Central Okanagan. TerriersFan 20:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All. Notability neither asserted nor evidenced. Some of these articles have been around for months as stubs. WMMartin 13:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to School District 23 Central Okanagan per both LOCAL and SCHOOL guidelines. RFerreira 07:54, 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:37Z

[edit] Aztech

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

No assertation of notability, no links to it, and has no noteable products ffm 22:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 06:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. They seem to have many notable sound card products. Wall Street Journal article [15]. Asiaweek article [16]. Much more stuff at Google news archives [17]. --- RockMFR 17:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per RockMFR's findings. Passes the regular notability guidelines. --Oakshade 17:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per RockMFR's findings. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:09, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:36Z

[edit] Yang Zuo

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

Article contains no references and fails to meet the WP:BIO standards. It is not known whether subject is fictional or real, even if then there appears to be only one source of information and should be merged into that article. Ozgod 06:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Unclear whether real, and even if real not sufficiently notable. --Nlu (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 07:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment as I said earlier, this is an occasional transliteration of Yangzhou, so it might be worth redirecting to there. FrozenPurpleCube 10:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep' under whatever is the correct name. Based on the comments at other AfDs, these noms seem to be being done without any understanding of Chinese history, and perhaps should have been checked more carefully first. The proper tag would have been unsourced. DGG 02:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The nominations made by Ozgod should not be lumped together. Some of the personalities mentioned are entirely fictional and should not be kept. --Nlu (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Fairly important figure in the Three Kingdoms. And as a note, even the fictional characters from the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, such as Zhou Cang, should be kept if they're important characters -- it's a major work of literature. Shimeru 18:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG and Shimeru. My ten cents worth: please check more carefully before causing us work with AfDs Alf^Photoman 21:00, 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:31Z

[edit] Yang Yi

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

Article fails to meet the WP:BIO requirements and contains no references. The subject of the article is not known whether to be real or a part of historical fiction. Should either be merged or deleted. Ozgod 06:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Very important figure in Shu Han's history. --Nlu (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Nlu, Three Kingdoms is not historical fiction. _dk 06:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Does subject fall under the biography category, however? Can this be cleared up in the article? Or should the article be merged to Shu Han? --Ozgod 06:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

How does the subject not fall under the biography category if the subject is a real person? I'm not sure if I understand your question. _dk 06:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Was the subject an actual person or a fictitious character in an historical fiction work? --Ozgod 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

He was real and fairly important, thus our keep votes. _dk 06:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Important figure in Shu Han history as mentioned above. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 07:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This person is a historical person and he has a bio in the official history of the Three Kingdoms. I suggest that that those who create bios of historical Chinese personaliies create more content before they hit the save button and add sources, so we don't get AfDs like this.--Niohe 15:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Fairly important Three Kingdoms-era figure. Shimeru 18:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 07:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Niohe, the person who created this article Darin Fidika (talk · contribs) was notorious for refusing to abide by Wikipedia rules on copyright and style. He has since been blocked indefinitely for repeated copyright violations, and so I don't think you need to worry about him. The question is what to do with the bunches of unsourced and poorly written articles he wrote. --Nlu (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• OK, got it!--Niohe 16:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep and source Apparently the best course of action would be a subproject for these 3 kingdoms articles. It might not be difficult to improve them as a group. This requires someone who can handle the names, both in characters and in standard transliteration.DGG 02:53, 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. Khoikhoi 01:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sudden Jihad Syndrome

Sudden Jihad Syndrome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is an obscure coinage that hardly warrants its own article. Moreover, the article's author has created a long list of people suffering from this "Syndrome," most of whom have not been linked to the term in any reliable source--in short, it smacks of original research. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 06:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, the phrase returns 199,000 google hits without quotation marks and 97,000 hits with them in. The term is used multiple times within high profile puplications such as the Boston Globe. Fatmans Liberal attempt to bury the truth should not be allowed to prevail.Prester John 06:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not make personal attacks on other people. Can you point us to at least two specific instances of this term being used in reliable sources? Sandstein 06:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR. The article concedes that the phrase is a neologism, but that's not the critical problem; it appears to have some currency among bloggers. The real problem here is that I see only one reference to a reliable source. All other references in the article that associate this term with specific incidents are original research, as the associated articles don't use this term. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment the article has been alive for less than an hour. I do have references available to all contentions, and I was about to place them in the article I wonder if the purpose of these editors is to abort this article before it even makes the light of day. I do have the ability to recreate the article with said references, if given a half chance by the above editors.Prester John 07:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Just put your references into the article; if people here change their minds, they’ll edit their opinions accordingly. —xyzzy_n 07:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The AfD discussion lasts five days...plenty of time to flesh out the article with citations to reliable sources. And please stop commenting / speculating on the motives of other editors. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original research—largely unsubstantiated by references. —xyzzy_n 07:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Only the single article uses the term, and only in passing (more as a bit of flavor than truly as a strong indicator of the acceptance of the term). Even the Globe article which does use the term mentions only 3 of the people found in the list. Especially when labeling people with such things as this purported syndrome, the sources have to come first. More importantly, no name should appear in any list without a specific reference using the term. I've removed the list items that have no sources whatsoever, but without verification of the use of this term, none of the other items should stay either. -- Jonel | Speak 07:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless proof is furnished that this is more than just a term coined by Pipes (the Globe article is a good start, but as Jonel points out, none of the other references use it). Additionally, even then we'll need to be careful in ascribing motives to people - Talovic's article as currently written contains a fair level of doubt about any religious motivation in his actions, for example. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• All of the reasoning in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudden jihad syndrome still applies. Uncle G 12:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, just as it was last time. Vague sourcing, mostly WP:OR and some of it's plain guesswork (for instance Gamil al-Batouti's motives can only be guessed at), not to mention being borderline racist. EliminatorJR 13:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- useful article on an interesting subject Astrotrain 13:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep -- but delete Gamil al-Batouti (who probably should never have been included in the first place). AnonMoos 13:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- Well referenced. As the Boston Globe writes, "After all, Haq is not the first example of what scholar Daniel Pipes has called ``Sudden Jihad Syndrome," in which a seemingly nonviolent Muslim erupts in a murderous rampage." I find the article very pertinent. As long as it remains strictly sourced I see no legitimate grounds for deleting it. Bus stop 15:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Well sourced??? Of the five external links, four don't mention "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" at all, while the other merely references Pipes' coining of the term. Indeed, two of the killings in the references make no reference whatsoever to political association. If this is well sourced, I could write a similar article about left-handed killers and call it "Sudden Sinister Syndrome", and it'd be just as worthy. EliminatorJR 16:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Would you even find one source indicating a propensity for left handed people to erupt in violence? I think not. But militant Islam does seem to have this tendency. And there are at least some sources to support that that propensity exists. Bus stop 16:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment But that is not what this AfD is about - it is about the phrase "Sudden Jihad Syndrome". It is *that* which needs to be sourced. If the article was called "Propensity of Islamic people to commit sudden violence" then your point would be valid. EliminatorJR 17:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm only responding to your attempt at making an analogy concerning left handedness. Bus stop 17:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Fair enough, it wasn't a great analogy. But the point remains that this article still isn't sourced well enough. EliminatorJR 17:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think we should give it a chance. It was just started today. Perhaps more substantial sources can be found. Bus stop 17:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It has 5 days from the start of the AfD, which should be enough time to source things better if this is in fact a term with wider currency. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per Jim Douglas. ITAQALLAH 22:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, speculation, and editor's political opinion. Someone being quoted making a borderline racist comment in a single newspaper article is not worthy of an entire encyclopedia article. Especially when the phrase is political opinion masquarading as a medical syndrome. Include this in a subsection at Daniel Pipes if it's noteworthy enough. ~CS 22:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please note that, as of today, the lengthy and detailed article about Daniel Pipes contains no mention of this obscure phrase.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 22:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Is notable. Recognized by The Boston Globe.--Sefringle 23:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per Proabivouac--Sefringle 23:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Recognised in passing, that is. The article cited does not discuss the term as its main focus. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment The Boston Globe isn't actually using the term. They are writing about Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, and in doing so quote Daniel Pipes, the man who our article credits as "coining" the term. Pipes used the phrase in his own article about Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar. As far as I can tell, our article only has one citation: Pipes' original comment, plus a Boston Globe article which points to Pipes' same original comment. ~CS 23:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A recently-coined phrase used by one individual isn't notable; additionally the title is too tongue-in-cheek to be appropriate to a serious encyclopedia.Proabivouac 23:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I disagree. It is not just tongue and groove. It is also serious. And it has been picked up by and used by a major news organization. Bus stop 23:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No it has not "been picked up and used by a major news organisation". The major news organisation said, in passing, that one particular person coined the term. There's a world of difference between that and the term passing into common usage at the Globe or anywhere else. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per not a soapbox. If some serious psychological study comes up with a similar theory then by all means let there be an article that covers aspects of such a study. Also per User:Proabivouac's logic. (→Netscott) 00:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete poorly-sourced neologism. Cool Hand Luke 00:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless this example of prejudice actually becomes N.DGG 02:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Aminz 07:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that this is an example of prejudice, but it's not original research for Wikipedia to report that prejudice exists in the world. Pipes's foray into bigotry seems to have attracted something of a following (not surprising, given the current Islamophobic mood) and so is notable. The article must be NPOV, however. As others have noted, the Globe citation isn't to a Globe article that uses the term, as if a journalist found it a helpful way to describe the world. Instead, it's a column by the right-winger Jeff Jacoby, who merely cited Pipes. This should be corrected. The article should also be balanced by the inclusion of criticism, but I can't find much, although there's a good savaging by a blogger: "When airhead heiress Lizzie Grubman drove her SUV into a crowd in 2001, injuring almost twice as many people as Taheria-azar, then attempted to flee the scene while showing no concern for her victims, nobody started blathering about 'Sudden Rich White Asshole Syndrome'." (from [18] - he even linked to our Lizzie Grubman article) The problem seems to be that most sensible commentators consider Pipes's silliness to be self-evident and not worth remarking upon. JamesMLane t c 09:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't quite follow the reasoning here. I would've thought that if the wider community (or "most sensible commentators") haven't touched Pipes' term, that would be a reason against giving it its own article - perhaps a reason for adding it into Pipes' own article, in the manner in which other turns of phrase peculiar to certain commentators are to be found in their articles. If Pipes is the only person who uses the term to any serious extent, and if the best we can do outside of his work is to find an article which links back to him and him alone, then we're dealing with someone inventing a term which has little or no currency, aren't we? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Sensible commentators haven't touched it, but there are 60,000+ hits from the likes of Little Green Footballs and other sloughs of irrationality. Generally, a blog doesn't meet the standards of WP:RS as a source for a fact -- but a fact about blogs, such as that many blogs use a term, can be considered when we try to adjudicate notabiliity. In addition, there are at least a couple uses that are neither Pipes himself nor right-wing blogs, e.g. Investor's Business Daily. My bottom line is that the term is out there enough that someone might see it, be unsure whether it's a real "Syndrome" or just some Islamophobe's rhetorical device, and come to Wikipedia seeking enlightenment. This article presents uses by Pipes and others and now includes a criticism that I added. It will therefore enlighten that hypothetical reader more than would a redirect to Daniel Pipes; the latter article couldn't readily accommodate all this detail. JamesMLane t c 20:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not every phrase coined by a commentator needs an article. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The term is a phrase which if I recall correctly was coined by Daniel Pipes to refer to the phenomenon of sudden violent acts by formely perceived to be mild mannerd Muslim individuals such as Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar and more recently Sulejman Talović. The phrase has nothing to do with racism or prejudice but simply describes a noticeable social phonemena which has every indication of being religiously motivated. As an encyclopedia we ought to provide an article to cover this important topic.Daniel Pipes describes Sudden Jihad Syndrome here.--CltFn 05:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The first sentence causes me to wonder if you've even read the article - the history of the term is in there. I've removed the link to Pipes site, which is already in the article for those who need to see the source material. CovenantD 06:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from editing other editors comments in an AFD discussion.--CltFn 12:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment - additionally, that fact that one particular commentator coined the term doesn't confer notability upon it. The straw-man argument about prejudice doesn't stand up, since nobody's suggesting that the article should be deleted for reasons of racism or prejudice (whether contained therein or on the part of the people advocating deletion). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There will be some that insist that the word is not notable and others who say it is, but looking beyond this we ought to ask ourselves, that if a readers comes accross the term in the internet, which they inevitably will if they read any anti-jihad blogs and which to find out what it means by searching Wikipedia, they ought to find an article that explains what it means. Thats the whole point of Wikipedia is it not?--CltFn 12:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You're going to hate me for saying this, but yes and no. Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus should contain lots of useful information for anyone who wants to look. However, no it should not contain everything in the world. Where our standards are concerned, it just doesn't seem to measure up. Don't worry, though, since it's equal opportunity discrimination - a term used by the political Left requires just as much sourcing and notability to be kept. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and merge into the Daniel Pipes article. Arrow740 17:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Why? Bus stop 17:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Would you include everything in this article in the Daniel Pipes article? If not, which information that's now in the article would you drop? JamesMLane t c 18:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Another non-notable political neoblogism. Dragomiloff 00:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Jim Douglas--Sa.vakilian 14:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it is stupid and not notable to have seperate article. (Do it quickly otherwise I will have sudden jihad syndrome -:) )--- 10:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ALM scientist (talk • contribs).

• Comment Are you suggesting Sudden Deletion Syndrome? Bus stop 14:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Daniel Pipes#Opinions or weak keep. As noted by a number of editors above (and confirmed upon reading the article), the term is used only in passing in the Boston Globe source. The article in which Pipes uses the term for the first time is not an independent source (and, if the numbers are true, ... very depressing as to the state of mind of the United States public). The term is is, however, addressed more non-trivially in a few other sources. However, I think this does deserve a mention in the biographical article. In any case, I oppose deletion as there should be a redirect from this term to the Daniel Pipes article (it is a plausible search term). -- Black Falcon 17:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge as noted above. I hold that this phrase is not notable enough to have its own article but since Pipes is notable it should be put in his page. A1octopus 20:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Netscott. Optionally a redirect can be created afterwards to that famous coiner of trite phrases, Daniel Pipes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I hardly consider him a "famous coiner of trite phrases." Daniel Pipes happens to be a well respected commentator on current events. Bus stop 20:29, 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 and protect. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:31Z

[edit] Muslims fear Backlash

Muslims fear Backlash (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This unattributed neologism has been created and speedy deleted several times. It fits no WP:CSD, though, so let's do this the proper way through AfD. Sandstein 06:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This neologism is not notable in and of itself. The fear of backlash is notable, but the term for the fear of backlash is not notable. --N Shar 06:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Unsourced derogatory articles should be deleted on sight, and this counts. There isn't even an assertion of sourcing, and it implies that Muslims do in fact have a propensity to fear backlash. -Amarkov moo! 06:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Still delete, since this phase has no sources. Being used doesn't count. -Amarkov moo! 19:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - per nomination. Artaxiad 08:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - this article hasn't even been created yet and it is being trounced upon and targeted for termination. I think , given it recieves 738 google hits and is a term used by multiple sources on Talk Radio, TV and the blogosphere, it should be given the chance to at least people comment in the discussion page. Having articles deleted without a single word in the discussion page is a gross violation of the founding principles of Wikipedia. Prester John 09:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and Salt per nom.--Jersey Devil 09:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (preferably not speedy, since as Sandstein's pointed out there's not really a category for it). Essentially, this is a misunderstanding of journalistic English, as any group at risk for doing/saying/thinking a certain thing can be said to "fear [a] backlash" in news headlines. See, for example, this Google search, where Bosnians, Tamils, (American) Democrats, Muslims (from the US and Australia), British troops, Saudi Shiites [sic] (a special kind of Muslim, I'll grant), "immigrants" (of no particular type), economists, Irish rugby players (of all people!) and Asian-Americans are all "fearing [a] backlash" for various things that members of their communities have done or said. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Common phrases in newspaper headlines do not constitute the basis for an article name on Wikipedia. If that were the case, we'd have articles called "Gas prices rise" and "Hot weather expected." CovenantD 11:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and salt. This neologism is pure original research based on a common phrase used by newspaper headline writers. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 16:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Anti-Islamic nonsense Al-Bargit 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per User:BigHaz and User:CovenantD. This is not so much an actual term as a news story title shorthand. --Black Falcon 19:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a stock phrase with no more significance than muddy dog or record profits.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ITAQALLAH 22:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 22:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, novel synthesis. Hesperian 22:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable enough to keep.--Sefringle 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no encyclopaedic content, POV. —xyzzy_n 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete belongs on a blog, not in an encyclopedia.Proabivouac 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per User:BigHaz and User:CovenantD. This isn't even a neologism -- it's sentence fragment (and incorrectly punctuated at that). We have sections in Persecution_of_Muslims#Persecution_of_Muslims_in_the_United_States and Islamophobia among other places that fear among Muslims about backlash related to Islamic extremism can be addressed. ~CS 23:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete inclusionists fear Backlash. Essentially this is an article that could be titled Xs fear Backlash with X equalling any group that due to some event fears a backlash. Why have an article about Muslims in particular? (→Netscott) 01:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOR, Neologism, and not a legitimate topic to make an article. Cool Hand Luke 02:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Aminz 07:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Re-salt per everyone above --Descendall 08:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unattributed neologism. Beit Or 09:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Webkami 16:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. Unsourced neologism. Dragomiloff 00:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Beit Or--Sa.vakilian 14:22, 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 08:34Z

[edit] Kolamalai durabi

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

very likely hoax page, considering it isn't sourced and the author previously added another hoax page at Maximillian gordte cupello Travelbird 06:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. A speedy delete tag would've probably gotten rid of it. AFD isn't always the answer to deleting articles. RobJ1981 07:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I usually place db-tags on anything remotely nonsensical. But since this article does have a certain, albeit small degree of sense to it, I was hesitant to tag it as a speedy delete. But if you want to add such a tag, be my guest. Travelbird 07:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete this trash Al-Bargit 17:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not verifiable. Likely hoax --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a probable hoax; if it is not a hoax, then the article certainly fails the policy on attribution. Kyra_~(talk) 22:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice - Indeed, "Kolamalai durabi" gets only 1 Google hit - and that hit is its listing on today's AFD. Scobell302 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 Speedy deleted per WP:CSD A7/G11. "If there was no wiki, I would have invented wiki and if there was no Wikipedia, I would have become the Wikipedia" :) Garrett^Talk 07:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pataro Igororyizu

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

Minor assertion of notability in the article, but no references to back it up. Google search on the name reveals a total of 5 hits, none of which back up notability claims. Hatch68 06:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as an ad (it reads as though it was copied in from a press release or something). When the album comes out, we'll be in a better position to write and source an article on him if he merits one. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Good in self-aggrandizing, though. Pavel Vozenilek 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete CSD A7, G11. --Descendall 07:23, 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 Copyvio so deleted. Tawker 08:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adsense blindness

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

neologism at best Travelbird 07:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as G12 - copyvio of here. So tagged. --Dhartung | Talk 07:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Artaxiad 08:38, 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 Redirect to Ahmedabad. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 08:36Z

[edit] Daxini

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

Non notable residential area. Aksi_great (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources are given, and I can't find any. They might exist, but it's not something Google is going to find. --- RockMFR 17:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per precedent. A quick Google search lists numerous individuals and companinies listing their adress as Daxini/Dakshini, Ahmedabad confirming the locality exists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nuttah68 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 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) 2007-03-02 08:35Z