Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nishkid64 01:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Whiton

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

Non-notable subject. ghits: [1] NMChico24 00:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete 69 hits? I have nearly 5 times that. And I am in no way notable and I'm also ten years younger. Oh, and I also worked for a US Senator once. Not even for his special envoy to Korea; for him. I'm still not notable. So neither is he. --CastAStone|^(talk) 00:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO -- Selmo ^(talk) 00:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability. No sources. No verifiability. --Shirahadasha 00:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Until there is WP: BUREAUCRAT this is completely nn. Mystache 01:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Notability is not asserted beyond a weak government connection. The subject himself has never been the focus of any non-trivial written publication. Leebo⁸⁶ 02:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of notability, fails Bio. Daniel5127 <Talk> 03:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for notability. Philippe Beaudette 05:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 08:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails notability--Boookabooo 10:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete lacks sources to pass WP:BIO.-- danntm ^T _C 14:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Unfortunately fails both the letter and the spirit of WP:BIO and does not seem to be as notable as most editors would include it. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 14:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N and WP:BIO. JCO312 15:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Definitely a one to keep and does have notability.Tellyaddict 16:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The article doesn't really assert that he passes the notability guidelines for people. Do you have a link to any sources that assert this? Leebo⁸⁶ 16:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• weak delete I could see where people like this could be potentially notable. nonetheless, fails WP:BIO. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete: Almost notable... .V. _[Talk|Email] 23:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-Fails WP:BIO. --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 00:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per all of the above. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 08:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to have enough notability. More than a great number of entries —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.201.136.57 (talk • contribs).— 69.201.136.57 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next Fifteen Communications

This article has been speedy deleted twice as a blatant ad and has had a PROD tag added to it, which was removed. User:Timdyson appears to have a Conflict of interest in this subject, as he is listed as the company's CEO. There appears to be nothing notable about this company. Corvus cornix 00:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Whatever this once was, its not a blatant Advert in its current form. I'll pitch in my opinion on notability after a little research.--CastAStone|^(talk) 00:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not an advert, but there is no notability currently. We have a link to the London Stock Exchange for the cmopany ticker, but that doesn't prove notability, only that it exists. --Dennisthe2 00:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • ...doh! --Dennisthe2 00:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Reviewed article in current state, now passes WP:CORP, but just so. Change vote to Keep accordingly. Please find some more resources. Have a nice day. --Dennisthe2 23:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain 00:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I hate to say it, but I'm having a hard time with this one here. They feel a little like Beatrice Foods. My !vote stands for now. --Dennisthe2 01:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Whatever PR they've been doing seems to be working. Deservedly or not, they've gotten sufficient coverage to meet the notability requirement of WP:CORP. --Shirahadasha 01:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Look under "significance". One sentence is unsupported, the other asserts that its subsidiaries are recognized. I would expect the parent company of several supposedly notable PR firms to have more coverage in the mainstream press. This company is simply not notable. -- Butseriouslyfolks 01:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think this passes WP:CORP - the credentials are solid enough - the market cap is 47.17M, and clicking around a bit on the competitors on Google Finance, I found that most of the news posts were either related to the stock (financial filings and such), or simple blurbs along the lines of "X picked up the Y account". Ironically, it seems that the really good PR firms are good at keeping themselves out of the news. :) If you take all the subsidaries and merge them to this article - it would have more meat and would feel less like an advert. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for notability. Philippe Beaudette 05:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:N. Salt if needed. /Blaxthos 07:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I would have thought that any company listed on the AIM is notable enough for Wikipedia. Dave 10:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep being traded on a particular market is not enough under WP:CORP, but the citations to the Daily Telegraph articles appear to be enough to satisfy WP:CORP criteria 1. JCO312 15:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Is notable and is for a world-wide company. Definitely one to keep.Tellyaddict 16:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This one is a hard one. Though it looks like a fairly decent-sized company, the article's majority of edits come from what appears to be the ceo of the company. That is definitely a conflict of interest. Also, not much outside verification outside of the company website. It may be possible to have an article like this, but it needs more sources and the CEO absolutely needs to recuse himself from editing it. Fundamentaldan 19:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Fundamentaldan --IRelayer 23:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• COI is nota reason for deletion. The only things to look at are coverage, and it appears this company has enough to warrant keeping it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and find more sources, I know there are some out there. I take a look as well. If none are found after research is complete, then delete. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 08:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, to quote another user: "I think this passes WP:CORP"! Mathmo ^Talk 11:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete According to the article, the company has existed since 1981. If they were notable, 25 years is long enough for them to have become well-known.-MsHyde 08:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of American artists

List of American artists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The subject of this list is unworkable, simply because it's too vast and is going to get bigger and bigger, but unfortunately with less and less notable artists and more and more contemporary ones, swamping the significant figures that one would wish to stand out. Smaller lists would work much better, i.e. List of 18th century American Artists, etc, List of American Artists born 1900-1950, then List of American Artists born 1950-75 and then 1976-. At least all the contemporary ones and the self-noms would be in one place to see easily if they merited a place. This would also create a historical context for the artists. There are also other artists lists that will need assessing, but let's take one at a time.Tyrenius 00:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Maybe putting this list into a category would be better, don't you think? Diez2 00:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, but reorganize Can't you just divide it by periods instead of alphabetically, put a notice on saying redlinks (and external spam links) will be deleted, & maybe have a "major contemporary artists" section that is policed, and then another "other contemporary artists" one at the end that you accept will have to be a bit rag tag & bobtail? You also have architects & doubtless other types in there; the criteria for inclusion need to be defined. Obviously the concept of the list is fine; its just the practicality. Having separate lists by century is not attractive; there are all sorts of overlap problems. It's not in that bad a state. I have problems like this at Printmaking & its daughter articles; better a messy list than no list. There already is a category of course, and people are always being encouraged to put categories into lists, not the other way around Johnbod 00:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm up for any meaningful and usable organisation, but this is no good to anyone, apart from unknown artists sneaking their name in. I've suggested retaining smaller lists. Using dates at least gives a rigid definition so that everyone knows where they are. Dates will also do a rough and ready job of sorting out major from ragtag contemporary artists, as major tend to be older. Good red links provide a valuable function to show articles that need to be written, so this purpose is also defeated by the present arrangement (though the new blue links are a good way of tracking down non notable contemporary artists.. ;) Tyrenius 01:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• If you have lists (or categories) by century, you have to put loads of people in two of them. The list isn't that long & the older periods would be quite short; as you say the problem is the contemporaries. I think you have have to keep redlinks out; there are other places (Visual arts project/ articles needed) for articles that should be done. Johnbod 01:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unmaintainable and unwieldy. I think a compromise between two ideas above can be reached - multiple categories per period. --Dennisthe2 00:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, The subject is ridiculously broad, making it impossible to keep the list accurate and organised. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 01:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. An article on American Art that said something of substance about these artists would be encyclopedia, a simple list violates WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. --Shirahadasha 01:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• It is nevertheless established that wiki does have lists (lots of them). What we need are lists that are useful and usable. This requires the right definition to start with. Tyrenius 01:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Here's what I say to do: Redirect this to Lists of American artists which would cover the kind of segmentation suggested in the nomination. Or any other kind of division desired. FrozenPurpleCube 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Do you mean a central list from which the specialised ones could be accessed? That would work. The real problem here is the amount of contemporary artists who swamp the rest. At the very least there should be a list of historic (i.e. dead) and contemporary (i.e. living) artists. The latter would be even better subdivided. If there was a list of people born after, say 1975, it would catch a lot of the not-terribly-notables (but just notable enough to survive an AfD) and make the other lists far easier to read. Tyrenius 01:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I'm suggesting. I have no idea what those sub-lists will be, but I do feel they should exist. FrozenPurpleCube 01:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I'm no expert, but isn't the generation of this type of list precisely what categories are for? So if anything, I'd suggest a set of narrower categories that include time period and nationality (i.e., 19th century American artists or whatnot). Planetneutral 01:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm no expert on categories (or lists - I tend to avoid them -mainly because there's too many like this one!), but an earlier comment said the encouragement was for lists rather than cats.Tyrenius 01:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes - look at any Categories for deletion day page (WP:CfD) - "Listify" is the regular cry. I think this is quite right by the way; lists sit quietly by themselves; categories have to be in every article, are much harder to rearrange etc. Johnbod 01:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds as if what we really need is the equivalent of an index, which is essentially what lists are, but conceiving of them in that way might make it easier to decide what lists to have. Tyrenius 02:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As it stands, this list is of very little use. It is just a list of (potentially many thousands of) names, providing no context for each name—which is precisely what a category is. To be useful, the names in such a list would need to be categorized by genre of art. Moreover, the definition of artist is so broad that the number of people who could be listed is vast—too vast for one page. This list should be a category, and not surprisingly there already is such a category: Category:American artists. ●DanMS 02:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory or a list of lists. Philippe Beaudette 05:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, listcruft. There are many American artists. It's simply impossible to compile it into a list, a category will be much easier. Terence Ong 10:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 11:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep using criterion. I raised this issue on the article's talk page. Specifically: "What's the criteria for listing here? Should the artist have been born in this country? Is reputation a factor? Are we wasting our time on a list that cannot be complete?" I might suggest the following. Allow this list by do not allow names for which there is no biographical information. In this way, the user can read a bio to determine information about the artist which, hopefully, puts him/her in context. This also prevents a random list of names with no context whatsoever. For example, I added the name George McConnell, but did not add a biography. This would force me to create his bio first, and then add his name to the list. Let me also point out that there are many references to biographies of American artists that are alphabetical with no further categorization. For example, the three volume reference Who Was Who in American Art (Falk, ed.).JJ 14:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Change to Category or Delete - I believe that something as broad as his would be best suited as a category or nothing at all. Then the criteria for inclusion are a bit more simplified in terms of notability. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 15:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete/change to category. CfD "listify" cries are usually based, from what I can tell, on over-categorization. Something as broad as American Artists is, IMO, perfect for a category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geoffspear (talk • contribs) 21:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete-Lists are terrible, and this one is way too general. We have categories for lists, not mainspace pages. --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 00:31, 3 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. Daniel.Bryant 08:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advendo

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

Fails WP:BAND. The article does not list any songs this band has put out, and the only thing that seems to make them notable is the fact that they skated on ice skates in 1985. Diez2 00:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Non-notable marching band. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under CSD A1 and CSD A7. Iced Kola^(Mmm...) 01:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Philippe Beaudette 05:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability. Band's website listed in article has Alexa rank of 6,878,040. Dave6 06:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 08:22, 2 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. Bucketsofg 00:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cakes society

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

Ok, this is the "Cakes Appreciation Society" that does... I don't seem to know. Also, the founder "likes to keep things British"? I say Delete. Diez2 00:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Clearly a non-notable subject, and I can't see how the article could be expanded beyond a stub. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 01:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Philippe Beaudette 05:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete No assertion of notability. No references or ghits. skip (t / c) 07:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - non notable. Non verifiable (BTW: no google hit), maybe it is an hoax or an attack. Cate | _Talk 09:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I like cake Dave 10:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:V, WP:N. Terence Ong 10:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 11:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, and Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. --sunstar net^talk 12:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - nothing about this can be verified, no references present --Urbanshakedown 15:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No, there is one Google hit... And that is the Wikipedia page. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 15:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - ... so there might even be one yahoo hit if we are lucky... also wiki --Jack Jones 11 16:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:ORG, WP:V.-- danntm ^T _C 20:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-WP:ORG. (I wonder what they eat all day :))--TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 00:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete junk. JuJube 22:47, 3 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 non-notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big Trell

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:BAND. This rapper has only released one song on some unknown album. In order to pass notability, bands or singers have to sing either a well-known song or many not-so-well-known songs. This rapper didn't do either. Diez2 00:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete under CSD A1 (no context) and CSD A7 (non-notable). Iced Kola^(Mmm...) 01:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7, such tagged. BJ^Talk 04:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Notability is everything. Philippe Beaudette 05:41, 2 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 Result was Speedy Keep (nomination withdrawn) Diez2 01:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vancouver Kitsilano Boys Band

Vancouver Kitsilano Boys Band (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC - high school bands are not notable -- Selmo ^(talk) 00:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep After taking a closer look at it, it is notable -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:00, 2 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.--Húsönd 05:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bradley Turcotte

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

Non-notable journalist. In order to pass notability, the journalist must have been featured in the news somewhere and/or won an award for journalism. This person did neither. Diez2 00:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Just self-promotion. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 01:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity page. Basically nothing on Google about him, as if there was any doubt. SubSeven 05:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Journalists are not automatically notable, just because they're published. Philippe Beaudette 05:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. The product of a single purpose account. Victoriagirl 06:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 11:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This violates the Wikipedia policy on autobiography, and the word "vanity page" may be considered incivil. As Philippe Beaudette states above, journalists are not automatically notable - only some are, e.g. Carl Bernstein. --sunstar net^talk 12:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO by quite a bit. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:11, 2 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.--Húsönd 05:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Make limstone in your own kitchen!

Make limstone in your own kitchen! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Contested prod. Heimstern Läufer 01:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per WP:NOT. hateless 02:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, also per WP:NOT. Limestone isn't even spelled right. --Havocrazy 02:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, "4. Instruction manuals" Tennis DyNamiTe ^{(sign here)} 02:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It provides no context to the instructions. Even with proper context the instructions would not be encyclopedic, but there is no effort made to make this a satisfactory article. Leebo⁸⁶ 02:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic, sections are short and lack content, article violates WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete! JuJube 03:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete wikipedia is not an instruction manual Benon 05:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:SNOW. Part Deux 05:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Philippe Beaudette 05:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy per WP:SNOW. Instructions in article are needlessly complicated, considering that the process actually starts with limestone. Very weird article. --N Shar 06:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Realkyhick 09:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW Dave 10:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Very confusing and oddball article with not much use, it seems to be repeated in the 'talk' section. Jamesbuc
• Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW--Boookabooo 10:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT, WP:SNOW. Terence Ong 10:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I tried this recipe. I broke a tooth. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Totally pointless article. It says to make limestone, take some limestone, add water, remove the water by drying it, end product limestone! Jules1975 16:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete although the concept of making limestone (step 1: get some limestone) has given me a great money-making idea: making diamonds in my own kitchen (step 1: get some diamonds). Hmm, maybe I didn't think it through... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Deletenon-notable recipe. But it was delicious and refreshing. Way better than the old recipe: "Put the limstone in the coconut, and drink them both together" Edison 17:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete as highly unencyclopedic and per WP:NOT. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as textbook Wikipedia is not a how-to guide.-- danntm ^T _C 21:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT, as wikipedia is not a how-to guide, also lacks content in the various sections. ~ Arjun 22:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. S.D. ¿п? § 00:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Make deletion of how to guides per WP:NOT in your own Wikipidia! --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 00:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete CSD A1 applies here. Gizza^{Chat ©} 10:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• BJAODN, maybe next time they could put up a recipe for a nice limestone parfait... --Candy-Panda 13:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into BJAODN because while this doesn't deserve its own article, it is pretty funny! SuperDT 23:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak transwiki, give the author a chance to improve it at Wikibooks, and if unimproved, delete —siroχo 09:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, cool info but... it doesn't belong here unfortunately. Do support the idea of transwiki though. Mathmo ^Talk 09:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm jumping on the pile. I submitted it to BJAODN per Candy Panda. YechielMan 20:47, 4 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 g1, patent nonsense, author is in the midst of a flood of nonsense articles. NawlinWiki 02:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Klongidni

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

Appears to be a hoax. No ghits, and no sources for these supposed cars. Seems to be a contested speedy deletion. SunStar Net^talk 02:11, 2 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.--cj | talk 15:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bushi-jujitsu

Bushi-jujitsu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

It seems to me that this page is based upon a false history which exists no where else that I've encountered. Asao Yoshida is one of the names which Choi Yong Sul's senior students say that he went by while living in Japan. Even Choi's connection to Daito-ryu is contested (To make Asao into another person who studied under Choi is a new one on me.) The name of the art seems quite unlikely for a legitimate Japanese tradition. It may be that the author is innocently conveying information which has been supplied to him through no fault of his own but I see little reason to give it further distance to run unless some sort of verification of its legitimacy miraculously appears.--Mateo2006 02:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• delete The page appears to be a supporting page (same author) for Ken-shen ryu which is undergoing its own afd debate and suffers the same problems of non-notability, non-verifiability. I concur with the above observation.Peter Rehse 02:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. JuJube 03:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:BIO, WP:V. Terence Ong 10:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 11:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it unless it can be sourced. --UsaSatsui 18:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Appears unverifiable, perhaps part of a walled garden as above. Shimeru 08:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Melrose Lodge No. 67

Melrose Lodge No. 67 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Google gets exactly six hits for "Melrose Lodge No. 67", none of them establish that this is notable. Article claims no notability. Carabinieri 02:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Webucation 18:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC) What the hell are you talkng about? So what uf google doesn't have a million hits for it. It exists, its a building, i beluieve it should be there. If you erase it I will put it right back up so go home.

• Delete, clearly outside the bounds of notability. Slac speak up! 03:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:Notability Philippe Beaudette 05:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Greatest claim appears to be a member who spent one year as mayor of Vancouver. Fails WP:Notability. Victoriagirl 06:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not even close to being notable. Realkyhick 09:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - unremarkable building. MER-C 11:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- nn building/organization. --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 00:38, 3 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 speedily deleted by Lacrimosus. Iced Kola^(Mmm...) 04:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WAC Productions

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

non-notable, the author repeatedly reverted my db tag. Wooyi 02:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete db-group. The author cannot remove db tags from pages. JuJube 03:32, 2 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. Maybe the article should be moved to Saudi-Yemeni conflict or something like that. Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves (or be bold and just do it). — CharlotteWebb 02:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saudi-Yemeni War

can i consider it as "Conflict of interest"? - (there were never been a war between saudi arabia and yemen , and Najran & Asir used to be under Tribes conquest while Jizan conquered by Al-Aiyd who was againts yemeni Imam) Ammar 02:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep for a number of reasons. First and foremost, this isn't a "conflict of interest" case (the term only refers to what happens when an editor writes an entry on themselves or the small company they've just founded - so unless the article was created by one of the combatants in the war, it doesn't qualify). Secondly, I'd want proof that there hasn't been such a war. There's a reference - albeit a very scanty one - provided. Additionally, Paul Dresch's "History of Modern Yemen" refers to the war as the cause of the Yemeni Army being strengthened with the jaysh difa'i militia (p 46) and also mentions some of the fighting in this conflict (pp 34-35). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• move to a more appropriate title, accoridng to [2] this is an on going conflict stemming from a 1934 treaty text here Benon 05:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - while it may have been a minor conflict, it cleary existed: [3] [4] [5]. Perhaps the article exists under another name; we should look for the right name though. Part Deux 05:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - WP:COI is inapplicable and the war existed (as noted above) and is notable by WP standards. I will try to flesh out the article using some of the sources noted here (possibly not now, but definitely within 24 hours). Black Falcon 05:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Let's give it a bit, see how it goes, and revisit if we need to. Philippe Beaudette 05:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note - the nominator gave a notice on the talk page requesting references that received no response for over a month (I assume because it's not a high-traffic page). However, I still stand by my vote as sources are available and even before the AfD one source was present. Black Falcon 05:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, invalid claim of COI in nomination, invalid disputation of factual basis. --Dhartung | Talk 06:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think maybe the person is saying that the war did not involve Yemen as we know it or was not a war in the sense normally meant. That because of that the name is misleading and ahistorical. I don't know enough to say if that's true, but it'd be a different issue to "it never happened."--T. Anthony 08:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment In that case there may be a case for renaming it, but I doubt it, given that it is an accepted name. Dave 10:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment there havent been a "Declaration of war" but i confirm there was a conflict between Asir tribes & ib saud , so how about "Saudi conquest of Asir" title ? Ammar 12:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The English language tends to refer to conflicts as "wars" even if there was no declaration of war. The Korean War, for instance. Edited. --Charlene 17:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep & Rename Keep it if it is accurate, but rename it if the article name is not accurate. --Silverhand^Talk 13:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Rename - it was a historic event, although did not involve Yemen under the name "Yemen" --JavazXT 15:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• RENAME war is definitely the wrong word Alf photoman 18:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment regarding naming: it is frequently the case that wars are known by different names to the respective combatants. Article naming is supposed to favor the most common name in English, and conventionally if there are alternate names we note that in the introduction to the article. I have not found one overwhelming name that this is known by, but Saudi-Yemeni War has the apparent plurality. War between Saudi and Yemen and Saudi-Yemen War are the only alternate ones that have any currency. Some histories seem to downplay the fact that there was a war at all, concentrating on the Taif Treaty that resolved it. But most that mention the war seem to agree that there was a significant invasion by Saudi Arabia including occupation of Hodeida. --Dhartung | Talk 22:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and move to a more appropriate title as stated above. --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 00:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note on renaming or: why the article shouldn't be renamed - The correct name of Yemen during the 1934 war was "The Mutawakkilite Kingdom of Yemen". However, until 1967, there was no other independent political entity known as Yemen (South Yemen was occupied by the British). Although technically, the article could be renamed to "Saudi-Mutawakkilite war", I think this would only create confusion. In addition, as Dhartung notes above, articles should be named to reflect their most common name in English. The only English-language designation for the war I have encountered is Saudi-Yemeni war. Black Falcon 01:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Can still be transiwiki'd, then revisited at AfD. Merge or a rename could also be discussed without AfD. W.marsh 16:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glossary of shapes with metaphorical names

Glossary of shapes with metaphorical names (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Reason:This article was created "in order to provide a place for shape references to redirect to, as V-shaped, which used to redirect to V-shaped valley." It's been copied to Wiktionary, where (as a set of dicdefs) it belongs. Why do we need this? Let V-shaped redirect to Wiktionary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• keep. First, you cannot "redirect to wiktionary". Second, there is more than that explained in talk:Glossary of shapes with metaphorical names: "to collect definitions of various shapes, which would otherwise have got small articles." People continue to confuse the difference between "dictionary definition of a word" and "description of a thing, notion, or a concept". The size of the description of an object does not matter and it belongs to encyclopedia. The description of a word belongs to a dictionary. Some of these descriptions are minor, yet improtant. E.g. "I shaped" is not what you would think while looking at this word printed in sans-serif. If you have nothing better to do, why don't you try and delete the Cleveland Steamer for an exercise? `'mikka 03:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Because Cleveland steamer is a thing, not a word. Whether it is notable or real enough to have an article is another question, on which consensus has not been reached. (If there is consensus to keep this article, fine by me; but I think it should be discussed.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because it borders on incoherence. If something is shaped like a U, it is shaped like a U. There is no metaphor. If something is "triangle-shaped" does that mean it's a metaphor? The entire premise of the article is untenable, and its poorly written and confusing to boot. I am not swayed by the above comment that retires to the old "why not delete all these other stupid articles first" argument.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• merge into Shape. For such a well used term the shape article is very brief. Shape itself is a tricky term to deal with especially in a mathematical way, and comparision with other objects is one of the major ways in which the shape of something can be described. On Talk:Shape I've briefly outlined an expansion of the article which incorperates some of the ideas from this glossary. --Salix alba (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep, rename into Glossary of shapes of List of shapes. With some exceptions (most of which are in List of geometric shapes) all names of shapes are comparisons with typical "real" objects. By the way this situation is called simile, not metaphor, i.e., the article title is wrong anyway. But the content is useful and informative, in many instances goes beyond simple dictionary definition, i.e., encyclopedic. By the way, I noticed that an overview article Names of shapes or shape naming may be handy as well: a quick google search reveals that this issue is widely discussed, at least in the context of children learning. For example, there is a very interesting article "Etymology of Geometry Terms" (which may suggest a wikipedia title, Etymology of shape names, in our context). Mukadderat 16:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete I keep reading this article and talk page thinking I will finally figure out what this is doing. I keep failing. It says the name is somehow metaphorical, but I cannot find it. Even if I assume "metaphorical" is misused and it's actually an example of simile or symbolism or whatever, I am at a loss. "V-shape" - I suppose that's an explicit comparison to the shape of a V, but what else would V-shape mean? Same with heart-shaped and the likes. One argument seems to be that the terms specify exactly what the shape these adjectives denote is, but if this is the intention, it is not the result. If one did not know what something pear-shaped was, for example, I do not think s/he will be helped by being told it is a comparison to the shape of a pear. Possibly housing this in some context in shape or something similar would work, but I must admit this entire article continues to perplex me. GassyGuy 06:58, 8 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. Bucketsofg 00:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Philippine Presidents who served more than one term

List of Philippine Presidents who served more than one term (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - redundant to List of Philippine Presidents by time in office. Otto4711 03:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not much else to say, really. Black Falcon 05:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Philippe Beaudette 05:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant. --Dhartung | Talk 07:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 11:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. Shrumster 15:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-Redundant --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 00:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Selmo ^(talk) 02:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 17:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No point. --Folantin 11:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - now, if only we could fix the double standards around this place...Moreschi ^Deletion! 16:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Philippine Presidents who served one term or less

List of Philippine Presidents who served one term or less (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete redundant to List of Philippine Presidents by time in office. Otto4711 03:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not much else to say, really. Black Falcon 05:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant. --Dhartung | Talk 07:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 11:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. Shrumster 15:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 17:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Redundant list. --Folantin 11:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Youmustbejokingdelete. Per everyone else. Moreschi ^Deletion! 16:14, 5 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 speedily deleted by Gogo Dodo. MER-C 08:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars: A Dark Path

Star Wars: A Dark Path (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A not-yet-filmed fan film. Was deprodded by the article's creator, who left his reasoning at Talk:Star Wars: A Dark Path; however, at this time I don't believe the film is notable enough for inclusion. BryanG^(talk) 03:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable fan film not even released. And WP:NOT#SOAPBOX to the talk page's argument. Saligron 04:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - g7, blanked by author. Part Deux 05:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it's not created, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Philippe Beaudette 05:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Blanked by author. Maxamegalon2000 06:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the Franks

Origin of the Franks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Admitted personal essay. Unreferenced. No reason why any relevant information can't be placed in Franks. Slac speak up! 03:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I think most of the relevant information is already in the article on the Franks. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Relevant data can be added to existing articles. Philippe Beaudette 05:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 11:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Question Where is the "admitted" aspect of this being a personal essay? Nothing on the page's discussion and the only comment on the creators talk page is that the text is his (which is simply a statement that he wrote the article, something we already know). I completely agree this reads like an essay (heck, the guy uses "I feel that politics are involved here" in para. 1), just wondering where the evidence is before I vote. The topic is certainly encyclopedic, even if this current article is in horribly poor form. -Markeer 15:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and commend the Franks article to User:Michael042. Might suggest that the closing admin may also want to move this text to a subpage off the author's user page. The topic is certainly worthy, and this is certainly a worthy effort towards a valuable contribution, but more information ought to be added to the article in chief before splitting off the origin as a separate article. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It is an essay written in first-person with no sources. Fundamentaldan 19:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-Essays don't really belong in mainspace and no sources. --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is an essay without any references. johanthon 20:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and move to userspace subpage as suggested above or off-wiki. Right now the article does read like a personal essay, and one that appears to engage in speculation/original research as well. It's an interesting topic, and with considerable reworking and citation of sources, this article might better fit into Wikipedia mainspace. --Kyoko 20:55, 5 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. Daniel.Bryant 12:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Klassen

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

vanity-user:Texaco oil king's only edits have been either vandalism or vanity, he is the self-identified Paul Klassen, see also discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Fischer Chris 03:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The article offers no evidence of notability. --Eastmain 04:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertion of notability, google search comes up with little. Part Deux 05:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for WP:Notability Philippe Beaudette 05:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Victoriagirl 06:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - unremarkable teacher. So tagged. MER-C 11:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angel Eyes (porn star)

Angel Eyes (porn star) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN name. Performer doesn't seem to meet either WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Dismas|^(talk) 04:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete no assertion of notablity made, and does not appear, per nom to satisfy the bio and porn guidlines Benon 05:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• delete per nom. Chris 05:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per no evidence of notability. Edison 06:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 12:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This article has nothing in it that asserts the notability of the subject, and nothing of note that would satisfy Wikipedia's policy on articles relating to pornographic actors. Of course, if it later transpires that something happens that does make the subject notable enough for encyclopedic inclusion, then people can always ask for a deletion review. --sunstar net^talk 12:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom--TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 00:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiering Software

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

Nom - fails WP:CORP, has produced no notable software (WP:SOFTWARE), unsourced article since August 2006. Rklawton 16:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 04:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. See nothing notable, no software, etc. Philippe Beaudette 05:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Has several products, and this page could be a single place to discuss them all: Super Worms, Charlie the Duck, Charlie II. OTOH, these games don't seem notable (all are AfD at this time), and "a collection of non-notable things" is not necessarily "a notable container article". So need at least something of notability of the company or at least one of the games before I'd say "keep". DMacks 06:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Looking through the google hits for "Wiering Software", all I see is the company site and a ton of freeware/shareware download sites. What I couldn't find was any newspaper articles, etc. about either Mike Wiering or Wiering Software. wieringsoftware.nl gets an Alexa rank of 473,445 [6]. A quick look at the sites linking in shows a bunch of download sites, but no magazines or newspapers. So as far as I can tell, this is just someone who's written a few shareware games, probably makes a little money selling them from his website, but none of the published works listed in WP:SOFTWARE seem to have anything to say about him or his company. Dave6 07:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 11:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. The article says itself that it's "small". --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 00:54, 3 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-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie II

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

Nom - fails WP:SOFTWARE, no sources, no independent reviews, no awards, zip. Rklawton 16:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 04:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge. No notability asserted, so deletion is reasonable. However, I'd support merging into Wiering Software if that page were found to be viable. DMacks 06:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons I listed for Wiering Software, nn shareware game. Dave6 07:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 11:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep there's a Game Tunnel review from the site's creator Russell Carroll here, I personally count Game Tunnel as a reliable source, but that's only one. There's another review here from 24/7 games, with a named reviewer and a score - not the strongest source but a damn sight better than the usual blog mentions and guff from download sites. Other google results are less than promising, but with sifting could yield some more info in the future. I believe there's a nice little neutral and cited article screaming to get out of this somewhat promotional stub. QuagmireDog 04:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, could the original Charlie the Duck not also be merged in? They're virtually the same game by the look of things, just that the sequel has a new set of levels. An article called "Charlie the Duck" featuring both games makes more sense than an article called "Charlie II" and no mention of the first game. QuagmireDog 08:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie the Duck

Charlie the Duck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nom - fails WP:SOFTWARE, no sources, no independent reviews, no awards, zip. Rklawton 16:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 04:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge. No notability asserted, so deletion is reasonable. However, I'd support merging into Wiering Software if that page were found to be viable. DMacks 06:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons I listed for Wiering Software, nn shareware game. Dave6 07:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 11:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super Worms

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

Nom - fails WP:SOFTWARE, no sources, no independent reviews, no awards, zip. Rklawton 16:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 04:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge. No notability asserted, so deletion is reasonable. However, I'd support merging into Wiering Software if that page were found to be viable. DMacks 06:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons I listed for Wiering Software, nn shareware game. Dave6 07:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 11:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 17:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MacSpark

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

Non-notable, no reliable sources Wackymacs 16:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete per nom and WP:CORP, unless reliable third-party sources can be provided to establish its notability. Walton monarchist89 17:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 04:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Small company only existed ~1 year before merging into another and no notable results after that are asserted. The one product with asserted notability (UpdateWasher) has a single ref, and that is to an article that neither comments extensively on the item nor gives it especially high ratings. It's a product-roundup article whose inclusion criteria are broad: "When I first started looking at the various tweaking utilities, I downloaded each one that I found" and the item is not listed in the "recommended" category. DMacks 06:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 12:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EBG Systems, Inc.

Looks like an advertisement to me. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no obvious notability. Website not ranked by Alexa. No indepednent proof of client claims. --Dhartung | Talk 07:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete a self promoting article. the main chunk is not about EBG Systems by about a guy called Manny and his accomplisments/life story --Boookabooo 10:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 12:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Businesses whose names include systems or solutions are presumptively not notable. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment (by article creator) I don't understand the viewpoints stated here. The company has existed in various forms for decades, and is well-known and respected within the American business community, dealing with some of the nation's largest corporate entities. Emmanuel Garcia is featureds because he is the driving force behind this company. Tags were added to the article pointing out areas which needed improvement. I did some work to implement them and removed the tags. If you have other observations on how the article should be changed, or how it is composed in a distasteful manner, I am happy to conduct further edits. I am writing in the style that comes naturally to me. User: Emellis (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If this is your first go-round at the process, I can understand why it would be confusing. Nobody is saying your work was not good. The article seems to be fairly well-written. However, it seems to fail to meet the criterion on WP:NOTABILITY and is lacking sources. As it stands right now, this article is not something that should be on Wikipedia. Perhaps you can look for some verifiable sources and find a way to write an article that could be included here. Or, maybe you can try to get your feet wet in other articles and see what is normally included here. As it stands now, I also have to vote Delete on this one. Good luck! Fundamentaldan 19:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please note that accomplishment is not the same thing as notability. The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia are not "existed ... for decades", "respected within the business community", or "dealing with major corporate entites". They are being verifiable by reliable third party sources. If we cannot find such coverage, it is very rare that we will find consensus on keeping an article. Writing style plays a relatively small role in this process. --Dhartung | Talk 22:18, 2 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Times Magazine (music)

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

Not a notable publication. Aaronproot

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 04:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete. Article mentions several points of notability (oldest of its kind, notable in its geo/genre, etc). But the only references listed are the mag's own websites. It's hard to google this kind of thing, since the title is a common English expression...probably need someone who knows something about the industry or the mag to find any shred of third-party information. Any such ref would put me at a clear "keep". DMacks 07:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. In its current state, this is a clear delete. Spurious claims to notability backed up by exactly zero references. I would consider changing my vote if the article improved by the end of the AfD. A Train ^{take the} 19:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Lack of references is a reason to add references. A Google search for ``"good times magazine" +music'' brings us external references here and here and here from just the first couple of pages at Google, to address the issue of notability. Note that these links are not references about this magazine, but their existence speaks to the respect the magazine has within its own industry. One rarely sees articles written about news magazines. I'll poke a friend of mine in the music industry and see if more details can be scrounged. Please feel free to do your own research, too.  ◉ ghoti 07:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely you jest. Have you actually looked at those links that you pulled out? Even if those weren't just obscure fan sites and commercial sites, your reasoning is flawed. Remember that the criterion for notability states: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works. "Good Times Magazine" is not the subject of any of the links you pulled out. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source, and It is not incumbent upon me, the AfD voter, to do extensive research to save a dubious article; I've got my own research to do. A Train ^{take the} 16:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 10:45, 8 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 as recreation (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional deaths). Part Deux 05:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional Deaths

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

Overly broad list that by definition will include every Redshirt (character), Ted, the Generic Guy, and other stock character to have ever died in any fictional work. As this list is potentially unbounded in size, delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Allen3 ^talk 04:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Storyline of Perfect Dark

Storyline of Perfect Dark (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary spin-off page full of fancruft. Soo 04:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP:FICT: "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis ... not solely a summary of that work's plot." Wikipedia is not a game guide. There is already a plot summary in the main article, so this is totally redundant. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Completely redundant fancruft. Can be transplanted to the Perfect Dark article if necessary. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Which it isn't, since Perfect Dark is already a featured article with a summary of the story. Soo 07:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Merely a plot summary. MER-C 12:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete breach of WP:FICT. Madmedea 12:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, we don't need a play-by-play of the whole storyline. Trebor 15:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• (weak?)Keep I feel Perfect Dark deserves a longer plot summary, the main reason I made this article. I have seen articles with a simmilar amount of summary. Example Marcus Fenix. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Muldoon X9 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunately, the existence of similar entirely in-universe plot summaries does not mean that this one should be kept. Trebor 00:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Compromise Ok. I got one. The summary you have is the equvilent of a summary of a summary. I think a little expansion wouldn't hurt in the main article. We could expand that ( a little) and you could delete this article, which took me a couple days to type.Muldoon X9 13:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The article doesn't need any expansion of storyline, it passed an extremely rigorous Featured Article debate. You could've saved yourself "several days of typing" (not continuous, I assume) by checking the discussion on the talk page. Soo 20:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete You guys seem to have the odds stacked against me... And you do have some pretty good points. sigh. You win. Oh well. I'll just have to find something better to do with my time. Maybe I should get a life... Can you recommend something for me to do (on Wikipedia.)Muldoon X9 01:41, 6 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. Bucketsofg 00:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Philippine Presidents by number of votes

List of Philippine Presidents by number of votes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article duplicates List of Philippine Presidential elections while containing less information. Moreover, it lists presidents in terms of the raw # of votes received and is therefore biased toward more recent times (a larger population). Finally, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--election results are good, but a list of 14 individuals by vote count is unnecessary. Black Falcon 05:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This list is redundant, and as pointed out by Black Falcon, is not useful because of population growth. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not necessary - info can be merged into existing articles. Philippe Beaudette 05:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - not a good day for Philippine presidential lists... Otto4711 06:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, illogical/meaningless ranking criteria. --Dhartung | Talk 07:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment You guys know that we now have a class called "wikitable sortable"? I'd say merge because the original article really needs a compact table. ~ trialsanderrors 08:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant, listcruft. Terence Ong 11:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 12:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; this is indiscriminate and redundant. Trebor 15:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. By number of votes? What's next...list of Presidents by height? Gender? Shrumster 15:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as arbitrary and redundant.-- danntm ^T _C 22:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 17:59, 3 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 Reverted by User:Dmz5 to former version as a redirect - Peripitus (Talk) 07:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stapling

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

This page conveys no meaningful information. It appears to be nothing more than someone’s rambling. ●DanMS 05:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, nonsense. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I wanted to go for speedy also, but I couldn’t quite come up with a category. Too bad we don’t have a {{db-foolishness}} category. ●DanMS 05:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Article is clearly a joke. This probably should have been nominated for speedy deletion. --Treemother199 05:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Perhaps reverting to an earlier version, a simple redirect to Staple (fastener), http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stapling&oldid=16433952 , would be the best solution. --Eastmain 05:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Revert to redirect (as above). SkierRMH 05:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unreferenced nonsense. Edison 06:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy revert per Eastmain. Alternatively, redirect to Stapler. --N Shar 06:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• I was bold and reverted the obvious vandalism - it's now a redirect again, as it should be. I don't think a full AfD was necessary.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I don't understand why it didn't work. If you click on the article name or search for it, you get the vandalized version, but if you go into history and click on my most recent edit, it's the redirect. What's causing the conflict? Should I have blanked the page first?-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Purge the cache and wait? --N Shar 06:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yoshihiro Homma Hisa

Yoshihiro Homma Hisa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Apparently nonnotable Japanese businessman. There were only 10 ghits, but it doesn't prove much because English alphanumerics don't search well for Japanese characters. That's why I'm sending it here, to see if anyone of Japanese affiliation can check this person's notability. YechielMan 05:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, seems to fail WP:BIO. Terence Ong 11:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced, would be nice for a linguist to take a look. From the brief description, it doesn't seem likely he'll pass WP:BIO. Trebor 15:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Trebor. Philippe Beaudette 21:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N and for the most part WP:V as well. Google searches on kanji work just fine, and this guy only gets 19 hits even in Japanese. The only thing about this guy that even remotely implies notability is the fact that the enwiki and jawiki pages on him were created by two different IP addresses several months apart (the enwiki page came first), suggesting that there were actually two different people out there interested in him. cab 00:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Here's the second half of the Google search for him (without "Homma" which doesn't appear in the Japanese Wikipedia article) [7]. Among the 20 hits are the Japanese and English Wikipedias and mirrors. Fg2 01:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 13:01, 6 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 for the zig, AYD!. - Mailer Diablo 12:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zig Zag Cat

Zig Zag Cat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable game. The article reads like a first-person account of someone who played the game, not a third-person account of someone describing the game. I found less than 1,000 ghits, which is below the threshold of notability for a video game. Note also the well-placed cleanup tags. YechielMan 05:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• I like it when an article is 2/3 cleanup templates and only 1/3 prose. But, what is the consensus on video games? I mean, this game clearly exists; what is the threshold? -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 12:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Existing is not enough. It seems not to reach the threshold. User:Fundamentaldan 22:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Young Israeli Forum for Cooperation

Young Israeli Forum for Cooperation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG. I wasn't so sure of this, since the organization asserts national scope in Israel, but the parent organizations (see last paragraph) have not yet entered Wikipedia themselves. If anyone can provide a good notability argument, perhaps those organizations should be added, instead of subtracting this one. Note the lack of external sources. YechielMan 05:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability can be proven. Philippe Beaudette 05:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:ORG. MER-C 12:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless some third-party sources are added. At the moment, it's impossible to determine the notability. Trebor 15:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete lacks sources to pass WP:ORG.-- danntm ^T _C 21:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Non notable. .V. _[Talk|Email] 23:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Google search asserts that org is active and maintains several programmes. Mentioned in official websites, like German embassy in Tel Aviv, etc.. Sufficient for article. Could be rerwritten, encyclopedized and referenced though. --Soman 12:41, 5 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) 2007-02-08 10:18Z

[edit] Sendik's Food Market

Sendik's Food Market (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page was marked with {{importance}} and {{unsourced}} tags on December 24, 2006. On January 31 the original contributor blanked the page. ●DanMS 05:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:LOCAL. Not enough information to be verifiable. I'm going to replace the text while this AfD proceeds. --N Shar 06:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- changed vote, as sources have been added. I couldn't find any independent sources, but it looks like Dhartung has. --N Shar 02:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, regional upscale competitor to Trader Joe's and the like, has received industry coverage beyond Milwaukee area. Satisfies WP:CORP: [8][9][10][11][12][13]. --Dhartung | Talk 07:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, per Dhartung. Realkyhick 09:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep', the sources provided by Dhartung seem to satisfy WP:CORP. Trebor 15:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If kept, the page needs major cleanup, as it violates NPOV and is written in a conversational tone. Icemuon 16:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This small chain has stores only in the vicinity of one city, while Trader Joe's has stores in quite a number of states.DGG 17:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment How is that a criterion for deletion? --Dhartung | Talk 04:50, 3 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 keep, nominator withdrew Gracenotes^T § 02:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Vang

:Lee Vang (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD) Does not pass WP:BIO Nposs 06:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

merge to Cy Thao, who is notable. Chris 08:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Also added several bios created by Special:Contributions/Hmongvoice. All very nice, but not yet notable people. Hopefully someday.

Song Yang (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Tou Saiko Lee (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Yeng Lor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nposs 06:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding one more. One I missed from a similar, but not related AfD. Non-notable author bio created in batch (details - all were deleted). Nposs 06:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Peter Yang (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Merge (Lee Vang) to Cy Thao per Chris. Possibly merge other articles to main articles on the literary journals mentioned. Walton monarchist89 11:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• abandon & resubmit seperately batch delete of bios with completely different circumstances, headed with the one which definitely doesn't meet WP:BIO is highly questionable. suggest nominator think more about the merits (or otherwise) of the articles rather than who started them.  ⇒ bsnowball  07:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it came off as wanting to delete the batch based on who they created them. I find that none of the articles meet BIO, that is why I submited them. I do agree that Lee Vang could be merged with Cy Thao. I'll cancel the whole thing if there is consensus to do so. Nposs 15:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Notice Per User:Bsnowball's advice, I'm abandonining the AfD. I will propose a merge for one of the articles and reconsider each of the articles individually. I asked how to do this at the Help Desk and it was suggested that I could do this myself - making a note of it on this page and reverting the templates on the article pages. If this is the wrong way to do this, please leave a note here letting me know the correct procedure. I'm also adding strikethrough to the above proposal to indicate that I am retracting the AfD. Nposs 02:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kyndra alyse mayo

Kyndra alyse mayo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article appears to be about a non-notable actress. Part Deux 06:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• delete with extreme speed. vanity, wish there was WP:pablum. Chris 08:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete (not speedy) non notable. wrong cAsE!. In article I added the imdb link, but it doesn't make she more notable! Cate | _Talk 09:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above; no evidence of notability; walk-on part in a couple of series doesn't make her inherently notable. However, not a candidate for speedy (the description of her TV credits constitutes an assertion of notability under CSD A7). (By the way, who added a {{citation needed}} after every sentence?) Walton monarchist89 11:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 12:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - on the above cr
• Delete per nom. Irk_(talk) 01:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kozmo 3

Kozmo 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band Part Deux 07:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:BAND. Terence Ong 11:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of notability; no external sources other than their website and MySpace. Walton monarchist89 11:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Yet another band with no evidence of notability. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 12:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BAND. Philippe Beaudette 21:59, 2 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 10:17Z

[edit] Evan Siegel

Evan Siegel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Doesnot seem to meet WP:PROF Alex Bakharev 07:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

comment, I have no idea or interest, but tagged it with {{WikiProject Azerbaijan}} to see if those folks think it worthy.

Keep for the moment, to let the WikiProject Azerbaijan folks give it a look. Realkyhick 09:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Is Evan Siegel an Azeri? If not then I don’t see why you added Azeri tag to his biography! Siegel is one of the prominent experts on the middle east affairs and has many books and publications on the subject and well respected in the field! I added the article as a stub but someone removed the stub! I need time to gather some information and I am hoping others will start working on it too. Kiumars

• Delete - unsourced resume. MER-C 12:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Resume is taken from his website and university website!Kiumars

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 16:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and WP:V by end of this AfD Alf photoman 18:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per MER-C, unsourced, gives no reason why we should think he's notable. Publishing academic papers is no guarantee of notability. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable. Turgidson 06:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The "books" listed are articles in collections, and the translation from Kasravi, (which was actually printed last year). Searching in RLIN shows nothing else. While more than I've done for the world, is this notability? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Hold - long list of publications suggests notability, and it will take time to verify them, and he has two resumes: an above par Middle East history and an average Maths teaching history. The first query I have is whether the publications listed as "Middle East Studies Association" are MESA. John Vandenberg 21:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

John, its the only possible fit, so it is. DGG 01:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is MESA see http://mesa.wns.ccit.arizona.edu/index.htm &

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:z0a_bqNCq-4J:fpnew.ccit.arizona.edu/mesassoc/MESA02/2002MO200.htm+mesa+%22Evan+Siegel%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&lr=lang_en Kiumars

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kiumars (talk • contribs) 15:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

• keep The list of articles is enough to establish notability. The items in books add to it. DGG 01:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep - Needs some work on categorization. --lquilter 05:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable in the field. Thank you Kiumars. John Vandenberg 16:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Facial Hair February

Facial Hair February (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable internet fad. Shorelander 07:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Note that it is being listed here because the author removed the prod tag. Shorelander 07:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - borderline case of WP:NFT (article admits that the idea was made up in school); no evidence of notability; no coverage by independent sources.Walton monarchist89 11:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - literally was made up in school one day. MER-C 12:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a fad with (almost certainly) no external coverage. Trebor 16:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Inadequate references. Made up in school. Drivel. ( Check all that apply. ) WMMartin 14:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aalwar - opening

Aalwar - opening (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fangush. Article has been created to glorify the actor in the film in question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hariharan91 (talk • contribs).

• Keep. The list details the opening screens with evidence. Hariharan is a Vijay fan. He has been vandalising Ajith related articles and redirecting review links to his website [14] Btw, he vandalised my user page with his puppet [15]
• delete listcruft. Chris 08:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Irrelevant information that WP doesn't need. fraggle 10:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:LIST and comments above, or merge any necessary information to main article on the film. Walton monarchist89 11:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 12:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 16:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Pointless info from an Ajith fan who can't take that Pokiri is doing better business! Prince Godfather 16:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Nothing encyclopedic to warrant a separate page. --Bhadani 16:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, certainly listcruft.--Wizardman 18:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chrislk02 (talk • contribs).

[edit] List of Philippine presidential trivia

List of Philippine presidential trivia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - the title pretty much says it all. Trivia. Random collection of indiscriminate facts cobbled together for no clear purpose. Otto4711 07:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge potentially interesting/useful information (e.g., length of term, longevity, etc., but not births) into individual presidential articles (perhaps a "Trivia" section for each), then delete. Although I think the article should go per WP:NOT#IINFO, the information it contains is very well-referenced and some of it is relevant to the individual biographical articles. Black Falcon 08:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No need for a trivia article.Realkyhick 09:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment How about United States Presidential trivia? If this Philippine Presidential trivia article is useless, then US Presidential trivias is too. Why not include it if you really think that list trivias can't constitute a good article. Some trivias aren't too emphasized actually. By the way, what part of WP:NOT#IINFO makes the article qualified for deletion? Is this a Lists of Frequently Asked Questions, Travel guides, Memorials, Instruction manuals, Internet guides, Textbooks and annotated texts, Plot summaries, Lyrics databases or maybe Things made up in school one day? Which is which? Kevin Ray 09:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• WP:INN Shrumster 11:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• If other crap exists, feel free to take it here. Oh, yes, trivia sections are to be avoided. MER-C 11:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note that the items listed at WP:NOT#IINFO are the things for which consensus has been clearly established. That does not mean that those are the only possible types of indiscriminate information. Otto4711 17:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, trivia sections are to be avoided. This is just an bloated trivia section. MER-C 11:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge - the more interesting content could be merged to President of the Philippines; most of the rest is unnecessary listcruft (e.g. which building each president was inaugurated in). A clear case of WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Walton monarchist89 11:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per the suggestion in the title - TRIVIA - this isn't a "Hello" magazine --Euzebia Zuk 14:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. It recreates information already in other articles and does violate WP:NOT as constituted. Note that merge is not necessary because there are already tons of lists with length of term, longetivity, etc. in the Philippine presidential lists category. Some of these are separately being nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Philippine Presidents by middle name, however, so that should be taken into account. Note that this is not meant to solicit votes for the other AfD. Dekimasuが... 05:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete - trivial --John Krugger 11:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Try to compare what is the difference between the United States Presidential trivia article and the List of Philippine presidential trivia. Why should the Philippine article be deleted while the American should not? Try to review the arguments in the Afd of the American article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Presidential trivia. Do I smell something fishy here? Why was the United States Presidential trivia keeped? Huh? - Kevin Ray 13:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That article is up for deletion as well, please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/United_States_Presidential_trivia (second nomination) Jerry lavoie 03:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete per nom. Jerry lavoie 03:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, obvious subarticle, splendidly referenced. If we have trivia articles at all they should look mostly like this. --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per reasonings outlined in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Presidential trivia. --Chris S. 08:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral There is so much AFDs concerning Presidents of the Philippines that it isn't funny anymore. per Jerry lavoie, I will be watching the AFD for both US and RP versions. If one gets deleted, then all such articles regardless of nationality should follow suit per WP:NOT and WP:TRIV. All encyclopedic info that can be salvaged can then be incorporated to the respective presidential articles. I hope, in Wikipedia, we edit as equals. —Lenticel 09:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, valid subarticle, too long to merge into main article, sourced, not just about a particular president, etc. (edit:) Indeed, this is not all simply trivia, much of it is not just interesting but in fact notable. —siroχo 10:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Trivia lists are acceptable in rare cases, see Lists of trivia.--T. Anthony 12:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks for linking that article, now I see where my next round of AfDs are coming from! Otto4711 18:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge, some of these appear to be in their own respective articles already; the home provinces are in the President of the Philippines article and on each article about a particular president; some are just downright silly, an example: "Three Presidents were born with a different name" Estrada's is a stage name, and the women presidents married so they changed their name, another one is "Only one president was born and died in the month of his birth", I mean, so what? --Howard the Duck 07:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. If this survives AfD, I suggest heavy editing to remove redundancy with related lists (Philippine presidents by date of birth, Philippine presidents by date of death, etc.). Dekimasuが... 11:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As Howard the Duck says, there is some downright silly stuff here. It just doesn't make the notability grade. The significance of three presidents being born in March is what exactly? --Folantin 11:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - truly indiscriminate CRUFT, CRUFT, CRUFT, BABY. This really is indiscriminate in the truest sense of the word: just a collection of random facts. We are not here to publicise useless trivia. Put what has any encyclopedic significance whatsoever into the individual articles. Moreschi ^Deletion! 16:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge content to various articles, as much of it is very well sourced. --- RockMFR 23:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete To me, "trivia" is the antithesis of encyclopedic. If the information were worth including, it would be part of the articles of the individuals who held this office. Merge whatever is pertinent and delete this article. Agent 86 00:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Trivia is not encyclopaedic; it is trivial. If any of the information is worth including, it should be included in one of the parent topics. GassyGuy 08:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep But trim slightly. No good merge target. Some of the information is truly trivial and should be cut but some (like home provinces and the like) should be kept in a central article and this is a good way, IMO, to keep President of the Philippines from becoming bloated. Eluchil404 09:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - articles should be about something more than just trivia. Addhoc 10:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of English suffixes

List of English suffixes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

See the analogous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English prefixes, deleted earlier. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This articl is only about word meaning and usage, with no encyclopedic context. We are in the process of moving these word lists to Wiktionary, and this one has been transwikied and is ready to be deleted now. It is merged into wikt:Appendix:Suffixes:English. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - If there is nothing that isn't duplicated (of equal or better quality) at Wiktionary, then definitely delete per nom (WP:NOT#DICT). Black Falcon 08:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WINAD and standard procedure after transwiki. Walton monarchist89 11:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Standard procedure after transwikification is for Wikipedia to decide what it wants to do with the article. It is not standard procedure to always delete what has been transwikified. Uncle G 19:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 12:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WINAD; at least it's going somewhere. Trebor 16:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep We have many similar articles on language suffixes. Not enough reason to delete yet.--Sefringle 23:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If you know of another article of similar type, feel free to nominate if for deletion as well. Surely you noticed that this is a wiki that is freely editable; I therefore fail to see why the fact that other like articles exist is an argument for this one to be kept (put simply: ought a piece of vanity somewhere on Wikipedia argue against all proposed deletions of such articles?). I don't think you've supplied a rationale for why the other similar articles, if they exist, are encyclopedic at all, only pointed out that they do exist. Dmcdevit·t 00:09, 6 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 Tsing Yi. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 10:16Z

[edit] Broadview Garden

Broadview Garden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ching Nga Court (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Serene Garden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

– (View AfD) Prod contested by author as "Nominator did not notify authors", without improvement or assertion of notability. The stubs have been in existence since mid 2005, and remain stubs. Housing estates are not notable by consensus, and these developments are small and not particularly notable. Details have been merged into Tsing Yi. Furthermore, Ching Nga and Serene Garden data has also been merged into List of Home Ownership Scheme Courts in Hong Kong. Ohconfucius 07:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, merge any remaining content into Tsing Yi or Hong Kong Housing Society. Not notable enough to merit an article of its own. Walton monarchist89 11:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 12:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all no notability claimed. Nuttah68 14:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Tsing Yi, according to WP:N. — HenryLi (Talk) 17:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Tsing Yi, as they are information about Tsing Yi. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment redirects are now in place for the 3 articles. Ohconfucius 09:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Zulu first names

List of Zulu first names (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:WINAD. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so it has been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted. See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, etc. Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 08:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 08:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Terence Ong 11:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as standard procedure after transwiki. Walton monarchist89 11:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but did this need to come to AfD to achieve it? Nuttah68 14:48, 4 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-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Donnie Davies (3rd nomination)

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

Speedy-deleted twice, but the original closer agreed to give it a full five-day run at AfD. Everybody's heard of him, now the question is: are there reliable sources? Procedural nomination, I profess opinionlessness. ~ trialsanderrors 08:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many sources now that verify the notability of Donnie Davies as a topic. A quick Google search of him turns up over 220,000 hits[16] and a search of his name and song turns up 22,000 hits[17]. Among the articles that acknowledge him as a spoof phenomenon are Spin[18] and The Washington Blade[19]. Other articles address his ideas (whether or not it is a fictitious persona) such as Philadelphia Weekly[20] or Cinema Blade[21]. It is also speculated that he is Joey Oglesby of the Chicken & Pickle Guys by Dan Savage in his blog with the Stranger, Slog[22]. The political content of this controversy has also attracted the attention of activists such as Heartstrong[23] and a petition has been started online for content removal from free sites[24].

In addition to the topic’s existence as an internet spoof, with evidence of becoming widely known, it exemplifies viral marketing but does not constitute spam per WP:Spam as the article itself is not an advertisement. The persona's notability is spread through the use of inflammatory content. The vast majority of the results of a Google search are blogs or forum chats. While they are not reliable sources, they are focal points of web-based interaction, and so a method of guerrilla marketing. As a viral marketing campaign, it is unique because its core communication is reliant on a pivotal point of a religious and political controversy; that is the religious contention that homosexuality is wrong. This is the root of its spread through the blogosphere as well as why the controversy over his actuality is so popular and its gain of cultural so important—particularly for people identifying with a sexually different culture. It is also why it is so culturally significant in its affect.

Advertising campaigns such as Get a Mac have their own articles regardless of the content being true or false. Guerrilla campaigns such as the 2007 Boston Mooninite Scare has been covered by Wikipedia and journalists even though coverage acts as more publicity. Personal campaigns popularized by web dissemination are also Wiki articles such as Lonelygirl15. Wikipedia covers the mentioned topics because of their cultural significance through our measure of notability that is dependent on verification. The notability of Donnie Davies is verified through multiple sources. Those named articles about advertisement pieces do not constitute spam as they are not advertisements, but explanations.

If the article were to follow the guidelines as stipulated by the Wiki Amnesia Test, would be about this topic as a controversy and the effect of it as a controversy. Understandably it does not meet the guidelines of a wiki biography, but since that isn't the intention then the point is moot. No different from articles like bigfoot or UFOs, it does not seek to establish the existence, but explain the growing topic. The only difference is its youth. Yes, the topics of bigfoot and UFOs are well-established and certainly have countless sources that address their cultural significance, but at the speed of which Donnie Davies as a topic is growing, it seems arbitrary to use its short-life as an argument against it.

To summarize: the article deserves a place because it has accumulated controversy over a heatedly debated religious and political conflict and utilizes it as an advertising campaign. It is not a biographical article, but an account of a campaign that is garnering cultural significance because it borrows from such a heated topic. It is not spam because the article addresses a variety of issues and does not seek to solely promote the persona. There are also multiple reputable sources that address the above reasons. --SquatGoblin

delete-by the article's own admission, unheard of until a week ago. Chris 08:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

How does this pertain to deletion in this case? If it never achieved notability, I would agree. But it seems that standard has been met. Gerta 15:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of coverage by third-party sources; most of the external links are to his own webpages. Walton monarchist89 11:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - sufficient third-party sources have now been added since I made this comment. Adequate evidence of notability. Walton monarchist89 17:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - looks more like self advertising --DWZ (talk • email • contribs) 11:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Looks a lot better now. DWZ (talk • email • contribs) 01:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 12:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Donnie Davies as an actual person with an intended message is a moot point and so is whether or not his article meets the Wiki biography requirements. He is quickly growing in notability largely as an internet spoof and most of that newfound public interest is the argument surrounding whether or not he exists or if it's a gimmicked persona. --SquatGoblin 14:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete does not seem to have been the primary focus of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how the multiple sources cited are trivial such as [Spin or The Washington Blade.--SquatGoblin 14:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, conditional on updating the current article to reflect the new sources listed by SquatGoblin. Disclosure: I posted the current version. It was speedy deleted, and on review I was inclined to agree the sourcing was marginal and largeley circular. Given the coverage by several non-trivial sources in the interim, the article now appears to pass WP:N and WP:V if properly amended. The article should not (and does not) state conclusively whether this is a hoax (an unverifiable claim), but shoud discuss the (verifiable) controversy and provide the appropriate references. Without those additional, external sources, the article is susceptible to the criticisms in other votes above regarding sources. Gerta 15:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

N.B. Edits to the article (by another editor) reflect the additional sources. I would encourage others to check the updated sourcing in making a determination. Gerta 15:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete basically the same reasons as the original AfD. This really seems like a hoax or at best a piece of viral marketing, and in neither case should Wikipedia play a part in spreading it. Strong delete at least until there's some hard facts. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

While it may be a hoax or simply a viral marketing campaign is part of a larger picture. The article isn't simply spreading the campaign or hoax but plays a part in assembling what composes it. There are many articles on Wikipedia that cover influential advertising campaigns. This one in particular is poignant because its core vessel for communication is dependent on a controversial religious and political issues (as self-evident by the song title "God Hates Fags"). I'm not sure I understand your difference of opinion. There are reliable sources (sources that have their own Wiki articles as journalists) that address this as a controversy. Please clarify where you need specific facts. --SquatGoblin 18:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It's almost certainly a hoax, even if that can't be verified. But if it's a notable and verifiable phenomenon (regardless of whether claims of his identity are verifiable), how does this satisfy deletion criteria? Perhaps this is belaboring a point already mentioned, but wikipedia has plenty of articles where the "truth" cannot be determined and which few would suggest deleting (e.g. paranormal phenomena). Gerta 17:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete Discount all votes that refuse to acknowledge that this phenomenon has appeared in third-party newspapers. Voters who refuse to actually read the sources should not be counted. Wjhonson 17:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Here is yet another newspaper article in the New York Blade Wjhonson 17:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually the same as the Washington Blade article. Nonetheless, as mentioned above, there are in fact multiple, distinct sources. Gerta 17:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete There is coverage by multiple non-trivial third-party sources. Its status as a hoax is addressed within the article, and, like Bigfoot, is in fact one of the things that makes it relevant enough to include in Wikipedia. Mattymatt 17:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It's rather curious that the only "keep" arguments are coming from recently-created low edit count users and users who think that "undelete" is an appropriate vote at AfD. :) A Train ^{take the} 19:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well. Nobody pointed that out to me earlier! ha! --SquatGoblin 20:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, error fixed. Perhaps we could address the content of the discussion instead of putting down new users. -- Gerta 20:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think A Train's point was made in good humor at least, but I have to say that Wjhonson seems to have a good history of editting with a resilient barnstar no less! --SquatGoblin 20:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep If this figure is controversial enough that his videos can get censored from both youtube and myspace, then it is imperative that there be an article about him.--ScWizard 20:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep if for no other reason than to have information for people who want to learn about what types of videos get banned by YouTube.
• Strong keep it is discussed on many sites, such as [25] not just those owned by him. If the problem is whether it's a 'biographical' article, rename the article "Donnie Davies controversy" to get around that. "Donnie" hints at more to come, so maybe we'll find out later if he's real or not, or what whoever-it-is is trying to do.Merkinsmum 21:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep a well-known Internet phenom covered with eight citations. To try to distinguish away all the citations will do violence to WP:RS.-- danntm ^T _C 21:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He's at least as 'relevant' as Jonathan Sharkey or Frank Chu. --Apeloverage 04:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep as I think it is important that people have an opportunity to contribute their opposition to the views expressed.

• Delete, established as viral marketing, so the article is WP:SPAM. Joel Oglesby can list Wikipedia alongside YouTube and Google; that's the consolation prize for spamming, I guess. — coelacan talk — 10:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Unlike criticisms of notability of verifiability, which I can't see in light of the references provided, WP:SPAM seems it could have some teeth here. I don't think Davies is "established as viral marketing," as it's not yet clear what he's promoting -- there's still lingering controversy over whether he's for real. (Though I agree he's a hoax, I don't think that's an objective conclusion.) But WP:SPAM does mention "public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual," and this could fit the bill. I'm sticking with my keep vote for now, since I feel that Davies has generated enough controversy to warrant an entry despite his intentions, and inclusion seems in keeping with the spirit of the notability policy. But I think the spam consideration warrants discussion. Gerta 17:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Based on WP:Spam, it sounds like the article itself has to be a piece of advertisement, but this article critiques its method of campaign and its effects. More importantly, it discusses it as a hoax and rather than promote it as a hoax. Does the article read like an advertisement to you? YouTube and Google didn't remove the video for being spam by the way, it was removed by the request of a petition from people offended by the video. --SquatGoblin 03:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that WP:Spam seems more concerned with spammy articles rather than articles about spam. So I think the article holds up, but maybe others will chime in here? ... Gerta 06:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep FREEDOM OF SPEECH, no real harm done. People should leave it. Controversy is no reason to delete an informative page. What about all the Mom's wondering who their kids are talking about, and they want to use Wiki as their trusted resorce to find out?!!!!--70.171.14.118 20:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about freedom of speech or controversy, it's about the policy for content. I don't think anyone has argued that the controversy surrounding Davies is the problem; in fact, it seems to have contributed to his notability. Gerta 21:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This person seems to be verifiable. .V. _[Talk|Email] 01:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- I was wondering who this guy was and what was known about the controversy surrounding him. While there are some stylistic problems with the article at the moment (some seems to be written from blog-insiders for blog-insiders), that can be corrected with a certain amount of editing. Deletion, on the other hand, would just increase the question marks. (I normally "inhabit" the German wikipedia, and came "over here" to check out this article because I figured I would find something at least halfway informative (I had heard about Davies on another German-language website that discusses the ex-gay phenomenon, not Wikipedia). When I saw that it was marked for deletion, I thought that it would be too bad if I had gotten interested next week instead of this week and the article were gone and I wouldn't have been able to find this collection of sources and links to relevant information.--Bhuck 07:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree the article revolves around blogs at some points, and the fault is entirely my own -- it carried over from my original version of the article. I'll work to clean it up and get the focus back onto the stronger references, and I'll encourage others to do the same on the discussion page. Gerta 15:02, 6 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 George T McDonald; halt AFD for The Doe Fund due to cleanup - may re-nominate without prejudice if concerns haven't been addressed. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 10:14Z

[edit] The Doe Fund and George T McDonald

The Doe Fund (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

George T McDonald (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Article about a New York charity and its founder written by single purpose account user:TDFNY. Blatant COI. Are they notable? -- RHaworth 08:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - no evidence of notability, and probably a failure of WP:AUTO/WP:COI as the nominator says. Delete unless independent sources can be found to demonstrate its notability. Walton monarchist89 11:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - As per arguments above, I wasn't sure whether to speedy delete or keep--Janarius 14:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep charity (but needs tremendous rewrite...sounds like informal prose not an encyc article). I added some notability cites to the article. Weak Delete the founder, lots of people found things and serve on government task forces/etc, not sure his make him notable enough for own page vs just mention in pages about his work. DMacks 19:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both no notability established and no sources provided. If independent, reliable sources can be given I'll reconsider my opinion. Nuttah68 14:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. NYTimes article, govt-official quotes, and 3rd-party awards aren't enough? Or is it just that it's the group's own page listing the awards instead of tracking down links for the awards themselves? DMacks 08:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both. Notability not established in either of these spammy articles. I don't see the New York Times reference that DMacks mentioned above. A Train ^{take the} 19:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's on the talk page. I didn't have a chance to work it into the article (which is indeed horribly written, and tagged as such). DMacks 20:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Article has been substantially rewritten to begin to address tone and PR-feel issues. DMacks 21:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete - the fact that the only people who think these should be kept are those in the project, tips the balances. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MSK-008 Dijeh

MSK-008 Dijeh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

RMS-106 Hi-Zack (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

ENG-001 Estardoth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

RMS-019 Crouda (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

RMSN-002 Febral (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

RMSN-008 Bertigo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

DT-6600 Dautap (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

DTM-7000 Daughseat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced and non-notable fancruft and/or original research. Not one of these articles has any assertion of real world significance whatsoever. They are merely plot summaries.

Remember to rebut the points in the nomination when !voting keep. MER-C 08:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Terence Ong 11:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with main article on the Gundam series. No evidence of real-world significance or of passing WP:FICT, but I don't agree that it's OR (how can a direct description of the series be OR?). Walton monarchist89 11:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• A plot summary is the editor who added it's interpretation of what happened on the show, unless it is sourced to the guys who created the show or similar reliable source. Hence original research. MER-C 12:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Far too much information here for a merge. riana_dzasta 12:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What Riana said. Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Beware the tendency to want to spew articles all over Wikipedia to show how much one likes something. A fictional work does not need to have every bit of its content placed on Wikipedia. The editors did a nice job of creating detailed articles about something which they like, but there are no sources independent of their original research to verify the information, and no independent sources to show the subjects of the numerous individual articles are notable to any but the diehard fans, so these articles fail WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:N. Their time would be better spent creating and improving a single well written article, sourced to reliable and verifiable independent sources, and complying with WP:FICT. Articles could be created about any major characters, location, or gadgets which have multiple coverage in reliable independent sources, when those sections become too large for the main article.Edison 18:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep If a corporation can make vast profits off of plastic model kits of these "non-notable fancruft" that in and of itself is worth keeping. At this time I direct your attention to Gaplant. Is that "sourced" enough for you? This type of work is presently being undertaken in other articles as people who own the suitable references have time to do them. I stress that this kind of rapid deletion of multiple articles concurrent with one another will not beget a better Wiki environment, especially when there are efforts under way to clean them up. Cooler heads prevail. MalikCarr 03:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Looks like plenty of sources and references to me. Jtrainor 04:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - How much money being made is not the topic, nor is the tolerably sourced Gaplant. The article has been unsourced, failing WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:FICT, and WP:N for over a FULL YEAR. Adding a bunch of links to Amazon.com does not a reference make. Please, for example, give me where I can find the source for the statements made in one article about "Karaba didn’t have many resources", or about the SE-DJ-1R Dijeh SE-R variant. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 04:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you view the criteria for "asserting real-world notability" in WP: Gundam, namely the section detailing "notability" as including having merchandise of the item in question manufactured. As far as your criticism of the article's content itself, you have valid points, but in any other situation this article would be tagged with a "needs sourcing" or "needs cleanup" tag, as opposed to an AfD which seems to be the norm when dealing with Gundam-related articles. That is the heavy-handedness I speak of. When a Gundam article needs cleanup, or possibly a rewrite, it gets an AfD. Huzzah.MalikCarr 04:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, "Adding a bunch of links to Amazon.com does not a reference make"? If that's not a reference, you'd be surprised how many articles would be considered "unsourced" on Wikipedia. MalikCarr 04:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I decided to go ahead and jump the gun on this one, as it were. A cursory glance over the first few pages of a Wiki search for "amazon.com" turned up hundreds of articles whose primary, or only, sources are from Amazon.com. Here's a few I picked out at random.

[26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]

I've never even heard of any of these things before. Are they notable? Shall we delete them too? MalikCarr 04:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

(grimly) Indeed almost none of them belong... and will be dealt with. I plan to see if there are any available sources for any of them, then CSD most of them, because they are not sourced or verifiable. And I agree: when things aren't sourced and they can easily be sourced then the answer isn't deletion. But when you have an article full of statements, none of which can be backed up, and then someone throws a bunch of almost identical links up that neither a) back up any of these ascertations made in the article or b) prove it's notability then no, they aren't valid. To answer your point about notability, WP:FICT is pretty firm that minor characters should be merged into main articles. You should know what sourcing is. MSZ-006_Zeta_Gundam is sourced. The links added to the articles in this AFD are not. Not only is this link in Japanese (thus we have no clue what it says) but a Google search fails to turn up anything to source most of the statements in that article with. No one is "gunning" for Gundam articles. As far as WP:GUNDAM's statements on notability, I would like to point out that first we go by policy, second, since I'm appearantly too tired to find what you're talking about, I'd like a link, and finally, if it IS manufactured, you'd think it would be somewhat easy to find a link in ENGLISH showing that. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 09:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

English link showing that. You could even buy one if you want.

WP:Gundam#Wikipedia's Stand on Fictional Mechanical Units and Items - The Super Robot Wars mention is especially inclusive, since that has "real world notability" as a non-Gundam material.

If it's content in the article that's irritating the voters here, I would happily reword it to a more factual stance. I was operating under the impression that we are experiencing a purge of Gundam-related articles, starting with the mobile weapons themselves, for as of yet undisclosed reasons, and that no amount of cleaning up relevant articles would amount to anything. At any rate, I've provided an additional (non-Amazon.com) link with further evidence of real-world existence. MalikCarr 10:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

One more for good measure - This is a top-grade resin kit for serious modellers. MalikCarr 10:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It would seem to me that the article is astonishingly light on the real world notability you claim for it. The reason that you claim to see a run on Gundam articles is that , like your own notability guideline says , there are a LOT of them fail to have "any real world significant other than being one of the items in the series" , in which case "the real world impact is by the series itself instead of the mecha." An article on the various Karaba gundams would be fine, but the reason so many Gundam articles have been deleted -- in my opinion, since I only took part in a handful of the debates -- is that most of them simply don't have enough material to stand on their own. That's something WP:GUNDAM or even Wikia Gundam will have to consider. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 10:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this is by no means a good article, or even a fair article. What baffles me is that, rather than attempt to improve it, the status quo here is to delete it. Presently, I am drafting a quick rewrite that will detail some of my above points (e.g. has two Bandai model kits in its likeness, appeared in the most-definately-notable Super Robot Wars series on numerous occassions, was piloted by Gundam franchise protagonist Amuro Ray, etc etc). I'd also like to clean up the language of the article as well, since the sentences don't flow well and are kinda jumbled in some areas. However, I really don't see much of a point in this endeavour, since far better articles have already been deleted because they do not meet Wikipedia's standards of notability, according to a select few Wikipedians with a battery of people who will support their AfDs. I desperately try to assume good faith in these situations, but the heavyhandedness of these AfDs is really getting to me. MalikCarr 10:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it would seem Bandai has done me the favor anyway. I forgot they had a North American English-language Gundam website up. How silly of me. The relevant page contains many of the contested points above. Is *this* enough of a reliable source? MalikCarr 11:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've also gone ahead and added the relevant references, "non-reference" Amazon.com links as well as the Gundam Official page and what have you to the Hi-Zack article too. Just so we're clear on things, I believe the criteria erroneously suggested to delete these article(s) does hold true for some of the Gundam X mobile weapons that have been AfD's above. Gundam X hasn't seen much exposure outside Japan, and what's more, only its title mobile weapons have had merchandise made of them by Bandai, which, as far as I'm concerned, ought to be a good criteria for notability. MalikCarr 11:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you not even going to debate my completely valid points anymore? Outstanding. Oh well, seems this article is going the way of the Dodo as well, seeing as the head count- I mean, "concensus" is coming up soon. MalikCarr 21:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I was busy off-wiki. I would appreciate debating the larger issues of notability, reliable sources, etc somewhere else than here, preferably where a concensus can be worked out and something positive and good for the encyclopedia can be proposed. Please contact me via email. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The Dijeh and HiZack articles, at least, look like they have plenty of sourcing. And "I haven't heard of it" is not proof of non-notability. Redxiv 21:34, 6 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) 2007-02-08 10:11Z

[edit] List of Latin phrases

List of Latin phrases (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Latin phrases (full) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Latin phrases (A–E) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Latin phrases (F–O) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Latin phrases (P–Z) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic list of dictdefs, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Has been transwikiied to Wiktionary. The previous debate is here, the number of "I like it!(tm)" votes was rather shocking. And my purge of idiomatic lists has indicated that consensus has changed, somewhat.

Do not vote keep because they are useful or because you like it. MER-C 08:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep most of the words and phrases. The ones that do not have notable history or use should be taken out, but for the most part I expect an encyclopedia to list major Latin phrases, with explanations about their past and present usage. Phrases that should absolutely be kept would be ones that now have common use; e.g. "quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur," "ad hitlerum," "fiat lux," "requescat in pace," etc. In a point of semantics, I understand why it can be tiring to hear "it is useful" repeated ad nauseum. I think the reason an article is useful should be noted; while indeed this may be useful as a dictionary (and this earning it a place in Wiktionary), it is also extremely useful in helping people to understand the sociality of such phrases, how the meanings have evolved, where it would and would not be appropriate to use them, et al. As for "I like it," well, we all like the same thing: Wikipedia and its governing principles as an encyclopedia. Not only do I expect this article to stick around, I expect it to become the summum bonum encyclopedic Latin article. I like it. (edit conflict) V-Man737 09:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - useful list, and beyond dic. def. quality, as the phrases become linked to articles that themselves are way beyond dic. def. See the recent stub I created for Carthago delenda est. Many of these Latin phrases, because of their antiquity, have attracted to themselves their own little history and have become encyclopedic. A list pulling them together is great. NB - I don't doubt that there are many entries that could be removed from each of the lists, but that's no argument for deletion. --Dweller 09:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and set up a bot to maintain the links to the Wiktionary articles when people wikilink et al, et al. Percy Snoodle 09:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep/move. keep the list, but only the the used (not cited) phrases. Move the rest in wikiquote. Cate | _Talk 10:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Move to wiktionary --Boookabooo 10:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It's already there... MER-C 12:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Very useful article while is arguably outside the scope of a classic encyclopaedia, Wikipedia is not a classic encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is in my opinion far superior. the scope of Wikipedia is without any doubt wider than that of a classic encyclopaedia. this article is also arguably outside the scope of a classic dictionary. most references have a historical and interesting background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnbo (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Individual Latin phrases can have articles if they're notable and there is something interesting to say about them, like Carthago delenda est. Those articles can be grouped into Category:Latin phrases. This list is bloated and unencyclopedic and properly belongs at Wiktionary only. —Angr 11:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per V-Man and Dweller. Not a dicdef; highly encyclopedic, as many of these Latin phrases have a long history and are used regularly in conversation. This is emphatically not a WP:ILIKEIT argument; there's nothing in WP:LIST that applies directly to this page, nor should it come under WP:WINAD. Some of the entries could be removed, but that isn't a reason for deletion per WP policy. Walton monarchist89 11:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• They're lists of dictdefs, which are equally bad. MER-C 12:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is not arbitrary listcruft, and the phrases have some historical significance, e.g. "Veni vidi vici". Jonnbo's point that Wikipedia is not a classic encyclopaedia is true. This isn't an WP:ILIKEIT vote, more a reasoning as to why the article should be kept. It does have encyclopedic significance. --sunstar net^talk 12:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic list of phrases. With articles of a couple of Latin phrases, this list does have some encyclopedic value and its totally just not a dicdef like list. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia after all. Terence Ong 12:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete although this is an interesting page it is not encyclopaedic - wiki or otherwise. It is a series of dictionary entries and as it has been transwikied to wiktionary it should now be deleted. Madmedea 12:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The explanation of literary or historical allusions is encyclopedia material, not dictionary material. Many of these items link back to articles on their origins; and for those that don't yet, this is likely because no such information has yet been added to them, not because they are incapable of further expansion. This list also serves valuable indexing and browsing functions. Please do not try to subvert consensus by pre-emptively declaring certain opinions to be invalid and ignorable. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but get out the weedwhacker. Many, many Latin phrases have made it into modern culture, particularly in law or politics. Most of these phrases aren't, though. Keep the notable ones (like E plurbius unum or quid pro quo), hack out the rest. --UsaSatsui 17:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Because it's useful and I like it. But seriously, this seems like a very encyclopedic list, given the prevalence of various Latin terms in modern day english. .V. _[Talk|Email] 23:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The head of the Latin article states: Although Latin is now widely considered to be a dead language, with very few fluent speakers and no native ones, it has exerted a major influence on many other languages that are still thriving and continues to see significant use in science, academia, and law. The list of Latin phrases serves to substantiate that claim and illustrates just how much Latin is still in use. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per above reasons. (some of the latin phrases have even been used in this discussion!) Mathmo ^Talk 04:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Yeah, I did that on purpose. ;-) V-Man737 23:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Phrases like these are not the kind of thing you find in a dictionary (at least, not listed in this accessible way) and so removing from Wikipedia will make them harder to find. 84.172.189.127 16:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Dweller & UsaSatsui. Amphytrite 20:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'd like to note that these pages have either not been transwikied properly or have been deleted from Wiktionary. Either way, that has got to be fixed if one ever hopes to delete these from Wikipedia. Now as far as this nomination is concerned, I think most agree that the lists' content is something of sufficient interest to keep on some Wikimedia project. I'd rather have it here than on Wiktionary which doesn't really deal with such cumbersome entries. Pascal.Tesson 21:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the votes here have explained the reasons well, but to recap: the context here is encyclopedic and not, er, dictionaric. :/ JuJube 22:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep important phrases and expand on histories. Wiktionary can keep the rest. --Obstructio 00:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, at least until transwikied properly per Pascal.Tesson. If that event should happen, I might consider changing my vote to Delete. But again, as with Pascal.Tesson, this list is important enough so that at least some of these phrases should remain. Delta 03:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve, it is a strong value and belongs to each encyclopedia --Zentuk^{Bir Papyrus} 15:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG Keep. This definitely belongs in Wikipedia, far more than many other things.--Filll 00:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful to have a list, as distinct from separate (cross-referenced) entries; information included that wouldn't normally appear in a dictionary. 128.250.204.118 03:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep These are phrases not words - "dicdef" hardly applies. It appears it's not on Wiktionary after all. Johnbod 04:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Get it out of article space. It is clearly not an encyclopedic article. It is also clearly useful. However, if nobody finds a place to transwiki it to properly, it should be deleted for failing WP:NOT. I don't think it makes much sense to move galleries of images (which are not encyclopedic articles, but very useful and even found in most paper encyclopedias) to the Commons and to keep this gallery of phrases here. Kusma (討論) 09:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  WP:NOT is a big page. Please explain what, exactly, you feel this list is NOT. --UsaSatsui 10:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

How is this list "clearly not an encyclopedic article?" By the criteria on that guideline, it meets the three different purposes that lists (not necessarily articles, as it seems you have applied the criteria to) are to serve. It fulfills Information by providing concise history and usage of each term. It fulfills Navigation by providing links to the articles that have been sufficiently developed. It meets Development as it shows which of those articles are present, which have been considered, and which have not yet been considered. Take, for example, "Non silba, sed anthar; Deo vindice" ("Not for self, but for others; God will vindicate"), the slogan used by the Ku Klux Klan. Wow! They have their own slogan? And it's in Latin? That is very encyclopedic. Chock-full of history and culture, I'd bet. Eventually the phrase will gather enough information to get its own article, and the list will then be able to link to it and one will be able to read all about how the phrase came into use and what its cultural impact has been. No dictionary claims the capacity to do that; only Wikipedia can. V-Man737 11:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see all lists like this moved out of article space, into "List:" space if you wish. This list is a (rather good) list of dictionary definitions and Latin idioms including their use, which does fail WP:NOT#DICT. Portal:Latin might be a good place for info like this, or some appendix. Kusma (討論) 11:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If the list had only definitions, I would agree wholeheartedly with you. But that third column of encyclopedic information is what decidedly qualifies it as Wikipedia quality.

There are things under "List:"? I didn't know that. V-Man737 12:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no List: namespace, but sometimes I think we should have one. Kusma (討論) 16:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I suggest you pursue it if you're not already, and I do agree there's way too many lists (and as I pointed out, this one is waaaay too long). I don't agree, though, that just because you believe no list should be in Wikipedia is a good reason for deleting it. UsaSatsui 18:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"List:" space would be quite useful, and would help us avoid confusion between mainspace and "list-space" material leading to discussions like this (although I am finding it rather enlightening). V-Man737 00:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - useful and encyclopaedic. It is entirely reasonable for an encyclopaedia to have a list of Latin phrases. Are we running short of disk space? If not I see no reason to delete. Bridgeplayer 20:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete since there's already one at Wikiquote which is far better organized. Just redirect it there. Nescio sed Scio 17:58 GMT -6, 5 Feb 2007 (UTC)(Made account to cover IP address)

It's at Wikiquote? Mind finding a link for us? While you're at it, can we get a link for the Wiktionary entry as well? V-Man737 00:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote Version There's your Wikiquote version. Now this last one is just retarded. It was on the Article Page which the tran-wiki box will direct you to. If you don't know how to use that, here it is: Wiktionary VersionI had to pull lots of strings to be able to get them..Nescio sed Scio 00:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

(Fixed the links) Your string-pulling is much appreciated! That said, both of those articles/entries are quite inferior to the wealth of information that the Wikipedia list has (Note in particular the lack of KKK slogans ;-). V-Man737 03:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's why this should be trans-wikied to Wikiquote which is a better catergory for these phrases. Doesn't make any sense for it to be in a dictionary. Also, this Wikipedia version has been trans-wikied to Wiktionary, has it not? Therefore it must be an exact copy here and at Wiktionary. I still believe Wikiquote is the right place for it. Alia iacta est. Nescio sed Scio 21:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. I don't get Wiki-coding very much. Also, as I've been reading along this pointless argument, I noticed some of your key points V-man. I support in the fact that some singualy phrases should own their own spot on Wikipedia(e.g. your KKK motto), but a list of them should still just appear on Wikipedia. Famous phrases and key sayings are a must in Wikipedia(e.g. my alia iacta est). Nescio sed Scio 21:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thou sayest. V-Man737 00:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There is much more to these phrases than a simple literal translation that can be afforded through a dictionary. The common use as well as historical significance ensures them a spot in an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary. We must understand that some of the important dimensions of these sayings would be ignored by a simple dictionary article. The current encyclopedia article should remain as a much more in depth source aiding in the understanding of all dimensions of these phrases.Ringleader1489 02:48, 6 Feb 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Lists of phrases with such a great historical importance should belong to Wikipedia IMHO. --Emc² (contact me) 15:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because it's useful and I like it. (I was really tempted to put that in red.) Everyking 05:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/replace - there should definitely be an article on modern usage of latin phrases in academia/literature/public discourse, but the index of these phrases belongs in Wiktionary ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep First I'm going to say 'because its useful and because I like it' lol. The fact that when this page came up for deletion it before it got squashed flat begs the question why is it up again. Its an important resource and deserves its place on wikipedia as much as it does on wiktionary. I can see this page being very useful for a great many users searching the encyclopedia. If i went to find a phrase for the State motto of South Carolina I would search for it on wikipedia. Also I don't think that the WP:NOT#DICT argument holds much weight in this case. It seems to me that its for prevent individual words with a definition being added as an 'article'? Thats not the case on this page its a translation for an entire phrase many of which have historic and cultural importance. -- Shimirel ^(Talk) 20:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The list contains historical context, and serves as a navigation aid to other articles. Reducing to a category would lose information. Latin phrases are highly notable as a class, distinct from the notability of individual phrases. The list permits browsing and comparison in a way that separate artices would not. As for encyclopedic nature, the 14th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica had an article on legal maxims that was not much more than a selection from this list in paragraph format. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. And may I take this opportunity to express my great displeasure at seeing such a leading remark, "do not vote keep because they are useful or because you like it" (in bolded red, yet) heading the page. Even AfD nominations can respect encyclopedic neutrality. — Athænara ✉ 07:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Apart from being useful and likeable (yes, I've read that essay), I think the list has encyclopedic merit as well; to elaborate: the introduction of Latin terms into the English language is a significant part of our coverage of the languages themselves. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopaedia, it's a collection of any information that could be useful, even if that means usurping data that is better suited for sister projects like Wiktionary. Plus, this has the entries arranged alphabetically, allowing for a far better navigation than that of Category:Latin phrases. Oh, and I like it. Plus, it's interesting. Also, we have other lists of stuff and this is better than some of them. If you delete this, you'll have to delete every list in Wikipedia! GassyGuy 09:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This list is full of notable quotes and provides information of historical, etymological and linguistical interest. It might be best to chop down the list a bit though.Comment I know this is nit-picking but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. At least that's what Jimbo Wales and the Five Pillars of Wikipedia sayYuanchosaan 09:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delendum regretfully. These are better placed at wikitionary or wikiquote. I would support a merge of alea iacta est, Ecce homo, et cetera into a new "List of Latin phrases" article with reasonably tough standards of notability for inclusion, or a "Use of Latin in English" article explaining the history of using Lating quotes and phrases in English texts, but neither of those what we have before us. What we have is a list of quotes and dict-defs which runs squarely afoul of WP:NOT. Eluchil404 09:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Night of the generic zombie movie

The article seems to be maintained solely by people (a person?) directly connected to the film. V-Man737 09:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Un-encyclopedic, self-promoting, non-notable, I could go on and on. Realkyhick 09:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wow. Complete failure to meet WP:N. janejellyroll 09:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable. -- Cate | _Talk 10:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Utterly non-notable. fraggle 10:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - absolute lack of notability. Even admits to being A Transition Year Media Studies Project...filmed between Febuary and March 2006 in the corridors of Terenure College, so WP:NFT possibly applies here. Walton monarchist89 11:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 12:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• keepI love this movie its focking brilliant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.66.120 (talk)
• keepThe movie in question was actually a box office smash hit and won 12 awards on the island of Kihthanon. Therefore it should not be deleted. 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Apparently we're lacking an article on Kihthanon. ShadowHalo 10:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete junk. JuJube 22:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'm sure the people who made the film were having fun, and it's possibly even quite good -- but that doesn't make it notable.--Bonadea 16:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, apparent vanity creation. RFerreira 08:17, 7 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) 2007-02-08 10:08Z

[edit] Legends of Cosrin

Legends of Cosrin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN online game, fails WP:WEB. Prod contested. Percy Snoodle 09:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• No Delete - citation added from game creator's diary. Unless contested will remove delete notice in 48 hours. 17:31, 2 February 2007 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.44.193 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment the citation certainly proves the game exists, but that's not disputed. The citation doesn't show any way in which the game passes the notability criteria. Please don't remove the deletion notice - that's for the admins to do when they've decided on the arguments presented here. Percy Snoodle 19:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - no direct evidence of notability and no independent or third-party sources, but the existence of two "unofficial forums" could indicate that it has a large fan base. Nonetheless, delete unless more sources can be found. Walton monarchist89 11:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:WEB. No alexa rank. MER-C 12:35, 2 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 It was already speedy deleted before under Bleed. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bleed (band)

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

Non-Notable. A lot of it seems like advertising, also there seems to be a lot of errors as far as Wiki-scripting is. Jamesbuc

• Delete. Non-notable, extremely POV article. This was apparently already deleted once. fraggle 10:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BAND; no evidence of notability; no sources other than their official website (not even a record company link). Walton monarchist89 11:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 12:39, 2 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 A7 Alex Bakharev 10:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Balahonov

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

I originally deleted this as a non-notable autobiography. Article was created by User:Drand here and the subject is "better know n as drand" is the evidence of autobiograpy. There is no evidence of notability given in the article as all the external links are in Russian. The only links I could find at google for Andrew Balahonov in English were to do with his software and again gave no evidence of notability. Even going through drand.org shows nothing to supply any evidence of notability. Delete CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7 Glen 10:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep just because references are in russian doesn't mean that the guy isn't notable. Russia is quite a big place in itself and there's a lot of other countries which speak Russian. Maybe someone who speak sthe language can verify if the references verify notability? --Boookabooo 10:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rodime

Does not pass WP:CORP Alex Bakharev 10:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Horrible POV rubbish. Non-notable. fraggle 10:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - obvious failure of WP:CORP; no sources or verifiability; so POV that it could even be considered an attack page, viz. "The company became a bizarre one whose sole purpose was to sue other corporations for patent breach." Walton monarchist89 11:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 12:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice. The article essentially accuses this business of being a patent troll. This may make them notable, but this sort of thing needs to be referenced to stand. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:34, 2 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 GNOME in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 10:07Z

[edit] GoneME

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

Fork of GNOME that lasted around a week. There was one slashdot article posted about it at the time, but other than that I think this is non-notable. fraggle 10:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE, only one coverage of the same event. MER-C 12:35, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indian hip hop

Indian hip hop (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable sub-genre, which has no (or very few) independant notable artists representing it Sfacets 10:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Ive heard some tracks of these but I just cannot remember any. There is definetly more than is listed however. Jamesbuc
• Weakest of weak keeps, in that it appears to be influential upon another cultural phenomenon (the "Asian Underground" sound). Sourcing this would be of considerable benefit to all concerned, of course. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, never listened to Indian hip hop before. But it seems to look quite notable. Hopefully citing some sources will be good. Terence Ong 13:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: notable genre.--Urthogie 14:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as OR if not sourced; I'm worried this is just the assessment of some armchair music critics. Postdlf 20:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

How is it OR to keep an article about the hip hop scene in a major country?--Urthogie 21:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Without sources, it could potentially be (as Postdlf says) "the assessment of some armchair music critics". That's why anything needs to be sourced, to make certain that it's not just my opinion or yours, but something verifiable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: there are already articles for overlapping genres (like the "Asian Underground".) it is entirely unnecessary to have an entire article on a sub 'genre' that relies on remixes and has very little original content or presece outside filmi and bhangra genres. Sfacets 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm not sure to what standard "Non-notable sub-genre" is being applied, but a quick look at American music includes many obscure and niche sub-genres. That said, someone knowledgeable about the genre adding sources would be a great help. --Colage 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I understand the concerns because the article is pretty awful and is not really about hip hop musicians from India. However, the fact is that these artists do exist, even if there number and popularity is limited (not that I have been convinced that this is indeed the case). Perhaps the article should be stubified so that it's made clearer that the article should be about hip hop music in India. Pascal.Tesson 01:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article could definitely do with citations and clean-up, but topically it deserves to be on Wikipedia. It is a very large and growing genre in the Asian subcontinent and I would assign it more to the region as a whole because stylistically it incorporates traditional music from that are and not simply Indian music while maintaining a common bond. There is much to be said about describing it as Desi hip-hip. Perhaps noting artists that have a good amount of wiki coverage already like, Panjabi MC? --SquatGoblin 17:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable phenomenon, although mainly in secondary influence (short bits in mixing of Bollywood songs) and in diaspora. --Soman 10:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Craven Arms (Coventry)

Craven Arms (Coventry) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I am making a suggestion that this page is deleted. I am not sure that the history of these buildings are notable in itself. Snowman 22:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have a personal interest in this article as one of my ancestors ran the premises. I see no harm in it remaining, it is factually correct; could you suggest what you might like to see to improve it? Psicorps 09:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Sources! Sources! Sources! Prove that this isn't primary research that you conducted firsthand, which is forbidden here. Prove that you didn't just make all of this up (which you could have, for all that Wikipedia readers know). Prove that this house's history has already been documented by historians. Uncle G 23:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete there is currently no evidence provided of notability (WP:N). Unless this is forthcoming and the source meets WP:V this should be deleted. Madmedea 12:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• It has been suggested to me as the original author that this in edited form might make a good entry on Chapelfields, the district of Coventry in which the public house is located. It was certainly a focal point of the community. I would welcome views. Psicorps 16:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not sourced, not notable unless proven otherwise. Snowman 11:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete so they are pubs which have been run by landlords. What makes them notable and stand out when compared with the other 20000 pubs in the UK? Unless notability, backed up with reliable sources, can be provided I can see no future for this article. Nuttah68 15:00, 4 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 Jimfbleak, CSD A7. BryanG^(talk) 23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Independent Waste Services Ltd

Independent Waste Services Ltd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable and probable spam Jvhertum 11:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - unremarkable corporation. So tagged. MER-C 12:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• speedy delete as per MER-C. Madmedea 12:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Numerodix

Not notable hacker Alex Bakharev 11:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability; unsourced except for the subject's own website. Walton monarchist89 11:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Hackers, by and large, are not notable, except where third-party reliable sources have reported on them (e.g. The Daily Mail, The Sun, The New York Times et. al). The subject's own website is probably not a reliable source. That's not to say the article isn't well-written, as it seems OK for an article, but it doesn't assert the subject's notability in any way. --sunstar net^talk 11:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 12:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. If the user becames a regular Wikipedian, it can be userified.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:36, 3 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 all. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 10:05Z

[edit] Love to Love (Season 1)

Love to Love (Season 1) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Inappropriate page. Unsourced, possible copyright violations, and it is an article for a single season of a non-notable television series. Shrumster 11:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because as with the first article, they are all articles for each "season" of a television program shown in the Philippines. Note, in the Philippines, a "season" of a television series does not correspond to 1-per-year as it is in other countries. As seen in the parent article, Love to Love (TV show), the show was only shown for 4 years and is not even that notable.

Love to Love (Season 2) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Love to Love (Season 3) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Love to Love (Season 4) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Love to Love (Season 5) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Love to Love (Season 6) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Love to Love (Season 7) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Love to Love (Season 8) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Love to Love (Season 9) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Love to Love (Season 10) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Love to Love (Season 11) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Love to Love (Season 12) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Comment. If these articles are axed, we probably should de-wikify their links on the parent article to prevent re-creation. I'm beginning to rather dislike pinoyshowbizcruft. Shrumster 11:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. MER-C 12:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all Fundamentaldan 22:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — Doesn't appear to be a copyright violation, nor does it appear to be (completely) non-sourced (the episode is the source, the "primary source" - though I agree it/they requires more citations) - also we have to remember just because it's not heard of over here as much doesn't unnecessarily make it non-notable.[34] thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Actually, I'm from over "there" and it's pretty non-notable here. Having said that, there is no need for an article for every single season. Shrumster 12:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep and cleanup. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 10:03Z

[edit] INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION ON BHOPAL

INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION ON BHOPAL (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

International Medical Commission on Bhopal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Just a fragment of a primary document Alex Bakharev 11:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Copyvio most likely. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Woohookitty. Kamope · talk · contributions 11:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 12:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am the primary author of this page and also a physician member of this group who has worked on the disaster. The material has been adapted & amended from the references mentioned, but is not a fragment. I am the author of reference 3. The author of reference 1 has also contributed to the material. There are no copyright violations. If there are specific objections or suggestions, please mention in this discussion. Rdhara, MD--Rdhara 13:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep it just needs wikifying to tidy it up, and the title shouldn't be in caps. I'll do some of this now and then see how it goes. Totnesmartin 20:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Totnesmartin 21:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• If we are content with User:Rdhara's assurances about copyright, this is a keep, and cleanup. -- The Anome 09:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but needs rewrite, cleanup and references. --Soman 10:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• added references, cleaned up grammar/spelling; will continue to work on it;--Rdhara 19:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep No more cleanup required. Chris 17:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 09:44, 5 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 Alphachimp per CSD A7. BryanG^(talk) 00:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buster Cannon Forums

Buster Cannon Forums (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about a webforum established in October 2006. No assertion of notability and doesn't have a chance of passing WP:WEB, especally with only 66 registered members. The article is mostly original research by the sites administrator (WP:COI) with no sources referenced. --Farix (Talk) 12:15, 2 February 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}}

• Delete - no sources except the link to the site itself; fails WP:WEB; no evidence of notability. As it only has 66 members and the article makes no other claims of notability, it might even be speedy delete per CSD A7. Walton monarchist89 12:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - unremarkable web content. So tagged. MER-C 12:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And It's Arsenal

And It's Arsenal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. No assertion of notability for this song, despite one being requested from the page author. Football chants for a specific team are generally not notable, unlike well known songs/chants like Who Ate All the Pies? One Night In Hackney 12:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page for similar reasons. This one is actually a well known chant but isn't team specific, so while it may be worth mentioning in a different article there is no need for a team specific article.

We all follow the Arsenal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by One Night In Hackney (talk • contribs) 21:08, February 4, 2007.

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 12:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'd be surprised if any proof could be found for this song originating with Arsenal fans, and even considering it from the point of view of a song sung at many grounds it simply isn't well known/notable. What is there to say about it other than the "lyrics"? It's hardly You'll Never Walk Alone..... ChrisTheDude 12:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom. MER-C 12:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Madmedea 12:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete both. Thanks One Night In Hackney --Madmedea 21:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I've head variations on this sung to both Fulham F.C. and Truro City F.C. in the last three weeks. No indication that it originated with Arsenal, or any general notability. - fchd 13:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete - Liverpool fans sing this as well from what I recall. Alternatively, merge into List of football chants or something similar with many of the other articles in Category:Football songs and chants which are neither club-specific nor iconic like YNWA. Qwghlm 14:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've also heard it sung at Gillingham and Aston Villa....basically every team whose name can be squashed, however unconvincingly, into the appropriate portion of the first line sings it. I defy anyone to be able to prove it originated with Arsenal......... ChrisTheDude 14:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless some evidence is added to support the assertion that this song originated with Arsenal Jules1975 16:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete So many clubs use this, its impossible to tell where it originated. However, if proof could be found for Arsenal starting it, then it would be a valid article. But I believe it would be very difficult to find reliable proof. Asics talk 23:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've also bundled We all follow the Arsenal into this Afd as the prod was contested, all contributors to this process will be informed. One Night In Hackney 20:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Bad idea. You should have made it a separate AfD - it is never good idea to alter the terms of reference of an AfD after a significant number of comments have been added (especially as over 48 hours have elapsed between the original nomination and the addition); despite the similarity of topics all of the comments before the addition still only apply to only the original article. All articles nominated for AfD should be given due process, and not just tacked onto the end of other AfDs. Advice to closing admin - any binding decision should be made with respect to the original article nominated and the second article should be given a separate, new AfD. Qwghlm 00:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If it counts for anything I'd also !vote to delete the second article. Again there's no proof that Arsenal started that chant, it's used by many many clubs, and there isn't really anything much ti say about it anyway.. ChrisTheDude 07:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm well aware all comments before the addition only apply to the original article, which is why I specificallly messaged all users involved to date as stated above. I would suggest the closing admin weighs up all subsequent !votes and decides whether a new Afd would produce a different result. There is ample precedent for Afds being closed early per WP:SNOW, and in my opinion the second article has no chance of surviving Afd, whether it be one lasting for three days, five days or ten days. One Night In Hackney 15:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete football chants are hardly notable, with some exception (e.g. You'll Never Walk Alone and a very few others). --Angelo 01:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete --the article will not be notable by itself, as it is a football chant and has no historical origins. --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 08:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Again the We all follow the Arsenal is a generic chant, albeit this version has been slightly modified by the "Leicester" reference. Manchester United fans sing this quite a lot and there's no evidence in the article that it originated with Arsenal. Also it's not really sufficiently notable to warrant an article - it might deserve one line in a list of chants article. Otherwise where do you stop, do you have articles for "the referee's a wanker" or "Stand up if you hate (insert hated team name here)"? Jules1975 10:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Even the "modification" you refer to isn't specific to Arsenal - at Gillingham we sing "Over land and sea and Swindon"..... ChrisTheDude 11:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, zero evidence of notability exists for this particular chant. RFerreira 08:14, 7 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) 2007-02-08 10:01Z

[edit] A.D. McLain

A.D._McLain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- (View AfD)

First, this article appears to be self-promotion. Secondly, she's had one book published by a minor publishing company; hardly something that merits note-worthiness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iowamutt (talk • contribs) 2007/02/01 22:19:18

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

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

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete few google references, one book buried at the bottom of the search list on Amazon. May be relevant some day but for now let's leave a crater where this article used to be. SmartGuy 14:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 18:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am Amanda McLain-Young (the person in question in this article). I did not create this article, and I am actually shocked at some of the information here. It is all true, but I do not know how this information was obtained. I never even sang "Back Roads" in public. I can authenticate the information here, if that is necessary. Feel free to email me at wotpast@yahoo.com if you need any further information or verification.

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eryn Vorn

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

This place is never visited in LOTR. It does not warrant an encyclopedia page. It might be useful as part of a listing of places never visited, but not in its own article. --User:Hereiam2 1 February 2007 13:29 UTC

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - zero real world significance, unsourced. Merely a plot summary. MER-C 12:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - violates WP:OR, fancrufty conjecture. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Pardon me for not knowing how to comment properly on these articles. However, I'm not sure how this item merits deletion. Simply because it was not visited in the LotR in no way makes it less of an item in the Middle-Earth canon. Also, whatever 'fancrufty conjecture' is, it doesn't appear to be that. It appears to reference Tolkien's few writings on the subject. Further, I don't see how one person can say it's a plot summary and the next says that it was never visited in LotR... Which is it? How can you summarize what was never visited? Lastly, as for real world significance, this is an article about a fictional location in Tolkien's Middle-Earth legendarium. None of the entries have any real world significance. Want to delete them all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.112.236 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Willing to reconsider if secondary sources can be provided establishing the subject's notability (in the real world). --maclean 02:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator with no objections. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Jerry lavoie 06:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Get down

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

Non-notable neologism--Thomas.macmillan 23:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It does appear to be a neologism-- the article linked to, and others I searched for only referred to get down as verb, not as a noun, as the article suggests.--Urthogie 23:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Search again http://www.google.com/search?q=%22get+down%22+dance+african&start

• Strong Keep - This is sourced. It may need to be expanded, but I think it is useful info in an area where the wiki is weak content-wise.futurebird 00:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No argument from me that content on African cultures on Wikipedia are weak content wise, superficial and even sometimes racist. But this article does not help that; it is just another unhelpful neologism.--Thomas.macmillan 01:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a neologism, I just added some more sources. This is an old old old dance stance. Possibly one of the oldest. It's cracking me up that you think it's a neologism!futurebird 02:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have added a blog written by a non notable magazine, Futurebird. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I may be. Otherwise this doesn't count. Especially since the reference to get down is in quotes, which you strangely never see other dance positions referenced in.--Urthogie 02:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The source I added is book, not a blog. Take a look at it again. The link is to a blog, but the source of the quote is a book. futurebird 11:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. I find it humorous that the disambiguation page for "get down" lists several songs, many of which are excrutiatingly non notable. Yet, the article (as yet a mere stub) treating the phenomenon which is the source of the phrase in these songs (as well as the noun and verb in AAVE) is a candidate for deletion. Did it ever occur to anyone that people might wonder about the origin and meaning of that phrase -- "get down" -- which is the title of all those songs? Or, the origin of the phrase in AAVE slang? I saw the need to begin an article that would explain the cultural phenomenon, how it has survived in the African diaspora, how it has transformed Western/modern dance movement -- particularly in the U.S. -- and its related meanings in AAVE. This move to delete the article is wrong-headed and absurd -- particularly since the article hasn't even been developed yet. Yes, it needs to be expanded, but it's a definite keep. deeceevoice 10:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Question: Why does the dance move always seem to be referenced in double quotes if its an established move?--Urthogie 14:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because, unlike European dance, black dance has only a fairly recent tradition, if at all, of being codified. Furthermore, "get down" is not one, specific move, per se; it's a posture with different variations, given the often improvisational and spontaneous nature of black/African dance. And even though the posture is significant and important; it has meaning, it's not rigid or codified like, say, a pas de deux or plie in ballet. The get-down in a ring shout is different from the git down in breakdancing.[User:Deeceevoice|deeceevoice]] 14:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Cakewalk, Black Bottom, Charleston, Lindy Hop, popping, locking, breaking, krumping, Yankadi, Macru, Moribayasa, Agbekor, Agahu, Kpanlogo. It seems like black dance is pretty well codified in both Africa and America.

Affixing titles to dances is a far cry from breaking up a dance up into its constituent parts, prescribing precisely how each movement or pose/posture is to be executed and then naming each one. Please! deeceevoice 15:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As to your point about Get down referring to several types of dance, one would expect such an overarching style of move to be equally, if not more codified than the specific dances I listed-- but its not...?--Urthogie 15:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said. And, again, get down is not a singular movement; it is a general posture (which has no prescribed appearance, except that it must be executed with limbs flexed/bent, the waist bent, the torso relatively low to the ground) -- which may be arrived at from/through the execution of a variety of moves. deeceevoice 15:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to lean towards a weak keep after doing a google scholars search. However, the article seems to treat it differently than the scholars, who refer to it as a "quality" of specific dances. Check out this search. I'll vote for a keep if the article reflects the literature more.--Urthogie 15:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

AfDs aren't conditional. Vote keep or delete. I just began the article; it's a stub. It deserves the chance to develop -- just as any other article on any other legitimate topic. deeceevoice 16:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, but AfD is for not voting. We are trying to build a consensus, not a democracy.--Thomas.macmillan 16:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah -- right. It seems to me if you truly were interested in consensus, you would at least have tried to engage the editors on the article talk page instead of going straight to an AfD. deeceevoice 18:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

After considering everything, I believe the best solution to this article is a redirect to [35] Culture of Africa- Music and Dance--Thomas.macmillan 16:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It makes no sense to put in in there. This needs its own article. futurebird 16:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Get down is an international phenomenon -- and putting it there doesn't help explain how it's morphed into something which has lent its name to all those pop songs with articles of their own. It deserves a stand-alone article. deeceevoice 20:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you find a source that mentions Get down more than one time? Are there ANY sources that describe the movement in any detail? If you can, than it is not a neologism. Until then, I stand by assessment as such.--Thomas.macmillan 06:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone else noted the complete absence of any discussion of this matter on the article talk page (which remains utterly, completely blank) before this AfD was filed? The person who initiated this action made absolutely no attempt whatsoever to discuss this subject, its true nature or relevance, before taking such a precipitous action. It easily could be interpreted as smacking/stinking of intellectual arrogance ("I'm not aware of this, so it doesn't exist; it's made up!"), and/or bad faith! deeceevoice 06:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yale professor and authority on indigenous African cultures Robert Farris Thompson addresses "get down" extensively in his critically acclaimed African Art and Motion and places it within an overall framework of what he calls the "cannons of line form." Thompson addresses get down beyond physical movement and explains how it influences, and is influenced by, the music itself. Thompson states that much of West African music is characterized rhythmically by inclines and declines, both gradual and steep -- crescendos of polyrhythms. (If you've ever heard the drumming of, say, Babatunde Olatunji, then you know what he's referring to.) That's get down.

Thompson also notes the prevalence of the get-down pose/posture in traditional African sculpture, as well -- knees bent, some figures appearing to be squatting. In another venue, Thompson discusses "get down" and capoeira and likens the latter to breakdancing:

During the warm-up exercises, I noticed nothing special – just jumping jacks and leaps and stretches of the kind you’d see at a New York Giants workout in August. But then, in a classic coach’s voice, Vieira led them into the specialized gymnastics of capoeira, and the movements entered the get-down zone[emphasis added]. They looked as if they were break-dancing.

Others have noted the phenomenon using other language. From an article on the history of swing dance:

Lindy Hop, also known as Jitterbug, is the authentic Afro-Euro-American Swing dance. It is an unabashedly joyful dance, with a solid, flowing style that closely reflects its music -- from the late 20's hot Jazz to the early 40's Big Bands. Just as Jazz combines European and African musical origins, Lindy Hop draws on African and European dance traditions. The embracing hold, and the turns from Europe, the breakaway and solid, earthy body posture from Africa [emphasis added].

Here's [36] an article on the web about African art and dance that repeatedly refers to the same "gimme de knee bone bent" aesthetic noted among enslaved Africans in the United States, which so characterizes, still, African American dance. Check out what's been happenin' on the streets of Queens and Harlem.[37][38][39]

The Gahu dance form referred to in the article user Thomas.macmillan precipitously has nominated for deletion is something called a ring shout -- it's a spiritual, transcendent experience. The ring shout is performed across black Africa and in the African diaspora, including in the American South. It's a get-down -- performed feet shuffling, arms akimbo, knees bent. Author and historian P. Sterling Stuckey, in his, IMO, masterwork Slave Culture: Nationalist Theory and the Foundations of Black America, also described the phenomenon of the ring shout in African-American culture, its African origins and its obvious get-down characteristics. As the shout intensifies, the dancers' movements get stronger, the rhythms beat out by the feet get more percussive, and the dancers' torsos get lower to the ground. And they always move counterclockwise. Like southern black folks in the praisehouses and hush harbors, secreted away from the prying eyes of whites and those who would rebuke or punish them for their "uncivilized" manner of worship. Like African-American jazz legend/genius Thelonius Monk jumping up from his piano in the middle of a song, inspired, eyes closed almost trance-like, shuffling around -- counterclockwise. White folks in the audience were amused, mystified. "What the hell's he doing?" Answer: the "Moments of the Sun" -- the persistence of African culture and of African memory! deeceevoice 07:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

AAVE phrases like "Git-downs," "breakdown" as dance [40], the phrase "get down (on) it," "get-down," "gettin' down," "break it (on) down" (in certain contexts) all come from either the posture/motion or the intensity of get down in an African context.

Incidentally, if you click the above link and follow on down the page, there are links to various other African American dances. Note the bent-knee, "low-down" postures of virtually all, if not all (I didn't investigate them, but I know most of the names), of them. deeceevoice 19:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

deecee, I hope you add all of this great stuff to the article-- I mean so it's not a stub anymore-- I don't think we need to worry about it being deleted at this stage! Wow! futurebird 02:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No time right now. I've been playing hooky, but I've got some serious deadlines to attend to now. This is an easy way to pull together resources to come back to later -- besides, I'm enjoying destroying the argument that this is a "non-notable neologism." (I ain't heard narruh peep outta MacMillan fuh sum tahm nah. Wunda wey dat bwoi dun wint 2! :p) deeceevoice 02:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per above. --MaNeMeBasat 18:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to be a perfectly valid encyclopedia article candidate. Icemuon 18:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I cant' believe we're even having this discussion. Of course it's notable. Elefuntboy 19:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep Sourced, culturally relevant, of benefit to the reader, encyclopedic. Why was there even any question? I suggest ending this debate early under WP:SNOW. Jerry lavoie 03:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Withdraw As the nominator of the article, I am withdrawing it. It still seems borderline encyclopedic, but, with the improvements, it should be kept.--Thomas.macmillan 04:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was (and is still, more or less) a stub. "Borderline"? You should never have opened this in the first place. Next time, try discussing your concerns with editors first, snowball. :p You can avoid getting trounced in an RfP -- not to mention it's the sensible/obvious thing to do. WP:SNOW, indeed. That's a new one on me -- but very apropos here. deeceevoice 04:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I nominated it because it, in my mind, was a neologism with no references, not because it was a stub.--Thomas.macmillan 05:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Stubs, by their very nature, are articles in the making. Again, when you have an objection to an article, or a question, the appropriate and courteous thing to do is discuss it first -- before running to open an RfD. You jumped the gun, plain and simple. If you'd merely taken the time to ask questions about something about which you clearly know very little, this could have been avoided in the first place. You wrote not a single word on the article discussion page before opening this failed attempt to eradicate it. deeceevoice 05:10, 4 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 09:59Z

[edit] List of Office Bearers of the National Union of Students of Australia

List of Office Bearers of the National Union of Students of Australia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Directory list with no apparent encyclopedic need. An enormous list of non-notable people. Vegaswikian 08:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: Last two debates ended in no consensus. MER-C 12:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 12:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete pretty much just what the nominator said: an enormous list of non-notable people. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete arbitrary list.-- danntm ^T _C 21:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Student politicians often become notable real-world politicians, as some of the people on this list have already become. --Eastmain 01:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If someone from this list becomes notable enough for an article, then write an article. Otto4711 02:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per the nominator, a list of all people will consist of some that will become notable later, but we don't have that. We don't need this list either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lankiveil (talk • contribs) 05:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- —Moondyne 08:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Super strong keep - why do we keep digging up AfDs that have failed until they pass? It's not good enough - there's no more reason why it should be deleted now than it did in the past two nominations - I call on the nominator to explain why this is any different to beforehand. There MUST be a distinction made between the individuals on this page, which are not inherently notable, and the roles that the people have held, which have aided hundreds of thousands of students and have led some notable campaigns for students' and other rights over the past few years - this is a notable organisation and its leaders are notable. Some of these people already have their own article and if history is anything to go by, some of these people will end up in high political and other positions in Australia - while that is not certain, the roles the people play make it notable enough to keep on its own merits; this article only exists because it is a subset of the National Union of Students page, and would be too big to fit there. Let's stop this nonsense in continually bringing up articles to be deleted simply because someone doesn't like it and didn't like the previous outcome. JROBBO 12:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • And conversely, the vast number will never be notable. Also the previous AfDs resulted in no consensus. So basically there was no decision made that this article should be kept. The article could be more acceptable from a notability basis if it only covered the national offices, so maybe deleting all of the state sections could help move to a consensus. Vegaswikian 20:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom DXRAW 12:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Organisation and each of its past leaders is notable, given that they appear in various mainstream, not to mention campus, media every few months. One could argue that OBs besides the President and Gen Sec are non-notable. Suggest moving nn information to the article's talk page so it's at least recorded somewhere? Joestella 14:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment JROBBO's claim that NUS has "aided hundreds of thousands of students" is dubious and needs citation. :) Joestella 14:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

True - it's probably a bit of an exaggeration - but even for the hundreds of thousands of university students who never used the services of NUS up till the end of Compulsory Student Unionism, they were *there* to represent their interest in any case. I'm all for Joe's proposal above though - it's a good compromise. JROBBO 11:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Mathmo ^Talk 16:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 18:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unbelievably huge pile of listcruft. WP:NOT#IINFO. Krimpet 20:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Very handy reference piece for writing articles on Australian politicians. Each one of these people has plenty of appearances in reputable media (really, it comes with the job), and several of them have articles. I for one find it very helpful to be able to go through and find out which notable people once served in various positions, and I see absolutely no reason why it should be deleted. Rebecca 04:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Completely worthless list of non-notable people. Soltak | Talk 23:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Rebecca. Orderinchaos78 18:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, most student politicans just aren't notable. --Peta 02:51, 7 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. Bucketsofg 00:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luke's Father

Luke's Father (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a useless and uneccesary article that does not meed the standards of notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhindle The Red (talk • contribs) 2007/02/01 18:21:39

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - complete bollocks, since Luke's father is Darth Vader. MER-C 12:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Complete speculation and likely a hoax. –Llama man 14:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C. Luke's father is Darth Vader. - Bugtrio | Talk 14:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge - I read the article in an other way: In the Star Wars original script (and movie) the Luke's father and Darth Vader was two different persons. Only in Ep.5 Lukas merged the two characters. If it is so, and there are sources, improve and merge to Darth Vader or an other article. In the other (probably) case: let the force to delete it. Cate | _Talk 15:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Indeed. All the article seems to suggest here is the writers of a comic book based their assumption that Luke's father was a separate character on incomplete information. I doubt it was a retcon on Lucas' part, as it's widely documented Lucas had the whole story laid out before ANH and only the first part of the script got made into the first movie of the original trilogy. ~Matticus ^T_C 15:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for all of the above, particularly complete bollocks. However, since an AfD argument should be a bit more substantive, I'll add it fails WP:V completely, making an easy inference of WP:OR. AfD should probably be closed per WP:SNOW, there's no way this article will survive. -Markeer 15:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I see no point to this article. Shrumster 16:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Perhaps a redirect to Darth Vader would be in order? —Dark•Shikari^[T] 17:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Nah. There are loads of people named Luke, such as the biblical Luke, and it's one of the top 100 baby names in the US. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is just plain silly. I wouldn't redirect it, since "Luke's Father" could be nearly anyone out of context. --UsaSatsui 18:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete strange theory (basically that Luke Skywalker's father is someone else other than Darth Vader) not supported in SW canon or even fandom as far as I know. Interestingly, the article creator's only other mainspace edits are to suggest who Shadow the Hedgehog's father is. Also their talk page states, "Guesses are Good: I, Neon Apocalypse leader of the mighty Brotherhood and master of this page, now support putting theories on pages. If you don't like that, tell me. (So I can insult you without mercy MUHAHA!" Hmm. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Shadow the Hedgehog is Darth Vader's father, anyone knows that! It wasn't the midichlorians at all! Think about it! :) ~Matticus ^T_C 20:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete this might even stand under Speedy Delete. Completely useless. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 21:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unverified.-- danntm ^T _C 22:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT and WP:NOR. Not to mention that canon is what George Lucas says it is; while the subject of the evolution of the character relationships is rather interesting in and of itself, it has no direct bearing on canon. (And in any case, as far as the development of character relationships, such material has been written far more effectively and properly by dedicated fanboys who have far better research skills than the author of this article.) Haikupoet 05:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure speculation and nonsensical. Even if a source could be found to confirm that George Lucas came up with the Darth-as-Daddy angle after A New Hope came out, which to my knowledge is not the case, this would be worth little more than a footnote in the Darth Vader article. 23skidoo 07:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect Luke Perry's father? Biblical Luke's father? Come on. JuJube 23:00, 3 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 Protoscience in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 09:58Z

[edit] Prescientific system

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

Original research. Speedy delete. DoctorIsOut 21:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete but absolutely not speedy delete OR is not grounds for speedy deletion at all. Being tagged for unreferenced since august last year is long enough so submit that there is no verification coming. i kan reed 21:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - OR, google search reveals only WP and copycat sites. No such thing as prescientific systems, though it would be a good subject to write about. --Dematt 21:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. MER-C 12:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Don't speedy, (otherwise... whatever) Mathmo ^Talk 04:58, 3 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) 2007-02-08 09:57Z

[edit] Tom Curtis (artist)

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

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

Reason: Not notable. No published material reviewing the artist's work. No significant recognition cited. Artwork may be very good, but citations provided do not support inclusion on Wikipedia. Bus stop 15:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Article has references. If the article is weak, fix it rather than taking it to AfD. --Eastmain 15:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'm happy to keep if an artist has a viable track record of milieu/shows/reviews/media mentions etc. that indicates they have some niche within the contemporary art world. Everything here indicates the artist currently does not, but is "emerging" at a fairly early stage. Even the article says in the 1990s "did not exhibit widely" and only in 2000 "began exhibiting again", while his statement on absolutearts is, "I am currently seeking quality exhibition opportunities." Sorry, that's not enough. When he gets the exhibition opportunities, then we can keep an article. This is no reflection on his integrity or quality of work per se, merely that we have certain minimum inclusion requirements that must be demonstrated. Tyrenius 15:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Soltak | Talk 23:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Current and upcoming exhibition track record is included in article. References to exhibition opportunities and history have been removed.Tikitom9 00:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Tikitom9's only edits are Tom Curtis-related. Tyrenius 00:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• We need the facts!!! Shows. Galleries exhibited. Papers and mags reviewed in. Collections in. We need to know the artist has done something, and it needs to be backed up with references, and page numbers, dates, quotations. Check out William Bowyer and Fred Cuming just to see facts and references used throughout. Tyrenius 00:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Whilst there may be references, there is no evidence of notability. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 12:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 18:22, 2 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 01:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Twin rivers r-10 school district

Contested prod. No context, and therefore hard to verify, judge notability, improve the article, etc. →EdGl 20:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. School districts, like municipalities, should be considered automatically notable as government bodies. Besides, people sometimes argue that an article on an individual school should be merged into the article for the appropriate school district, and if we start deleting school districts, it won't be possible to merge school articles that way. Besides, school districts sometimes take in several different municipalities, so they often can't be merged into the article for a single municipality or county. --Eastmain 18:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for improving the article and providing some context. I withdraw the nomination – speedy keep →EdGl 01:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - brenneman 05:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrestling-Radio

Not noteworthy, Alexa rating is 1,003,062 (http://alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wrestlingradionetwork.com%2F). Most likely just some way for the creators to get cheap exposure. --Raderick 04:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:WEB. MER-C 12:51, 2 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; I suggest finding a way to merge this article into a broader topic. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 09:55Z

[edit] Gym floor cover

Gym floor cover (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:CORP, WP:COI, WP:SPAM. Overspecific article on nonnotable product, a clear attempt to establish a presence within Wikipedia. Creator is User:Gymfloorcover, presumably affiliated with, or the owner of http://covermaster.net/. Repeated attempts to place links to the company, also through restrictively licensed images [41] (possible copyright problem, taken from the company website, no confirmation of permission). A related IP spammed internally [42][43][44] for the article. Specific product codes were named (apparently now rowing back testing how much promotion is too much promotion). Basically the article could be redirected to tarp, but there are no independently added incoming links, so delete as nominator. Femto 13:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for failure of WP:CORP. Lexisnexis returns no hits for "gym floor cover"--Beaker342 15:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)