Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 27 January 29 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep per consensus – PeaceNT 07:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kunoichi

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

This amalgam of original research and fantasies from various works of fiction is utterly devoid of sources. ➥the Epopt 00:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep The article does read like WP:OR and is unreferenced but Google = Results 31 - 40 of about 440,000 for "Kunoichi" most of which seem to support the premise of the article. It already has an unreferenced tag. Jeepday 00:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep AFD is not cleanup. Just H 01:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep legitimate article although could be improved, but I have seen worse than this on Wikipedia. PatGallacher 01:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep All this needs is some cleanup and sources. Nothing serious here. ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 02:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The article needs a bit of work, but is a well-inclusive list on a notable subject. No reason at all to delete. --TommyOliver 03:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It just needs to sourced. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 03:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs some sources, a cleanup, if this is done, everything should be fine. Terence Ong 03:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I've been watching this article for some time. I'm a little concerned about its steady growth into an all-inclusive list, but I think the article at its root is pretty decent. That said, it really does need some sources. --Mdwyer 06:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per JustH. OR isn't a deletion criterion; if it needs cleanup, then do that. Part Deux 07:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Wha? Of course OR is one of the criteria for deletion. --UsaSatsui 11:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Please see Wikipedia:no original research — as one of the fundamental policies of this encyclopedia, it is an extremely strong requirement for deletion ➥the Epopt 14:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Not in this case. In this case, cleanup would do much better, seeing as it's a notable subject. It would probably be much better to just tag the article {{OR}} or {{unsourced}} then to try to delete it. Part Deux 19:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag it for cleanup. --UsaSatsui 11:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 12:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As above, the article needs to be improved, but is notable and necessary. MightyAtom 13:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment — I see a lot of "keep because I like it" votes here, but not very many explanations of why this article is not original research. May I suggest a review of "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions," which many of these entries seem to be quoting? ➥the Epopt 14:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Response to User:The Epopt a light search for references showed over four hundred thousand hits that seemed to support the articles content and indicate that the subject is notable. The page needs to be heavily edited and referenced but Wikipedia:There is no deadline. While the article does read like WP:OR it seems that that is wording/editing issue not a Wikipedia:Verifiabilityissue, every indication is that there are multiple outside references supporting the assertions. Being poorly written is not cause for deletion, there are multiple tags on the article identifying it's current shortcomings. Jeepday 15:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Response Response: Four hundred thousand certainly is a big number, isn't it? Now subtract the roleplaying game discussions, the ninja-versus-pirate jokes, the ads for martial arts schools, and the sexual fantasies. What's left? ➥the Epopt 22:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
        • et cetera: Your point is well taken, but I ask that you try to maintain some civility. --Mdwyer 04:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Response The lack of citation is certainly disturbing, especially when the article seems to miss Chiyome Mochizuki entirely, who appears to be the basis of the Kunoichi mythology. In any case, the mythology is firmly entrenched now. I see that Ninja is having the same credibility issues. I honestly can't see a solution to this credibility gap, but I really don't feel that deletion is warranted. Firm warnings about its credibility are indicated for the historical sections, though. --Mdwyer 18:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • FWIW, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is a rather idiosyncratic and contested essay. FWIW, neither games, jokes, nor sexual fantasies are not excluded from coverage. This is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Response Those game discussions, jokes, and fantasies show cultural impact, which is notability. Edward321 23:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep & Clean-up; the article includes content that defines a certain character archetype within manga and anime, however, it is poorly edited, and is sorely in need of the firm hand of a good editor. --Mhking 16:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I like it. Article subject is notable, but it definitely needs clean-up. ← ANAS Talk? 18:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Subject is notable and the article can be fixed; it sure would be nice if some non-video-game images were used in the article, however. It currently seems to identify more with the fictional than the factual aspects. ◄Zahakiel► 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I used Google Book Search and found some references. I have begun the clean up and reference on the article. Jeepday 19:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per all above Oo7565 20:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag it for cleanup. Interesting article. The book cited as a reference from 1991 is detailed and covers the topic well. MRoberts <> 20:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep Bucketsofg 22:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Find an Admin and close this please. I would, but i'm not an admin as of yet. Just H 03:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Question: AfD runs for five days — what's the hurry? As someone pointed out above, there is no deadline. What is it that you want to make sure doesn't happen before this discussion closes? ➥the Epopt 04:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I think he's trying to invoke WP:SNOW. Personally, I don't agree it applies here. --UsaSatsui 06:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
        • We'll have to agree to disagree Satsui and Epopt. If this isn't "consensus", I don't know what is... Just H 00:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
          • See the two or three people who disagree with the "keep" still making decent arguments? That's not "consensus". If there's any doubt, better to leave it open.--UsaSatsui 05:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - We are not a catalog of fictional concepts with no chance of verifiability. It can be nothing but original research because it does not exist. Come on guys, I hate to be a WP:DICK, but are we really in the business of being a platform on which fictional concepts are showcased? No matter how many geekypedia editors like a particular anime/ninja fictional world, it isn't ever going to be within our scope or our policies. /Blaxthos 09:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • So you're saying that fictional concepts never deserve articles? Sorry, I don't buy it. Whether or not they really exist, they are verifiable concepts. Same here. Notability is an issue here, sources are, the presence of OR is. Verifiability isn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UsaSatsui (talk • contribs) 09:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
    • I do have to agree with Usasatsui that this argument seems to be a bit confusing. After all, it is Jimbo Wales, the one who is the first creator of Wikipedia and who best understands its design, that said there was no problem with there being an article on every Simpsons character that exists. Or should we not have articles on Elves, Dwarves, or ogres? Part Deux 01:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    I don't know all the past precidents, and I'm not trying to be dense... I think that my main point is that we're talking about something that, in essence, does not exist -- who gets to decide what Kunoichi is? How can we write a verifiable article on a concept that can't be measured, can't be tested, can't be verified? Some may say by incorporating only third party sources -- in essence, incorporating what others say about Kunoichi. I just think that this is an unverifiable article about a ficticious idea of questionable notability. Your point regarding other fiction that obviously warrants an encyclopaedic entry (such as vampires) is taken, but in this instance I don't believe that is the case. /Blaxthos 01:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    Exactly. There is a common theme to how Konoichi are portrayed, just as there are common themes to portrayals of Santa or vampires. As has been said, there is a lot missing and a bit of cruftiness, but those things can be worked out. The article as it stands sucks, but I believe the topic deserves an article. Worst case scenario, if when all is said and done there's not much left , it can be merged into "ninja". --UsaSatsui 05:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Question, how do you say the naming for female ninja cannot be measured, tested, nor verified? There are people using it, at the very least it is a popular culture issue in Japan. I don't care if the article was kept or not (of course I am going to vote for a keep), but I do not want to see somebody's thinks that the term is not verifiable just because they have not heard it before. BTW, this word is found in two Japanese to Chinese dictionary and at least two Japanese dictionary where the meaning is literally Female Ninja. People have written in books saying why it is called that way, there are no exact final answer, but so do many science topics. The conclusion of actual reason for having this term is unknown, and thus the article should say that exactly, which does not mean it is not verifiable, but verified to be unknown by secondary sources. MythSearchertalk 03:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable, widespread, well-known concept in fiction at least, if not in real life. AfD Isn't Cleanup®. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep it is def notable. --JavazXT 14:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'm finding all these rebuttals in the name of "notability" hilarious. The subject may or may not be notable; that's irrelevant. The article is original research that is not based on reliable sources of information. It nothing but a collection of role-playing fantasies with no basis in fact and with no place in an encyclopedia. ➥the Epopt 15:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment Epopt, please calm down and try help guide the discussion or improve the article rather than talking ill of other peoples' opinions. It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness. Just H 00:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: The No OR argument would work only if the individual who created this article coined or developed the meaning of the term beyond verifiable sources. In other words, the purpose of the OR policy is primarily for sources and arguments, not topics (e.g., Kunoichi as a factual occupation might be OR, and a poll taken by the editor indicating what percentage of individuals believe they are real would definitely be OR). I certainly agree that better verification is necessary here, but the topic in this case is not OR, and should be kept. By the way, there are lots of entries in wikipedia involving "a collection of role-playing fantasies with no basis in fact," so if you think the article needs to be rewritten to reflect that this is the primary focus, fine. Otherwise, I really don't see how your point stands up. ◄Zahakiel► 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Firm Keep After reading the article, I'm seeing a lot of statements which could be sourced. The lack of inclusion regarding the origins of the term is a little strange, but that's a job for cleanup. While the "Derivation of the word Kunoichi" section looks to be OR, the "History" section is quite well written. I can see the article is being cleaned up even as this AfD takes place and see no reason for deletion at this time. Cheers, Lankybugger 16:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for obvious reasons. The article needs help, but deleting is not the answer. At worst it should redirect to Ninja. JuJube 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As per Jujube. The article needs work, but at worst it should be merged with ninja. Edward321 23:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chewbacca defense

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

Neologism that is not the subject of reliable third-party sources. Delete per WP:NEO. Chardish 00:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This article was previously the subject of a deletion discussion in 2005 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chewbacca Defense. The result at that time was "keep". --Metropolitan90 00:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep If it already passed AfD once that is enough for me. Jeepday 01:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Note also that the last AfD was overwhelmingly in favour of keeping; it might be the least-disputed AfD I've ever seen. If it was notable then, it certainly isn't any less so now.--chris.lawson 01:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per verifiable through the show as primary source and the various illustrative examples in the "usage" section. Some small OR problems in the opening but I rewrote it. Otto4711 01:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge to the relevant episode. I'm not seeing how this could ever have passed an AfD. WP:N requires multiple nontrivial (not just a mention, the article's subject must actually be the focus of the coverage), reliable (are these sources cited reliable sources regarding the English language or neologisms? They just seem to be using the phrase, not discussing it?), sources. In some of these cited "sources", the phrase "Chewbacca Defense" is never even used, in many others, the reference is back to Wikipedia itself! Regardless, none of them are discussing the phrase or verify anything said in the article. When someone sees fit to write multiple sources about this phrase, not just to use this phrase multiple times, it will be suitable for an article. Seraphimblade 01:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Changing to keep based on sources presented here, but article should be rewritten from those. As-is, consists largely of original thought. Seraphimblade 05:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • previous AfD none too ferocious, but I'll go with Keep. To me not a question about WP:N or OR (it has caught on, Germans are accusing each other of Chewbacca-Verteidigung), but WP:V, the problematic absence of trustworthy secondary sources. But I found my trusted newspaper Guardian review of South Park and Philosophy, which could be a sourcing saviour? —MURGH disc. 02:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per UncleG from the previous AfD. See also Paul Krugman here or this article from The Conservative Voice (I don't recommend actually reading this inflammatory article; it is provided only as an example). If Paul Krugman uses random Internet neologisms, you must keep! The defense rests. --N Shar 02:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Also per UncleG in this afd, below. --N Shar 03:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I loved that episode of South Park... (sorry people that's all I got) --TommyOliver 03:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed AFD discussion, you must now decide whether to reverse the decision from the previous AFD discussion. I know that it seems as if this has not been documented. But, ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one moment — that does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when I should be discussing sources that document this defence? Why? I'll tell you why: I don't know.

    It does not make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense, you must keep!

    Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey! Uncle G 03:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep, there is a few reliable sources around. Needs some cleanup though. Terence Ong 03:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Chef Aid; not notable outside the episode. The six examples of use given in the article are all just by bloggers; the Paul Krugman thing noted above is something he mentioned in passing in an e-mail (and thus a trivial mention). That's not sufficient. Andrew Levine 04:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Uncle G's first source is not a blog; look in the "legalese" section for this PDF version of a scholarly presentation.--chris.lawson 04:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: This is not a source about the Chewbacca defense, this is a source that uses and references it. Furthermore, it's a series of PowerPoint slides with little actual content. WP:NEO is quite strict that an article requires sources on the subject of the neologism, not simply sources that use them. - Chardish 07:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
How is a substantive discussion by legal professionals of the actual strategy that the South Park writers called the Chewbacca defense not "on the subject" of the neologism? These are not trivial mentions.--Dhartung | Talk 00:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per the Chewbacca defense. This afd does not make sense. --- RockMFR 05:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Also this is more notable than Nincada, just to make it clear that I'm intentionally not citing policy ;) --- RockMFR 04:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per UncleG. Maxamegalon2000 06:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Andrew Levine - It's a funny bit of a funny episode, but I don't really see that ut has an existance outside the episode. Artw 06:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Simply because you enjoy this episode of South Park does not mean that this article is notable. Please read the Wikipedia policy on neologisms, then find some credible, third-party sources about the Chewbacca Defense. If no one finds reliable sources, the article needs to go. - Chardish 06:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: That's been done. See above.--chris.lawson 06:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to the Chef Aid episode. That covers it entirely. Wryspy 07:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a tough one. It's definitely a neologism, and I can't find any notable sources outside of blogs (which, aren't of course, notable), however, the word is clearly often in usage in the blogs. Thus, weak keep. However, if it is deleted, could we move it to the Wikipedia space, because we refer to it a lot on here (or, userfy it; I volunteer to host it). Part Deux 07:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, this AfD does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests. --Candy-Panda 09:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, per sources found. However, I'm seriously disappointed in how many people are applying [[WP:ILIKEIT] to this. AFD's are not "votes", and "I like it" is not a reason to retain an article. --Haemo 10:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. The amount of usage in blogs and forums is actually pretty surprsing, and includes a lot of the big sites: Slashdot, Daily Kos, Free Republic, etc. But, of course, we need more than blog posts. Here is a ZDNet article that details the term, employing it in an extended metaphor to Microsoft. It was also the topic of a discussion workshop at the 2005 American Academy of Forensic Sciences annual meeting, entitled "Poking the Wookie: The Chewbacca Defense in Digital Evidence Cases". Brief references that could be used to flesh out an article (although not sufficient to demonstrate inclusion on their own merits) are more common, such as this from the Daily Vanguard. It has also snuck into the instructor side of college education, including at least couple of syllabi I forgot to copy down on my way through the links. The reliable sources are slightly thinner than I usually prefer here, but its pervasiveness as an Internet meme alongside what is out there seems enough to tip the scales for me, if barely. ...Maybe I looked at the silly monkey? Serpent's Choice 10:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per N Shar. Azate 11:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:OR:original research and plot summary which lacks reliable sources. What sourced real-world relevance this does have should be merged into Chef Aid. --Farix (Talk) 13:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As far as I can see, the book South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today is an eminently reliable source - authored by academic philosophers, published by a major Oxford-based academic publishing company, and featuring an entire chapter on the "Chewbacca defense" written by Robert Arp, a philosophy professor from Florida State University. --Canley 13:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Then why didn't you actually use that source? Finding a reliable source is one thing, using it in the article is completely different. The whole point of WP:V is that anyone who read the same research you did (in other words, the credible sources you cite) would obtain the same information that the article presented. Citing a source without using it in writing the article is worse than leaving the source out altogether - it sends researchers looking in the wrong places to verify the information you presented in the article. As such, I removed your reference. If you want to use this book as a source: 1) Acquire a copy of the book. 2) Read the chapter in question, and make sure it's pertinent to the article. 3) Using the book as a source, rewrite the article using only credible information. Until you do that (and maybe even after you do), the article still fails WP:V, which is non-negotiable. - Chardish 18:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Point partly taken, maybe I will move it to "Further reading" until it can be properly used and cited. The reason I did not rewrite anything is because the article makes no "claims" that require sourcing from it. One might ask exactly what in the article you would consider to be "unverifiable". A fictional legal strategy used in an episode of South Park and what is essentially a transcript of the scene in question? Surely that is beyond doubt, and verifiable from the episode as a primary source. Then a small section on external usage which cites only those cases (OK, mostly blogs) where other editors have found sources. I will, by all means, get the book and add anything interesting I find. I might also point out that the nomination represents that the subject is "not the subject of third party sources", I was merely pointing out that it is. --Canley 21:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • When you are arguing, Chardish, that a topic is not notable, deleting material that demonstrates notability from the article[1] may be viewed as bad faith. The standard we are meeting at AFD is verifiable, not whether every i is dotted and every citation matching a source or vice versa. Anything else represents a content dispute which is not germane to WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 23:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, as trivial information, back to the original South Park episode. The bulk of the outside sources are opinion-driven blogs, and not empirical information. As such, they do not serve to fully establish notability outside of the context of the original televised episode. --Mhking 16:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with South Park episode Chef Aid --Allstar86 16:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep; several decent sources here.--Prosfilaes 18:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomOo7565 20:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with chef aid episode. WP:ITSFUNNY is a pretty lame reason to have a whole separate article on something with sources so questionable. Notable means multiple non-triviasl coverage in reliable secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • would you consider allowing it in the Wikipedia space, as we often have essays and information there (i.e., WP:HOLE or WP:SPIDER aren't worthy of articles). Part Deux 21:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Bucketsofg 22:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep I think this a valid article, but I suggest merging it with the S.P. episode if more credible uses w/ refs cannot be found. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 22:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is not a neologism. It's been in reasonably common use for almost ten years now. Bryan Derksen 23:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I've eliminated the blog sources and added reliable sources for usage and commentary that non-trivially involves the concept itself in real-world legal scenarios. It may not be enough for everyone here, but it removes the objection about sources. --Dhartung | Talk 00:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, based on having survived a previous AfD. Probably very limited applicability in real criminal law though. Wl219 00:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep baffling nomination; the footnotes in the article are mostly fine. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Single joke from TV show + OR = fancruft. Single joke from TV show + multiple independent sources = article. AfD + UncleG = WP:SNOW. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well sourced article, so term has clearly penetrated beyond the South Park sphere. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete:

Let me see if I've got this straight. A "Chewbacca defense" is one where the prosecution's side is presented as too complicated to be convincing:

...or use a "Chewbacca defense" (thanks to the South Park TV show for this phrase) and try to razzle-dazzle the jury about how complex and complicated the other side's evidence or probability estimates are. [2]

No, wait. It's a defense that's "based on physical possibility that someone else committed bad act" [3].

This source seems to agree; though it never explicitly defines it, it gives an example of a Chewbacca defense as a "prevalence of computer vulnerabilities and malware technology that allow unknown persons to access one's computer [presumably to commit a 'bad act']."

But no, wait. The "Chewbacca defense" is actually a postmodernist's dream, "in which someone asserts his claim by saying something so patently nonsensical that the listener's brain shuts down completely."[4]

Maybe the experts at the Purdue U. conference can help me understand? Nope, all they give is the title of a lecture: "Poking the Wookie: The Chewbacca Defense in Digital Evidence Cases".

Then, this unreliable source suggests that an essential element of a Chewbacca defense is the use of "technical jargon" that most juries wouldn't understand.

Ah, now I understand! What we've got here is a classic neologism that's not even fit for Wiktionary.

Now, it is conceivable that even without a coherent definition of "Chewbacca defense," we could still support a Wikipedia article with this title, if various reliable sources were found that discuss the concepts denoted by the various meanings of "Chewbacca defense." But what we've got are unclear powerpoint presentations[5][6], uncited non-peer-reviewed course notes[7], blog posts [8][9][10], and totally unhelpful references in The Guardian and The Associated Press[11][12].

<tongue in cheek>As for Uncle G's Chewbacca defense of Chewbacca defense, note that "Johnnie" begins with the same phoneme as G -- as in Uncle G. Coincidence? I don't think so. Remember that the Chewbacca defense is used to confound, not clarify! I submit that Uncle G, like Johnnie Cochran before him, doesn't really believe the result he is arguing for!</tongue in cheek> Pan Dan 10:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep or Merge to Chef Aid. All extrapolative stuff has to be cleaned up though; the segment is famous enough, and the term "Chewbacca defense" is well known enough these days, but speculating and rambling on vaguely related real-life uses is not what we do. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - no point in AfD-ing again if it had already won the case against it beforehand! --JavazXT 14:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Consensus can change. Just because an article survived one AFD doesn't give the article immunity from subsequent AFDs, nor is it a valid reason by itself to say kept. --Farix (Talk) 21:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Multiple reliable independent sources, following the above. If there is a conflict among commentators as to the meaning of the term, that fact should be noted and cited in the article. It still doesn't qualify it as a neologism unworthy of an article under WP:NEO. Geuiwogbil 21:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:NEO is very clear that articles on neologisms are, in general, to be avoided. A difference in opinion among commentators about what the neologism even means is a very strong sign that the neologism has not been widely accepted, and, as such, does not merit an article on Wikipedia. Try Wiktionary. - Chardish 23:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • So this article would be better in Wiktionary... riiiiight. --Canley 11:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You certainly couldn't transwiki the thing, but Wiktionary allows articles on neologisms, while Wikipedia strongly discourages it. - Chardish 23:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (reply to Geuiwogbil) The "commentators" cited don't discuss the term or whatever the term is supposed to denote. The citations are merely references to the term. The lecture notes, for example, don't define the term or comment on it; they're just appropriating a pop cultural item to lighten up the lecture. It seems to me that collecting these and other references to the term is original research, unless it can be shown that an external source has already taken note of these references. Pan Dan 13:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Keep: Seems to be a fairly widely used phrase, personally I know I'm glad I was able to find decent background info on it after having seen it in use. Seems to be notable enough -- febtalk 04:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a now widely used pop culture reference. --Rodrigo Cornejo 04:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep — This is an important pop culture subject. – Zntrip 06:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Notability is not subjective. You can't say "keep because it's popular" unless you list several sources on the subject of the Chewbacca defense, not simply sources that mention it. If you are suggesting we ignore all rules, then you should at least supply us with a reason why. - Chardish 19:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the chewbaca defense is a frequently used/quoted colloquial image on the net. Its history and background is well worth an article. To put it thus, Churdish's position on this has been utterly destroyed by debunking, and he's completely out of arguments. Al he's got left is the chewbaca defense :-) Wefa 23:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, I would prefer it be merged with Chef Aid but there does seem to be enough references to warrant its own article, though the "South Park appearance" section should be trimmed at least. Krimpet 02:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, do not merge - notable subject (though bizarre, but with breadth our biggest advantage that's all the more reason to cover it) with independent reliable sources, deserves its own article. In addition, given that the term is in significant use, keeping this separate is best for Wikipedia as a reference work. -Kizor 16:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: Sorry to keep chiming in, but reliable independent sources aren't good enough unless the Chewbacca Defense is the subject of those sources, not merely referenced (or used as an analogy) in those sources. In other words, the sources have to be about the neologism, not about what the neologism describes. Chardish 18:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep sufficiently cited. ReverendG 01:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: If the Jeep goes Beep, then you must Keep! Girdag 12:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: well cited article, no reason to remove it. Nemilar 22:41, 1 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 not marked as valid disambiguation in total 15 votes delete (mixed in with keep disambig. delete rest votes), 3 keep all, 3 relist and 1 merge. Feel free to bring back any page as a valid disambiguation.--Jersey Devil 05:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abhay

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

This a series of names taken from the Indian given names category. Some in that category were valid disambig pages, or articles, but the following should be deleted, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and all they do is define the name. Perhaps some of these will make valid redirects, disambigs or articles. I am happy to withdraw individual nominations. I am also nominating-

Comment :Any that I have struck out, I am withdrawing the nomination for. Also note that I am withdrawing the nomination for Abhay itself, as it is now a valid disambiguation, but I reqest this discussion is kept open for obvious reasons. J Milburn 00:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Also adding in Meghna (name) which was speedily deleted earlier tonight, but then recreated. This will hopefully settle that matter. These all need to go. J Milburn 01:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a repository of redundant, unencyclopedic information. --Ragib 01:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Among the other things Wikipedia is not, it shouldn't be a baby name guide. janejellyroll 01:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 01:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; maybe transwiki to Wiktionary instead. Bigtop 01:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. --NMChico24 02:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. MER-C 02:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and send somewhere else - perhaps to a sister project? --Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 03:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Given names is an encyclopaedic topic that many traditional encyclopaedias also cover. In fact, the whole category Category:Given names is devoted in Wikipedia for this purpose. See also Adam (name), Constance (name) and Edith for just a few WP pages devoted to given names. Westenra 03:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all" per nom. They can't stand on their own as articles. As per above, wiki is not a dictionary --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 03:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Terence Ong 04:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep there are a lot of surnames on Wikipedia, and if we are going to nominate them for deletion, than we should go for other categories as well. But please, hear this before you cast your !vote for delete: a lot of these are notable. Anuj, aside from having 850,000 ghits, is part of Hindu mythology, according to the article. Clearly, these names are notable. If you believe they lack sources, then I say tag them as such and look for sources, then, when the source isn't locatable, nominate it for deletion under this premise. Part Deux 07:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, these are actually first names/given names, and NOT surnames. As for ghits, you'd definitely get ghits when those are part of many persons name. The word "Has" gets a lot of ghits too (2.6 billion). Yet its proper place is a dictionary. --Ragib 08:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Relist individually. For each of these names, a determination about deletion will need to depend on what verifiable sourcing is available. Some of these names have mythological applications, some do not. Some have been used in Indian business, some have not. Especially because there will be large numbers of false positives on Google, and because searching for non-English top, these articles should be given separate treatment to ensure that worthwhile content is not accidently removed. Serpent's Choice 08:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Relist individually. Most of these should be deleted, but a few such as Sujata contain more information than just the name. utcursch | talk 10:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I personally do not want to relist these individually. It took me long enough as it was, and relisting all of these will clog the deletion debate. If you tell me the specific articles that could be kept, the reason they should be kept, and I agree, then I will strike them out on my list and withdraw my nomination for that individual article. I don't know whether that is allowed, but I think that would be the best way of dealing with this situation. Relisting them individually would be very inpractical and inconveniant for everyone involved. J Milburn 10:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and repeat, do not relist individually, but without prejudice to recreation if and only if someone can create a sourced and expanded article in the future. As it is, they're effectively dicdefs (namedefs?) Seraphimblade 11:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all, on the basis that Wikipedia is not a Dictionary of Names. (I have one, very interesting it is too, but it's just what it says - a dictionary.) The fact that some of these are also names of Hindu mythological characters is irrelevant: these articles are about the names, not the characters. If mythological characters have articles that's one thing; this is a separate issue. Emeraude 16:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nomination, Wikipedia is not a dictionary --Mhking 16:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or relist - Some of these serve as disambiguation, and many of these are oprevalent in Hindu history. Some names like Praveen are very common (for disambiguation, Praveen Togadia, do a search of praveen) and some Manjunath should be deleted, because there are very few manjunath's in the world.Bakaman 17:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman 17:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Relist individually. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: To the people telling me to relist, I doubt you would be willing comment on all of them, never mind individually list all of them. As for making these into valid disambiguation pages- I am completely open to that, why doesn't someone do it? J Milburn 17:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge: These names-entries are relatively short, why don't we just make an article with a sub-section for these names? I so no reason why they are not notable together, but they are weak, unnecessary stubs sole.Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 23:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Akhil, Ananta, Anuj, Arindam, Pranab, Praveen, Ritesh, and Sujata which have all been reduced to disambig or redirects. Keep and expand Nandini (important in Hindu mythology and also a notable trademark). Delete the rest per nom. — Kaustuv CHAUDHURI 23:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Also keep Abhay, which has also been reduced to a disambig. — Kaustuv CHAUDHURI 23:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete those that read like Abhay (This name means: , People with this name are generally: , This is not a very common name. Keep all the others and expand them as much as possible. - AMP'd 23:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: If Nandini is an important mythological character and a notable brand, then two seperate articles need to be written on them, and then this could be kept as a disambig page. Until then, I think it should be deleted. J Milburn 00:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • delete all: if any of them have includable factoids like links to mythology, include said factoids in the relevant articles for that topic. Given names are by themselves not notable, and WP:NOT is clear about not being an indiscriminate list of lists nor a dictionary. Jerry lavoie 23:37, 1 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.
Articles for deletion archives This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Munishk Gupta. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of historical confusions

List of historical confusions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

As far as I can understand, this list is supposed to contain either (1) instances of confusion over history topics, or (2) instances of confusion over placenames/peoples throughout history. I don't think that either criterion is, of itself, particularly notable. In the first case, the list would essentially be a result of something that happened in school one day. In the second case, the list would seem to violate WP:NOR, be potentially unmaintainable, and be (again) unnotable unless the importance of these confusions was specified. My second (or fourth, depending on how you count it) reason for nominating it for deletion is that it adds little or nothing of encyclopedic value (after all, Wikipeida is an encyclopedia) as evidenced by the facts that:

  1. the information contained in it is replicated on two disambiguation pages (Albania (disambiguation) and Iberia) and the rest of the individual article pages it links to;
  2. it is unsourced; and
  3. it provides no context whatsoever. Black Falcon 01:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Unclear as to what was confusing, who was confused, why it was confusing...I'm so confused. I cannot fathom what kind of encyclopedic entry would be possible from this title, or how it would not be original research. Agent 86 02:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The list is poorly defined and far too broad to be satisfactorily encyclopedic. It's also subjective and unverifiable. Leebo86 03:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverfiable. What's the criteria for such a list? --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 03:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm very worried that this could become a vehicle for POV. As in: "A common historical confusion is the Genocide XYZ hoax." --N Shar 03:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: If this is a list for historical confusions, then that article should be much longer than its current state. Also, what is the confusion about? I see no confusion! I'm as confused as Agent 86! Also, the article will eventually violate WP:NPOV, since confusion is a biproduct of perception of the mind. Also, the article provides no WP:RS, does not assert WP:N, and does not WP:CITE its sources.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 03:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:V, WP:OR, unencyclopedic. Supposedly a list, but it isn't now. Terence Ong 04:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article has been around almost a year, yet no effort has been made to provide any context. --Metropolitan90 05:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 06:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete; violates WP:NONSENSE --Mhking 16:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, maybe even speedy because it lacks context (A1). YechielMan 20:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT Bucketsofg 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Tom H 22:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Per nom and Dyseption. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 23:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VUPlayer

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

disputed PROD for NN-freeware media player. delete Cornell Rockey 13:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Foobar and VLC player are freeware too. Yet those are considered notable for some reason. What is this particular piece of software missing that makes it non-notable? - Mgm|(talk) 11:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - VLC is instantly notable because it is included within Gentoo Linux - a major Linux distribution (as well as other reasons), whereas Foobar2000 has a very large number of Google hits, many of which are independent works regarding Foobar2000. For VU Player, Google only pulls up download links and the VUPlayer article from Wikipedia and its mirrors. --tgheretford (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Durin 20:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tin Pot Operation

Tin Pot Operation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Not notable per WP:MUSIC. The first few attempts to delete were thwarted by a stagnant {{hangon}} and a pro'd removal. John Reaves (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi amendments have been made to the article to attempt to expand on the limited content. The original article was kept brief and factual in order to not breach guidelines for promotional content.— 80.76.203.84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note additional references below that are not included in the article text. 2 articles on Culture Northern Ireland 1- [13] 2-[14]

2 articles on BBC Northern Ireland Across the Line 1-[15] 2-[16] 80.76.203.84 13:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Please also note that the previous AfD tag was removed at the request of the user who placed it. As shown here [17] 80.76.203.84 13:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep and cleanup. As far as I'm concerned 1 album and 1 EP with a total of 20 songs is notable. And that's without mentioning them reaching 'the final of the Irish Language competition "Deis Roc"' - Mgm|(talk) 13:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks I have been trying to keep the content as factual as possible without introducing elements that could be seen as promotional. Would you advise removing the reference to Deis Roc?80.76.203.84 14:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep: The article can be considered notable, as argued by User:80.76.203.84--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 04:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Although unsigned, a fair few radio stations, the BBC and iTunes recognise them, according to google. Jem 19:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Jem's comments. Vassyana 11:26, 1 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 --Durin 20:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Republic Tigers

The Republic Tigers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Listed for Speedy deletion as a CSD:A7. There is a claim of notability on the talk page and in the article that one member was in another notable band (The Golden Republic (band)). I'm not sure they meet WP:MUSIC but I don't think A7 applies here and the Speedy was contested so I'm listing it here.--Isotope23 18:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. Assuming that The Golden Republic is notable itself (a cursory search suggests it is), then the relevant point of WP:BAND is "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" (it is probably not appropriate to use redirects, as this is a band with members who weren't in the other band - and the guy who was joined this band after leaving the old one). I'm trusting that consensus has decided this is a good reason to call a band notable, because without it this would be a definite delete . Trebor 22:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not an expert on the music world, so I cannot evaluate whether a notable person in an old band starting a new band makes the new band notable. (In this case, I don't think so.) Sources on Google confirm that this band exists and has performed, but that's it. I see no significant press coverage. If the best links you can show me are a myspace profile and a blog post, you haven't made your case for notability successfully. Note also that the "history" section is unsourced. YechielMan 20:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per Trebor and WP:BAND.Vassyana 11:29, 1 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 Scooby-Doo (character). --Durin 21:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skippy Doo

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

A character who briefly appears in one episode of A Pup Named Scooby-Doo. Highly non-notable. FuriousFreddy 01:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete - good lord, how did this article survive for a year and a half? Otto4711 01:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Lesnail 01:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as throughly NN. But for reasons I don't competely understand, "Skippy Doo was born Skippy Doobert Doo at Knittingham Puppy farm, Coolsville Ohio" made me laugh really hard. janejellyroll 02:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 02:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to A Pup Named Scooby-Doo. No need to delete outright. delldot | talk 03:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 03:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, totally a non-notable Scooby Doo character. Terence Ong 04:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect violation of WP:FICT and should be redirected to Scooby Doo. If that is not possible, then consider this as a vote to delete.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 04:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to A Pup Named Scooby-Doo. Non-notable character, no page for the episode available. ShadowHalo 04:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to A Pup Named Scooby-Doo per above. Wryspy 07:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete (no redirect needed, merge if necessary, but still delete the merge) - I had half an essay written about how you were all wrong, then I realize I'd gotten mixed up with Scrappy-Doo. Part Deux 09:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Merge into the main article on the TV show, or the episode where he appears. It is a minor character not notable enough for its own article. Retiono Virginian 11:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per all above -- Selmo (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Daniel5127 <Talk> 20:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - do we really want a merge at all? Is he notable even to be mentioned in that article? Part Deux 21:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -- not notable enough for merge. Tom H 22:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 23:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect but to Scooby-Doo (character) instead of the show. Scooby's family should be mentioned there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrozenPurpleCube (talk • contribs) 06:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Merge into Scooby-Doo (character) as trivia. Cleo123 08:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. Should included in Scooby-Doo (character). Not notable as an individual character. Vassyana 11:31, 1 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 11:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woofering

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

Neologism definition. More suitable for Wikitionary Jvhertum 14:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn neologism, 177 ghits. MER-C 02:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NEO. Terence Ong 04:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NEO, and discuss with the Wiktionary community before listing it there. I'm not that familiar with their policies, so I don't know if it will be accepted.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 04:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete in Wikipedia and transwiki to Wiktionary per nom as WP:NEO. Bigtop 17:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. Bucketsofg 22:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this fits a dictionary more than an encyclopedia (or wikipedia for that matter)--JavazXT 14:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. Pastordavid 23:15, 1 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 11:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of American toolmakers

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

By not specifying the notability of these companies, the article violates Wikipedia is not a directory and WP:Notability (companies and corporations). Of the six toolmakers listed, the first four lack WP articles (two are redirects to other pages). Moreover, even if all of these pages were created (presupposing that they are all notable), then they should probably be listed in a category (e.g., Category:Toolmakers in the United States) rather than on a list. Black Falcon 01:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it has the same flaws:

List of British toolmakers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 06:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, no indication of the notability of these firms given. Nuttah68 10:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 22:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Vassyana 11:39, 1 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 11:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anime South

Anime South (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because of this forum post, 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}}

No assertion or indication of notability, only the company's own information cited as a source. Significant WP:COI issues (being edited to a good extent by User:Animesouth, who was found to be using socks during disagreements regarding inserting links to the article elsewhere). No indication why this would pass WP:CORP, WP:ORG, or WP:N overall. Seraphimblade 01:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Farix (Talk) 02:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 02:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-Notable, plus it's a commercial event being pushed by the owner. --TommyOliver 03:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Terence Ong 04:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, WP:COI, WP:AUTO, and my comments here. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 15:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Obvious bad faith nomination due to disagreement on List of anime conventions RfC. Retaliatory recommendation evident by this quote: "Here's an idea, let's AfD Anime South...." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.63.22.57 (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC). — 68.63.22.57 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • I just did a search of that talk page. First, those words don't appear in the page. Second, the debate appears to have been going on for some time. Please assume good faith, here, as hard as it may be, and remember that this must adhere to the standards that all other Wikipedia articles are held to. --Dennisthe2 21:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • You may want to look again. Ned Scott made that comment, which started this AfD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.63.22.57 (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
        • Thanks for the pointer. Read farther into it, though, and while Ned's comments were rather acerbic, no doubt, my statement still stands - as does my !vote. Sorry, man. --Dennisthe2 00:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure why that would be considered bad faith considering it's a logical path of reasoning. We became aware that the article itself should be deleted using the same rational as why it shouldn't be in the list article. It's that simple. -- Ned Scott 02:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I would like to note that this AFD was started by a neutral editor and not by one of the parties involved in the dispute. Even if the topic did come up in the RfC, this nomination is not in bad faith. --Farix (Talk) 01:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • It was not a neutral editor. Seraphimblade was specifically thanked for getting involved with Animesouth before this AfD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.63.22.57 (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
        • Comment First, Marc, stop hiding behind anonymous IPs. Second, the only other thing Seraphimblade did was revert your obvious sockpuppets. He doesn't have a dog in this fight. --Farix (Talk) 02:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Honestly, I couldn't care less, but as has been shown in the link above, the AfD is clearly a bad faith nomination. Maybe the article should be cleaned up, maybe it should be deleted. But not like this. Shrumster 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. It should be noted though, that User:Animesouth has been working on the article itself and removing tags and the like. WP:COI? Shrumster 20:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Per the link to the List of Anime Conventions talk page, deletion has been debated thereon. This is not a bad faith nomination, the convention is simply not (yet) notable per criteria. --Dennisthe2 21:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's somewhat hypocritical to claim this is a bad faith nomination based on List of anime conventions RfC... the creator and sole proponent (minus his socks) of the Anime South article has tried to nominate list of anime conventions as an AfD simply because his small convention did not meet the criteria. Also, several of them are joining wikipedia just to "vote" [18] for this article. --TommyOliver 23:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm ambivalent in general about individual articles for individual conventions and issues surrounding the RfC that led to this. However, looking at a few articles on List of anime conventions, this particular article has citations that are about average for its type. It cites AnimeCons.com and, yes, the convention's own webpage. Anime Weekend Atlanta, a far more notable convention in my estimation, doesn't even go that far. As for notability... AnimeSouth probably fails the test. But I think a lot of other convention articles would also fall under the axe.--Monocrat 02:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, I guess. If it's notable, it doesn't tell me why. --Masamage 04:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete After repeated requests to add some actual content (with references) to the page before removing the "stub" tag, neither User:Animesouth (nor anyone else) has done so. Therefore one must assume that there is nothing else that can be said about this convention. Surely someone must have posted an independent third-party con report that could be cited as reference. If there were detailed information on it, I might be able to support keeping it...but seeing as how nobody has anything to add -- no history, no details on past events, etc. -- I don't see anything in the article that makes this any more notable than the next convention. (If there IS a reason this convention is notable, why isn't it here?!) Additionally and unfortunately, the repeated vandalism by User:Animesouth has made maintenance on this article far more troublesome than it should be. --PatrickD 22:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete due to lack of any sources other than primary sources. - Chardish 08:23, 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 and move to proper name, leaving redirect --Durin 21:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naty Botero

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

Moved from speedy. Author claims WP:MUSIC 1 and 2 would apply (assuming that she did have a gold record and that Top 40 is a "hit") but no sources. Neutral. ColourBurst 19:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Notability not withstanding, it's still unsourced and unverifiable. /Blaxthos 19:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Sourcing remains an issue. Unfortunately, the only two sites I can find that list Colombian chart info don't have archives or a way to permanently link a given week (or I can't figure them out). The first shows a song currently in the top 20 here, and there's another which shows two songs in the top 100, with Te Quiero Mucho with 27 weeks on the chart and a peak position of 3 here. There is also [19] this ElTiempo article] that calls her one of the "most known Colombian artists," though gives no statistics to back that up. If anyone can find more/better sourcing that satisfies the verifiability requirements, those might be good places to look. Any suggestions on how the above could be construed into filling the requirements? Hwonder talk contribs 02:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - appears notable to me. Has plenty of non-notable coverage: [20][21] [22] and especially [23], which calls her the recommended singer for January (el tiempo is the main newspaper in Columbia); there are more links, but I can't look forever. There are also plenty fans with blogs [24], or her "not official blog", as it says in broken English: [25]). There is plenty of raving about her new video, on and off youtube: [26]. This all seems to show notability, especially for being a singer in a smaller country like Columbia. Part Deux 09:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

*Delete, despite above. Most links above are blogs (unreliable and/or primary sources, especially fanblogs), and only one source (first one listed) is nontrivial and appears to be reliable, which fails being the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable sources, the notability requirement. Number of fans etc. is irrelevant, nothing in the notability requirement refers to "is popular". Looks like she may be on her way to being notable, however-if a few more sources write about her, deletion should be without prejudice to future recreation. Seraphimblade 11:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Changing to keep per additional sourcing, but move article to subject's proper name (this one should be left as a redirect) to fit formal tone. Seraphimblade 23:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • You absolutely must be kidding me. Did you read what I said? I gave those blogs in addition to the notable sources. Eskpe.com is a blog? Coverage in El Tiempo [27], as well, the most notable newspaper in Colubmia, isn't notable? And [28], [29]. Let's do a comparison: the New York Times picks someone as an artist of the month; this artist has plenty of other coverage (though this isn't as easy to find because it's in Spanish, which has a smaller audience, and is in Columbia). Are you telling me that an artist of the month for the country's most notable newspaper isn't notable? I mentioned several blogs as well, not only blogs. Part Deux 20:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • And here we go: [30]. This was a top 5 song in Columbia in December 2006 (not just on a specific chart either). Which means it not only passes WP:MUSIC by the multiple non-trivial sources (I've now listed several), but it also passes by the Has had a charted hit on any national music chart (as I've just proved) and [31] (terra.com is another extremely notable site in Spanish), and Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network (in Columbia, and on MTV Latino [32]). Part Deux 20:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless properly sourced and quoted by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • How is it not properly sourced? It gave the Columbian top 40 biography right there! Just because you're not familiar with the site because the site is in Spanish does not mean it's not a trustworthy site. But I've now sourced it better anyway. Part Deux 20:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Amiguette, mi castellano es cerca a perfercto por lo que entiendo la pagina en questión bastante bién. El problema aqui es que se requiere múltiples citas no triviales. Lo que tenemos es una. Alf photoman 15:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, with the changes made by Hwonder WP:MUSIC should be satisfied Alf photoman 15:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Update. I've incorporated some of the sourcing. A note that Los 40 Principales is not a blog, but rather the official site by a major radio conglomerate owning 8 Colombian stations and several dozen in Latin America. It could still stand for some clean up, and more "gringo"-friendly sources after the U.S. release this year, but I think these changes should satisfy WP:MUSIC. Hwonder talk contribs 20:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- Part Deux 20:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletions. -- Part Deux 20:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC))
  • keep per aboveOo7565 20:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. User:Part Deux is right: all the references provided should be more than enough to meet any sane person's notability criteria. --Rae (Talk | Contribs) 22:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Part Deux has provided ample evidence of notability. Vassyana 11:36, 1 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 11:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rush Limbaugh detained on return from Dominican Republic

Rush Limbaugh detained on return from Dominican Republic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

POV fork of material originally in (and deleted and then readded several times see Talk:Rush Limbaugh) Rush Limbaugh ElKevbo 01:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is a non-story and not notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Press coverage initially focused on the drug abuse angle expecting that Limbaugh would be sanctioned due to his previous drug issues. However, no charges were filed and the story died. It's certainly not something you would find in an encyclopedia. --Dual Freq 02:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not even gonna waste my time here... --TommyOliver 03:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, speedy if possible. Non-story. "Celebrity uses Viagra." Really? That must be so uncommon. And having seven references for it? Sounds like someone having a fit. Blatant POV and probably WP:POINT. --Sable232 03:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikinews, I don't see it growing beyond this stub. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Not possible to license incompatibility. MER-C 06:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Belongs on Wikinews, not here. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 03:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, so? Anything encyclopedic here? Terence Ong 04:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, when another editor added this basic info to the Rush Limbaugh article two other editors said they thought this didn't belong because three sources didn't meet the Wikipedia:Notability guideline of multiple non-trivial sources, so I added more sources independent of each other, and now having seven sources is supposedly a problem. After I added more sources the two editors said it met the notability guideline for its own article but not to be in the Rush Limbaugh article, so I moved it to its own article. Now those editors think that the article ought to be deleted. Or maybe it should move to Wikinews. Or I need to find more recent sources showing that the story didn't just die after the incident. It seems as if the rules keep changig faster than I can keep up. KimmyChanga 05:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The content of this article is currently the subject of a mediation case filed today over whether it should be included in the main Rush Limbaugh article. I don't think Wikipedia needs it at all, but it certainly doesn't merit a separate article of its own. --Metropolitan90 05:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia != Wikinews. MER-C 06:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. Artw 06:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not your newspaper. Wryspy 07:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as this was not an extensive controversy and can be entirely handled by the Rush Limbaugh article. Keeping the content in there would seem to be a content dispute (I would favor keeping it, and three independent sources should be plenty). Note that Transwiki to Wikinews is not allowed because the GFDL does not permit reuse under the Creative Commons Share-Alike license used there. --Dhartung | Talk 07:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not a newsservice, should go to wikinews (but, apparently, can't). Part Deux 09:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This article is in the canonical form for a news article. It has a news article style title, covers the story as a news article would, and cites more than enough sources to qualify for publication as a news summary piece. It thus does not belong in Wikipedia, whose articles are encyclopaedia articles, not news articles. An encyclopaedia article would have a different title, per our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs), for starters, and a far broader scope. The proper place to write news articles is Wikinews. However, Wikinews won't cover this story because it is more than 6 months old at this point. Forking out a news article that does not belong in the encyclopaedia is not the way to solve a content dispute over a biographical article. Delete. Uncle G 13:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination --Mhking 16:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete News item. Nkras 17:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge anything notable into Rush Limbaugh. Today's news is tomorrow's encyclopedic content. Just H 03:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete we're not Wikinews and this is not exactly a major incident that warrants encyclopaedic discussion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep there is no other alternative to including such pertinent information on such a controversial demagogue given the active censorship on the main Limbaugh page that his paid PR flaks are doing on a 24/7 basis, eg removing all mention of Dominican Republic, hate speech, hypocrisy, and sex tourism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.191.250.80 (talk)
  • Delete POV Fork. --Allen3 talk 18:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge anything new to the main Limbaugh article. This event is hardly notable enough to justify its own article.Delete. On second thought, he was never charged and the article fails to suggest that this is any sort of major event. 23skidoo 21:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Rush Limbaugh. Googling to see whether "The media dropped this story once no charges were filed" back in July turned up seven stories in recent months, including one from this January,[33] four from December 2006,[34][35][36][37]and three from November 2006.[38][39][40] The incident also seems to be referenced in an encyclopedia review, and possibly covered in the encyclopedia itself. [41] It would appear that this incident has had some life long after last July. KimmyChanga 02:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment So there's still a bunch of humor pieces. Big whoop. Those aren't news. Face it, the only reason this is an issue is because a lot of people vehemently disagree with Limbaugh, so they make it their mission to disparage him in any and all possible ways. Give it up. The political shit ain't worth it.
And, just for the record, I'd say the same thing if this were about Al Franken or anybody else regardless of political leaning, so don't even go there. --Sable232 05:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 04:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ZAP (motor company)

Non-notable company as far as I can tell; only links or references are to the sites of the companies mentioned. Article itself just barely contains enough factual-sounding assertions to pass the adcopy test. Opabinia regalis 01:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Doing a search on this corporation on multiple search engines, I see quite a few websites. Some are owned by the company in question, but I found a lot of sites that talk about and use their motors. Seems notable enough to me. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 05:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep For an automobile company it's very small but it's the biggest electric bicycle company in the USA. I haven't paid much attention but ought to put in something about their add-on kits for pedal bikes. Jim.henderson 03:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a real company producing a notable product. It should be included. mikemoto 04:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets WP:CORP guidelines. Just need a complete rewrite and cleanup. Terence Ong 04:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Legitimate company listed on NASDAQ. Nkras 17:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable company with wider reaching links. Just needs cleanup. Jem 19:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, I've added a secondary source and there are obviously more out there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep comes up in google and yahoo, in objective articles --JavazXT 14:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Fischbach

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

Largely reposted content previously deleted A7, but it does make a stab at asserting notability. However, '6th out of 100 webcomics listed at topwebcomics.com' may not be the most solid claim to notability. The guy himself gets just over 1000 google hits, with us first, which is never a good sign. Opabinia regalis 01:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, does not seem to pass WP:WEB criteria. Terence Ong 04:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Question I've seen a few web based comic artists posted to AfD lately. Is there a WP standard for this genre? Would he be notable if his comics were in print? --Kevin Murray 05:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply Kevin, the standard is covered by WP:WEB and/or WP:BIO for webcomic artists. There is an editor who has been systematically cleaning out the webcomics category via PRODs, AFDs, and probably CSDs when appropriate, so yes you have seen quite a few recently. --Dhartung | Talk 07:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 06:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Terence Ong. --Dhartung | Talk 07:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:BLP, etc. I've removed some unsourced personal details (none of which involved claims of notabilty) per WP:BLP, but this whole article needs to go. -- Dragonfiend 08:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 'For the person, I don't see why we need an article. This should probably be merged to the article on the webcomic Twokinds, but that was speedy deleted back in November, because it didn't claim the business about "6th out of 100" or the 2 million hits per day. I consider this to be a claim, so I will undelete that article now, then I suggest we simply redirect. Mangojuicetalk 10:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The "6th slot in the top 100 webcomics of all time" claim is at best highly misleading. That's a list that resets every month if I understand correctly, the list includes only a small fraction of the comics on the web, the list is open to manipulation, and it does not include many of the most read comics on the web. The idea that "If you don't count Penny Arcade (comic), Ctrl+Alt+Del, User Friendly, Sluggy Freelance, Diesel Sweeties, and on and on, well, then "this comic is #6" does not seem like much of a claim of notability. -- Dragonfiend 21:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and or WP:WEB by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Mangojuice, but do I have to take issue with the nom's suggestion that having one's wikipedia bio turn up first in a google search is a bad sign notability-wise. I've heard that brought up in AFD before, and it seems to be a misconception. We're the top result for Bill Clinton and George Bush, too (although the web site for An Inconvenient Truth is the top result for Al Gore; must have something to do with him inventing the internet.) I've searched a few less-notable names (Christopher Fry and Chris Regina, for example), and the same seems to hold true. It looks like you need to have a web presence that is not just notable but really, really notable in order to beat Wikipedia's Google clout. The number of google hits may be a factor in determining notability, but the position of the Wikipedia article in question in the results probably shouldn't be. -- Vary | Talk 16:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Fab Five

The Fab Five (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The unsourced claim that this tribute band is currently touring the US is the only concession made towards meeting WP:MUSIC. I have no idea if the standards for a tribute band are any different than the notability standards for a non-tribute band, but I would argue that this band is NN. janejellyroll 01:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - There was only one real fab five and that was the Spice Girls. Wikipedia has strong policies against impersonations --TommyOliver 03:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Well we do have a Category:Tribute bands, it's just a matter of whether this one is notable enough. I know of them, I think, but that's not a sign of notability. I don't see enough here, but at the same time I don't think I can make a judgment.--T. Anthony 04:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that category out to me. It seems to be kind of a mixed bag, but at least of couple of the bands go much further towards meeting WP:MUSIC than The Fab Five does. Lez Zeppelin, for example, was on the cover of Spin. And West End Girls (Swedish band) have released albums. janejellyroll 04:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The touring schedule is listed on their myspace website (link fixed), it just needs to be correctly sourced on the page. I'll try to do some research to find when they were established, but they are definetely currently touring. Also several things have been nicknamed Fab 5 as a play on The Beatles nickname Fab 4 (spice girls among them), this is not an impersonation it is the actual name (not a nickname) of the band. I believe TommyOliver's reasons for deletion are completely void. On another note it seems this artice was originally nominated for deletion because it was only made to promote the band. This is untrue, I started this article because I was doing research about them (having heard how great they were), and was suprised to see I couldn't find any information on wikipedia. After finding information elsewhere, I decided to start this page to help users in the future looking for this cover band. I have no connection to the band and have never even seen them play, so I would have no motive to promote them. War wizard90 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is going to have to have sources beyond the band's myspace page or website. Please look at WP:MUSIC to get an idea of what kind of sources establish notablity for a band. The reason I nominated the article for deletion is because it lacks reliable sources about the notability of the band. janejellyroll 08:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of notability. Wryspy 07:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no notability offered. The US tour is actually 16 dates around their local area over the next 9 months. Nuttah68 10:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, not notable. Vassyana 11:45, 1 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. Cbrown1023 talk 03:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sage Vivant

Sage Vivant (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)
  • Delete Does not seem to meet WP:BIO standards of notability. Blogger and author of a few non-notable books, none of which are within the top 1,000,000 books on amazon, with no evidence of reviews or articles independent of author. First link seems to point to advertisement for erotica writing service. Editor who created this page no longer has a userpage, and links to other wikipedia articles point to uncreated (or deleted) pages. zadignose 16:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • A Counterpoint was presented on the article's the article's talk page. It appears that some of the story anthologies edited by Sage Vivant are within the top 1,000,000 Amazon sales (though not very high), and some web reviews of these anthologies exist on a site dedicated to erotic fiction. So, the reliability and independence of these citations should be considered. Reference to other media mentions was made, though it is not clear that Sage herself has ever been the subject of an independent review or article, and the majority of citations listed do appear to be mere "mentions," possibly trivial in nature.) In any event, I guess some of her editing projects have gotten more mention that I at first supposed, so this could be a borderline case.zadignose 05:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't look borderline to me. I see no reason to believe this person even passes any of the "probably" criteria in WP:BIO, let alone WP:N. Seraphimblade 11:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The info is factual, and biographical in nature. The facts are citable. (If not currently cited to someone's satisfaction, that is a Cleanup issue, not a reason for Deletion.) There is no copyright issues with the article. The author is well published in her field, and involved in many related endeavors, which may be of interest to the general community. Also, by comparison, articles on other authors of similar stature and genre (M. Christiansen, Violet Blue, and the like) are not recommended for deletion. Notability issues: highly subjective, as Wiki policy states. However, there is no case that their are objectivity issues with the content. User:dan13732
  • Keep. As per above. Comparable to other authors in that genre and market deemed notable. Vassyana 11:46, 1 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 11:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Long Road Ahead

The Long Road Ahead (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is supposedly an album from Nicholas Strunk, so if you're interested in the theoretical existance of that subject, please see that AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Strunk. It seems as if a Nicholas Strunk does exist and that he has released at least one single, but these articles have little to nothing else to do with the reality. Sources are very difficult to come by. The author of both articles has repeatedly removed the "hoax" tag I placed on this article without adding sources. Statements in the article to the contrary, billboard.com shows no entries for this artist. Fails WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 02:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete There is nothing at Billboard.com that substantiates the US Charts claims.[42] In fact, the top 100 albums claims appear to be blatant fabrications. There is nothing that substantiates the sales claim. There is nothing that substantiates the UK charts claim[43]. It is also interesting to note that the artist claims that Wikipedia is the band's official website! [44]. More myspacecruft :( SkierRMH, 03:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The artist appears to not be notable. His album is not-notable, whether the whole thing is true or not. That of course brings up the serious issues with reliable sources. Leebo86 03:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per everything above and the discussion at the Nicholas Strunk AfD. At best, these articles are bold-face distortions of the truth, at worst they are out-and-out hoaxes. From my previous searches, I am aware that a high school student from Michigan named Nicholas Strunk truely does exist, but could someone point me to a link confirming that he has released a single? -- Antepenultimate 03:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Here it is. [45]. There were also scattered and not very reliable references to him getting ready to work with Timbaland at some vague point in the future, but those references also refer to him as a UK artist, not some teenager from Holland, MI. I think there is a not-yet notable Nicholas Strunk who makes music. I think he has nothing to do with this myspace kid who is hoaxing Wikipedia. janejellyroll 03:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 06:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Robertissimo 08:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete with optional salt. Seems real. May one day be notable. But not yet. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montres allison

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

Notability in question. ghits for company: [46]. NMChico24 02:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Evidently fails WP:N. The author of the article seems to have some serious axes to grind as well. It could be edited for NPOV, but I don't really see the point without notability. janejellyroll 03:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 06:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I had tried editing for NPOV but the current author keeps reverting. Agree that notability is questionable. --Newt43 11:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CORP -- Selmo (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per all aboveOo7565 20:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • REMAIN there is definite notability. This is the only American watch company who manufactures anything. Every other American watch company purchases their components from foreign countries for assembly in the US. In addition, Newt43 has continuously posted links to bulletin board websites and a customer complaint website that doesn't verify anything. The site is well known for allowing defamatory information to be posted and the owner of the website has been sued many times and thumbs his nose at the courts. Newt43 displayed that he could not write anything with a NPOV. He continuosly erased the non-biased information that was previously posted to post his inaccurate information obtained from others with an axe to grind. In fact, Newt43 may be the person who wrote those articles to which he made reference. I would love to know how to retrieve his IP address information. -- IP Address (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2007 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.94.121 (talk • contribs)
    • Please be mindful of civility when making posts. Thank you --NMChico24 01:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Please point out any non-civil comments I made, so I won't repeat them. Thank you. It is not my intention to antagonize anybody, so I would definitely appreciate your help in pointing out the comments I made that were not civil. Thank you --User:IP Address 07:05, 29 January 2007 (PST)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.94.121 (talk • contribs)

Thank you. The person about whom you referred, posted libelous information about Montres Allison and Terry Allison. If my tone seemed hostile to you, please understand that Newt43 caused any hostility that you are perceiving in my tone and comments. Repeating defamatory statements is not a defense against charges of civil nor criminal libel. He should not have continuously posted information about which he had no first hand knowledge and that he knew came from sources that were not accredited members of the press nor organizations well-repsected in the community for consumer complaints. He took disparaging information posted by practically anonymous authors and replaced earlier, accurate information with the disparaging information. He should be ashamed and should be punished for acting in such a manner. Thank you.


  • Remain Has new links that show notability. ip address 14:56, 28 February 1 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:V, the links provided are either adverts, forums, user-submitted link sites, personal puff pieces, broken web-pages or do not provide any notability from reliable third party sources. After an hour on Google (I was bored) all I can find is news reports of the supposed rip-off linking me to a Press Release on a PR website. This is a company that hasn't made much of an impact on it's own industry's press (except for adverts) let alone local or national news; I can't find any reports from Colorado newspapers or networks about the company at all. The statement that celebrities wear them is unsubstantiated anywhere apart from on the Manufacturers website and press releases, and does not lend notability to the company anyway. - Foxhill 23:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible delete: fails WP:N, WP:CORP, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Stunning. - Chardish 08:27, 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 12:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bus Route 12

Bus Route 12 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

They've got five records, but zero sources attesting to WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 03:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 08:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and Scabby Knees too. Don't forget that one. Part Deux 09:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I was unable to even find a band website or a website for the label. Unless someone shows up with a source I somehow couldn't find, this is unverifiable. Mangojuicetalk 17:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete — Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 03:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment -- this article utterly fails CSD A7, with a claim of 5 albums and a record label. That's why we're having this debate. Mangojuicetalk 17:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Albo kali silat

Albo kali silat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. Article was requested for speedy deletion by an IP editor, who asked me to start this debate since IP editors can't create the page as is necessary. I am neutral. Mangojuicetalk 03:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I wanted to nominate it, because I got only 3 distinct google hits when I searched for it: [47] with the words in succession, and under 300 when I don't even use quotation marks: [48]. 146.186.44.217 03:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with anon user above. Non-verifiable. Non-notable. Where are the sources? --N Shar 03:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. "Too interesting" for A7? I laughed when I read that, for some reason. --N Shar 03:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It seems that this is a real, albeit obscure, martial art. The anon's Google results are accurate. It's possible someone could write a passable article about the subject, but since I can't find any reliable sources, there's nothing in this article that could be kept anyway. --Djrobgordon 04:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:V, single digit ghits. MER-C 06:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. As above. Vassyana 11:47, 1 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 12:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Value Cinema Oak Creek

Value Cinema Oak Creek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

As the name suggests, the article is about a cinema in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. The article is very poorly written and could almost be speedied as spam as it includes details on the discount prices on nachos. I suppose I could simply clean that bit up. However, I feel that there is simply not enough in there to build anything resembling an encyclopedia article. Pascal.Tesson 03:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete It's not notable, it's advertising, it lacks reliable sources. Take your pick. Leebo86 03:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No assertion of notability. I searched a couple of theater sites and found no evidence this theater is unique. --Djrobgordon 03:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I've been there before (I live in Milwaukee, WI, of which Oak Creek is a southern suburb), I actually went on a date there once but nothing whatsoever about the place or any searches I've done would indicate to me that the place is even slightly remarkable, let alone notable. The amount of detail included is also a bit excessive for the non-notability of the subject. Consider speedy under criterion A1 (no context), A7 (no assertion of notability) and possible G11 (blatant advertising, marginal at best, but it's possible it's simply an ad). 69.210.42.22 04:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC) ((sorry, wiki signed me out) Wintermut3 04:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If the author of the article sees this, I would recommend that he or she instead work on expanding Marcus Corporation, the article about the company that owns this theater, since the corporation clearly is encyclopedic under WP:CORP and its article could use some expansion. --Metropolitan90 05:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I've been there too. Not even the most notable Marcus cinema in the area. Maxamegalon2000 06:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 08:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable --JavazXT 15:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yana (name)

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

Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Wikipedia is also not a dictionary. NMChico24 03:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Disambiguation page already exists. MER-C 06:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, Haha, Wikipedia is not a place to tell everyone your name is Bulgarian and means "Gracious, merciful, charming". --Candy-Panda 09:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Inappropriate - WP:NOT#DICT. Not even appropriate for a dictionary though. CiaranG 13:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • On the contrary: It is. Wiktionary takes proper nouns as well as common nouns. Proper nouns are, after all, words (as long as they are properly attested). See wikt:Category:English proper nouns, for example. This article, which gives the etymology, part of speech, alternative spellings, and meaning of a proper noun, is canonical dictionary article territory. See wikt:Yana and wikt:Appendix:Names female-Y. Uncle G 13:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I was referring to an actual dictionary in the commonly used sense of the word, rather than Wiktionary. None of my dictionaries include people's names, except for the two specifically labelled as dictionaries of people's names. I didn't know that about Wiktionary though - perhaps I should pay more attention to it. Thanks for the clarification. CiaranG 14:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Wiktionary is an "actual dictionary in the commonly used sense of the word". That you have some dictionaries that do not include these words does not affect that — it merely means that some dictionaries with limited vocabularies exist. But that shouldn't be news to anyone. And that you have some dictionaries that include proper nouns indeed reinforces the point. Uncle G 01:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. CSD and Prod tags removed by article author without reasoning. Michael Greiner 13:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom & above. Has little importance and is unsuited to Wikipedia. Bungle44 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was moved to User:John254/Homosexuality and medical science and tagged with an appropriate "non-article" notice per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The page may be moved back to the main namespace when it is brought into compliance with these policies. Complete deletion is not justified, as there is significant interest in improving the page. John254 16:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexuality and medical science

Homosexuality and medical science (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not a common topic name or search term. Artical is a non-neutral mess and contains no references, and has been this way since 2003. Linked to by as many redirect pages as it is other articles. FeloniousMonk 04:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment This article is indeed an unsourced mess, but there's definitely a worthwhile article to be written on the topic. Maybe we should give WikiProject LGBT studies a crack at cleaning it up. In any case, I'm leaving them a message so the know this AfD is happening. I'll also make it clear I'm not soliciting anyone to vote here. --Djrobgordon 04:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
A discussion on this article has been started here, but it appears to be an amalgamation of several articles that need to be either split off or merged to other articles. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). –trialsanderrors 06:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete basically an essay. Artw 06:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this unsourced mess of an essay. Wryspy 07:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 08:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Completely agree that the article is non-neutral and a mess, but it's an important topic, actually, and needs to be covered. I'm with Djrobgordon & would recommend not deleting this just yet. (We should have a probation status -- a category of articles to be looked at again in X months.) --lquilter 14:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. dposse 16:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A7 here. Navou banter 22:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew ceo

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

Biography of non-notable individual. High school wrestler and college cheerleader does not seem to meet notability standards. Cannot find any references on web. Glendoremus 04:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete The closest thing to a claim of notability are the wrestling awards which 1). don't cut it, in my opinion, and 2). aren't verified. --Djrobgordon 04:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Totally non-notable. Gimlei 04:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, but "Ceo three times finished 51st in People Magazines 50 sexiest Men." Delete as pure NN vanity. janejellyroll 04:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Maxamegalon2000 06:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 06:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - NN/hoax - "Ceo three times finished 51st in People Magazines 50 sexiest Men". Not even notable enough to avoid a7 and come to afd. Part Deux 09:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Jersey Devil 00:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redhouse Yacht Club

Redhouse Yacht Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Long established club admittedly but no statement that it has done anything notable and no multiple non-trivial sources. I prodded this but the prod was removed after 6 days with the comment "enough incoming links not to be prodded". In fact, apart from redirects and a DMB, the only incoming link is one that I added to the locality article! Delete. Bridgeplayer 04:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I see enough g-hits that are not just mirror sites etc. which discuss the Club. I also found three independent non-trivial articles which discuss the Club and/or its sponsored activities (regattas etc.) and added them as references --Kevin Murray 05:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Only the Centenary reference would be considered 'non-trivial' and even that doesn't show that the club has achieved anything other than longevity. I have taken out the last two because neither meets WP:EL for inclusion. Bridgeplayer 17:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's way out of line for you to be nominating an article for deletion and then deleting references and text based on your subjective interpretations of the WP Guidelines. I have reverted your deletion. You may be right about the quality of the references, but this should be discussed. I'm sure that you are working with the best of intent, but as the nominator I see implied bias toward the article. --Kevin Murray 18:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that WP:EL is not the correct guideline for references. We should be looking at WP:CITE, specificaly the paragraph on a "Reference" section.

Discussion of References Proposed to be Deleted:

(1) "SHOOTING THE BREEZE" with Tim Stirk says: "THERE WILL be no organised sailing this week on the Border, as all attention will be focused on the 23rd Coca-Cola Eastern Cape inter-schools sailing championship in Port Elizabeth, hosted by Redhouse Yacht Club." I included this because the mention in this manner demsonstrates that (a) the Redhouse Club is hosting an event which is prestigious enough to receive all the attention in the area, and (b) the Club is "noticed" by independent journals which is among the criteria which WP standards define as Notability. --Kevin Murray 18:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
(2) "Redhouse River Mile set for mid-February" says: " This historic annual event, first staged in 1924, will again be held from the Redhouse Yacht Club ... While the first Redhouse Mile attracted 48 participants, the 2003 event is expected to attract nearly 1 000 entrants." This definitely speaks to notability by demonstrating that the Redhouse Club hosts what is considered to be a historic event. Moreover, a 1000 participant swim-meet is a huge event which in and of itself may be notable for an article at WP.
(3) Both of the articles mentioned above are from online reprints of articles from recognized South African newspapers, at the official sites for the newspapers. How much more independent and non-trivial could the sources be?
(4) In and of themselves neither reference above is sufficient to demonstrate notability, but in concert, three sources certainly make an arguable if not compelling case for inclusion.
--Kevin Murray 19:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - per WP:NOT a server. Not really that notable a club. Part Deux 09:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Haven't done enough research to strongly advocate delete. Part Deux 22:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't think being old establishes notability, and nothing else here seems to me to. delldot | talk 17:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Changing to keep - notability clearly established now. While I don't think that all the sources assert notability - some are just trivial mentions, e.g. announcements - there is clearly enough here for inclusion now. Thanks to those who fixed it up! delldot | talk 17:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would direct Kevin Murray to WP:AGF which he should read carefully before accusing fellow editors of being biased. I invite anyone to say that the version [49] is not more encyclopaedic than [50]. Bridgeplayer 22:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not suggesting anything more than the appearance of objectivity is questionable when you are the nominator of an AfD. It is good form to discuss major changes which might be perceived as biased. I've not seen a nominator perform editing during an AfD discussion. --Kevin Murray 22:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems that you should withdraw the nomination if you believe that this can become a valid article through your hard efforts. --Kevin Murray 22:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have written to the Club asking for help in finding other sources --Kevin Murray 22:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have posted Bridgeplayer's proposed text at the discussion page. I agree that it is more encyclopedic than the current text original text, but it is very short to the point of being a stub. I think that we should be looking at something in between and getting some feedback from the authors of the article. --Kevin Murray 23:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • On further review of the Club's website, I found that much of the text here at WP was cut & paste (unless they mirrored us). This was carried into Bridgeplayer's truncated version as well. This expeditied the need to rewrite the article to the form now shown. I suggest that footnoting from the references be postponed until a decision is made on the final text and the AfD. --Kevin Murray 01:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The article's history extends back to 2005-09-07. The history at http://web.archive.org/web/20040703095833/www.ryc.org.za/History.aspx from 2004-07-03 clearly belies your theory that "they mirrored us", and reinforces the theory that Stephen Martindale copied the data from their website. Whether or not he had permission to do so is a question for him, as neither that page nor its parent http://web.archive.org/web/20040703094823/www.ryc.org.za/ sported a copyright on that date.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - I think it is encyclopedic enough now, with enough clearly-documented references. Maybe we could even put back in some of the history from History | Redhouse Yacht Club, or at least refer to it?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, thanks for your hard efforts to find more sources and put them into footnotes - a lot of work! As to adding more history, I would tread carefully here, as a lot of the history at the Club website is probably only interesting at the Club level. --Kevin Murray 13:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Kansas State University people. - Daniel.Bryant 03:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Kansas State University Distinguished Alumni

List of Kansas State University Distinguished Alumni (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Creating deletion discussion for List of Kansas State University Distinguished Alumni because this article was a simple cut-and-paste from List of Kansas State University people, and the latter is the accepted naming format for lists of people related to universities. (To call it a list of alumni it is inaccurate inasmuch as it also lists faculty, etc.) Further, there is a high potential for confusion having two nearly-identical pages, so this one should be deleted. Finally, the original List of People has been updated while the article proposed for deletion has not. Kgwo1972 04:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC) On second thought, should I just make this a redirect? Kgwo1972 04:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cars included in Gran Turismo 2

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cars included in Gran Turismo 4. Unnotable listcruft.--PCPP 04:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. To elaborate on the somewhat terse nom, the Gran Turismo series is important and noteworthy, as is the impact of the car designs licensed for each game. This impact is better described, however, with examples and sourced description of that impact, instead of simply a list of things that happen to appear in a game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 08:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP not an indiscriminate list of things. Part Deux 09:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A tough call as an editor of this page: External links exist elsewhere, but few show all the cars. Many Gran Turismo 2 "car lists" are pre-release "tease" lists that are quite inaccurate; having missing cars, non-existent cars and vague descriptions based on game region. On the other hand, it's tough to have every car because there's three game versions sold worldwide, all with differing levels of availability (missing, hidden, renamed). We'd have to have a separate list for the Japanese, NTSC, and PAL versions, and maintaining several lists from vandalism is too much work for very little gain. Internal links from the individual "real" cars could make mention of it's availability in GT2, and external links should do the job on the Gran Turismo 2 page, since a GT-related-Wiki already exists for this purpose. Formulanone 06:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Open-lobbying

Open-lobbying (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original research and wishful thinking. As well as being unsourced and a neologism. While there are efforts to make lobbying more transparent to the public, there isn't a generally accepted "open lobbying" methodology. And the article's premise that open lobbying is something that NGOs participate in contrast to corporations engaging in non-open lobbying seems to be entirely without evidence. The article is POV and un-savable in its current form. In case it's unclear, I'm in favor of deletion. Siobhan Hansa 04:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - nn neologism, 1070 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 08:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - "open lobbying" does not exist, and the single referenced example is incomplete (FFII has plenty of private lists, meetings, etc.) Gronky 15:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete POV and unverifable and a distraction from the development of the main lobbying page. Madmedea 10:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. POV fork. Vassyana 11:50, 1 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 and redirect to The Elder Scrolls, satisfies everyone :) Daniel.Bryant 03:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gaiden Shinji

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

Delete In a nutshell: talks in-universe and addresses extremely minor and unimportant character. I came across this article a little over a month ago, and it's in the exact same state it was back then: stub status, POV is horridly prevalent, and it addresses a character that isn't even physically in a game. Needs to be deleted. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit me § Contributions ♣ 04:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 08:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The Elder Scrolls. Minor characters are frequently dealt with in a list of characters in the main article, but if this guy's super minor a redirect will work fine. Redirects are cheap, and this one could be useful. delldot | talk 17:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. Extremely minor character, mentioned in the backstory once or twice. There's nothing that could be added to the article, and most probably no sources outside the games themselves. Shimeru 20:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Vassyana 11:51, 1 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 12:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rossi Contractors

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

I'd placed a "notability" tag on this article, but the author removed it without comment. Fails WP:CORP janejellyroll 04:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as spamvertisement. Bucketsofg 04:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Definite snark possibility here: [51]. They won a plaque here: [52]. Other than that, just directory listings and brief asides. - Richfife 04:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7 and G11. Agent 86 06:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, they aren't even "lucky" enough to be in the Hired Truck Program scandal. --Dhartung | Talk 07:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:CORP. There are lots of contracting companies that have been around for numbers of years and are recognized in their communities. What makes this one any different? —Brim 07:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 08:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Hut 8.5 13:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP. Squirepants101 17:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per aboveOo7565 20:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ticu Isari

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

This article was created within the past 48 hours. It asserts that the individual Ticu Isari is the founder of a television station, but no reliable sources are given to support this fact. In fact, Google gives 200 hits concerning this individual, the first of which is his own website. As no reliable sources can be given, this article should be deleted until any are provided.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - The history shows a lot of pointless edits which seem like edit spam, as well as what I suspect to be 3RR violations, since as soon as I put up a 3RR warning on one of the accounts, it switches to an IP changing the exact same things. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quick google search for TELE'M scares up a website that is under construction, a sattelite for a Slovenian television station (I think), and little else. Sounds largely like he's non-notable. --Dennisthe2 05:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Terence Ong 05:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 08:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No delete First Ticu Isari is a writer in Romania and founder of a television ,tele M the site is under construction what is wrong with that.--
  • Delete - fails WP:V and is, furthermore, terribly written. Biruitorul 01:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Turgidson 03:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Weathered Underground

The Weathered Underground (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertisement and challenged. Not blatant in my opinion; listing here for discussion. No vote. Chick Bowen 05:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Article says they're coming out later this year. Wait until they do and see if they become notable then. Don't expect there to be much to say about them until they do. Plymouths 05:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails notability, also crystal ball article. --NMChico24 07:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. MER-C 08:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertisement. Nkras 17:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete on account of crystalballery and ...advertisementery? --Dennisthe2 21:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm. The OED has a listing for an adjective "advertisemental," so I guess one could imagine a noun "advertisementality." Chick Bowen 04:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Would the emphasis here be on "mental"? =^_^= --Dennisthe2 00:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete LazyDaisy 13:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Delicatessen. - Daniel.Bryant 03:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delis

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

This article is entirely unreferenced, difficult to verify due to the production of other uses of the term in web search results, and does not assert the notability of the surname described. John254 05:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - non-notable surname, disambiguation page unrequired. MER-C 08:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove AfD This article is the first work of a new editor Special:Contributions/Muelves and got a AfD before it was 10 hours old. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers Signed Jeepday 15:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment -- WP:BITE concerns do not justify a reduction in Wikipedia's quality through the retention of inappropriate articles. John254 16:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment might as well delete the User talk:Muelves as well it this is the only contribution. Jeepday 03:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Delicatessen as possible search term. ("Deli" already redirects there.) Shimeru 20:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. See other recent deletion activity regarding names. Agree with Shimeru that it should probably redirect to Delicatessen. Vassyana 11:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. - grubber 02:02, 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 (no place given to merge to). Cbrown1023 talk 03:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Tipper (TimeSplitters)

Harry Tipper (TimeSplitters) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete or Merge The character is not notable enough for his own article. Plain and simple. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit me § Contributions ♣ 05:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete or Merge per nom. Timesplitters is not the Simpsons; it doesn't deserve it's own article for each new character. Part Deux 08:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete This charecter is noteable enough, he is the base of an existing joke thoughout the series. Also he is not a new character, he is in all 3 of the TimeSplitters games.
    • That doesn't mean anything. He still isn't noteworthy enough for his own article, mainly because of lack of info. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit me § Contributions ♣ 01:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

--Mark D. 09:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • If there is not enough verifiable information for a full article, then the correct action, per WP:FICT, is merger into List of characters in TimeSplitters series. Uncle G 14:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of characters in TimeSplitters series per Uncle G. No need to delete, and the redirect could be useful. delldot | talk 17:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. This would be appropriate content for a list or article on characters, but the list that had existed is gone.--Kubigula (talk) 19:58, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skot Olsen

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

Non-notable artist Mhking 05:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak delete has press coverage, but it seems to be mostly local to Florida. Just being mentioned in a newspaper, though, doesn't guarantee notability, and likely there are WP:COI issues here. Part Deux 09:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless problems with WP:COI are fixed and properly sourced and referenced Alf photoman 15:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Advertisement/self-promotion. Vassyana 11:57, 1 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. -- Steel 12:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Axle (band)

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

They're working on various songs and they're going to be ready to play live by April. One guy does guitar and vocals--"sort of." I placed a speedy deletion tag, but an IP user removed it saying they didn't think the article should be deleted. janejellyroll 05:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete and tagged as such. [53] and [54] provide 0 ghits. Part Deux 08:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A7. MER-C 08:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ahmo Hight

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

Appears to be a non-notable actress/porn star Part Deux 07:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Notable model in the fitness modelling genre, and has also appeared in numerous films in leading roles. Article might need to be expanded, but that makes her notable enough. She is not a porn star so WP:PORNBIO does not apply; the article is wrong in that respect. I'm going to see about expanding it a little. 23skidoo 17:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's why I said actress/pornstar. She's both. And I probably should have put model in there too. Part Deux 19:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup — Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 03:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Reasonably notable. Tag for cleanup. Vassyana 11:58, 1 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Danger*gang

Danger*gang (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No evidence from reliable sources that the subject meets WP:MUSIC. Contested prod. MER-C 07:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomOo7565 21:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm. They get about 24K Ghits under their Japanese name with the star in the middle, and 10K under the Japanese name without the star. Their older music is available on amazon.co.jp and they are listed as having a label (Universal International). Their newest single is available at Tower Records and they are again listed with a label, Zenit Music Factory. But am I going to be defending this article, which looks so bad? There's no evidence that they have charted, and the clincher for me is the lack of an article on the JA Wiki. I am going to go with delete without bias against recreation of a better article in the future. The current article fails to assert notability, and it's off to Wiki heaven just for that. Dekimasu 03:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Extra comment. The original version of the article at this rev was somewhat more encyclopedic in tone but also failed to assert notability. Dekimasu 03:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation. They're apparenly one of very few all-female visual kei bands out there. They ARE going on a national tour of Japan, but I have no way of evaluating the venues listed on the website. They released an album just recently. It would be a good transwiki to, wiki.theppn.org, though.. --Kunzite 04:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Delete They've released two mini-albums and a couple of singles. They're with what appears to be a fairly major label, and touring in some reasonably sized venues nationally. They've had at least one major article, in Cure (a Japanese music/culture magazine -- unfortunately I haven't got a copy to use as a source). I think they're at least borderline with WP:BAND and arguably pass. But lack of sources tips it for me. Would switch to keep if even one independent reliable source were employed. Shimeru 20:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only blogs and a fan site for sources. Fails WP:RS and WP:V Cricket02 07:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 22:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pippa Jefferys

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

Vanispamcruftisement, creator was BGModels (talk · contribs). Contested prod. MER-C 07:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, gsearch turns up less than stellar results. I'm sure she's a great person, but she's not notable of an encyclopedia entry. Part Deux 07:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, aging part-time model, one of thousands, with no notable accomplishments, likely creating entry for personal publicity —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.77.234.75 (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep Note above from IP: 142.77.234.75 obviously made with prejudice. Please sign comments. Name of model remains linked from recently edited plus-size model page so apparent merit for entry to remain. BGModels 19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (please don't vote twice Part Deux 00:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC))Page has been updated, more substantial information added. Question what kind of accomplishments would satisfy when business criteria does not demand Ph.D? LOL Suggest retaining to broaden international content under plus-size model banner which is very US-heavy. BGModels 20:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Why not MOVE? Can someone with more Wiki-mojo create a multi-level entry at plus-size model so that separate pages for individuals are unnecessary? Just trying to figure out Wiki... BGModels 22:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, not encyclopedic entry. --MaNeMeBasat 18:27, 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 12:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Edman

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

Non-notable losing election candidate, fails WP:BIO. Contested prod. MER-C 07:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete resume, political advertising. Part Deux 07:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete just by the article, don't know what country this is even in! That aside, also-rans normally don't rate notability. SkierRMH 09:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless properly sourced and quoted by i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a textbook example of POV autobiography (or possibly fancruft). YechielMan 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Bauercrest

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

Unremarkable summer camp, no assertion of notability. Contested prod. MER-C 07:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

comment, do any of the camps at Category:Local council camps (Boy Scouts of America) also fail notability? Chris 11:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
They probably do need to be looked at by someone with the time. In general, camps like these are not notable. They are of local importance so moving the information to another article is an option. Vegaswikian 00:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
That is a point I have been making at the Scouting WikiProject, there is an irascible user who insists otherwise. Chris 03:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Moving the contents to an article for the area, may also be considered an option. I suspect that the template may need to go also since it may be the cause for articles to be created that will not pass an AfD. Vegaswikian 00:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • delete nn, likewise about template. Chris 03:28, 1 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 12:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Shohola

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

Unremarkable summer camp, no assertion of notability. Contested prod. MER-C 07:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The only websites linked/sources provided are three web pages from the website of the camp itself. Thus, the information is currently independantly verifiable through the use of third party sources. The article only contains a brief history and an exhaustive list of what happens at summer camps across the world this particular camp, information that should be provided on the camp's own website. Wikipedia is not in the business of providing free webspace, providing free advertising, or duplicating/replacing an organisation's website. Delete. -- saberwyn 09:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Moving the contents to an article for the area, may also be considered an option. I suspect that the template may need to go also since it may be the cause for articles to be created that will not pass an AfD. Vegaswikian 00:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. As above. Not notable. Vassyana 12:03, 1 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 — G11 (advertising), A7 (notability), G7 (author request - see MacMonster's final coments in this AFD). — ERcheck (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Lords of the Nine

The Lords of the Nine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable online D&D resource. Fancruft and WP:NOT#OR #2 and WP:NOT#SOAP #2 and WP:NFT. JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 07:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Also nominating related article Bael The Warlord of Avernus. I do vote delete for both. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 07:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Very sorry for the trouble, but I was requested to do this by the person behind the creation of The Gates of Hell. I'm not exactly certain if it fits the criteria of being published, as it's only available online. This is really the first thing I've posted, so hopefully someone else from Dicefreaks.comwill be here shortly to edit the articles to fix the problems. Please hold off deleting the articles until someone more experienced can come along and remedy this problem. MacMonster 08:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Hold off indeed! Speedy delete more like. Notability not established. Also the monster above essentially admits that it it spam. -- RHaworth 08:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - the only way to remedy this this problem is with the delete button. So tagged. MER-C 08:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the articles then, hopefully someone who actually know what they're doing will be able to do it within the next few days. Sorry for the trouble. MacMonster 08:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's not bite here guys. Play nice. Agreed that it's crufty, though, and probably not worth its own article unless you can provide some sources for notability - see WP:NOTE. Part Deux 09:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • My intent was to first set up the articles for each of the pages to be linked to, then create a page for The Gates of Hell, but it seems apparent that such things are best left to others. In retrospect it would seem best to do it all on one page, however I wanted to avoid a post that neared five feet long. Delete it, someone else will do a better job of it, or merge the articles together, whichever is best. However, please note that I in no way had a hand in the creation process of The Gates of Hell or it's contents. The creators are listed on the first page of all the chapters.MacMonster 09:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It's fine. No one's perfect at this at first. Stay around for a few days and everythign will become clearer. Anyway, you can tag the article with {{db-author}}, and it will be speedy deleted for you. Part Deux 10:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You didn't do anything "wrong" by creating these articles, and there was nothing inappropriate about their content. It's just that the topics themselves are not notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. However, they might be perfect for the D&D Wiki website. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 10:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 rename. Majorly (o rly?) 22:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schools in DeKalb County, Indiana

Schools in DeKalb County, Indiana (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Contested prod. MER-C 07:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 09:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 09:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - If this list contained contact info like phone numbers or mail addresses, the WP:NOT#DIR claim would be valid. As is, it is just a list, and well-organized at that. Neier 12:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep just needs to be turned into a proper list and called as such Madmedea 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename list of schools in DeKalb County, Indiana, USA perfectly good list. Jcuk 22:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per precedent. We are not a collection of lists, nor are we a directory. WMMartin 14:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Now That's What I Call Music! 25 (U.S. series)

Now That's What I Call Music! 25 (U.S. series) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Rumours. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- RHaworth 07:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - I'd say WP:CRYSTAL can be overused sometimes to call for deletion, but not here. Pure rumors. Part Deux 08:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: that's delete without prejudice to recreation in several months if we can get some WP:RS sources. Part Deux 08:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 08:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being unsourced, it's just crystalballism. eaolson 23:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Cricket02 07:53, 1 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 information to merge into List of The Buzz on Maggie episodes, so Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 03:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pieface (The Buzz on Maggie episode)

Pieface (The Buzz on Maggie episode) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The parent TV show is not notable enough to have this level of detail. Crufty. Contested prod. MER-C 08:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Terence Ong 10:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of The Buzz on Maggie episodes per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, which states "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." (Emphasis mine.) Extraordinary Machine 12:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable TV series, + per Wikipedia is Not Paper! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - There is a consensus to improve articles like this, not delete them. - Peregrine Fisher 22:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Get out of the old state of mind, people. These articles suck ass, no one will ever fix them, and they only encourage people to use Wikipedia as their "OMG" fansite of useless trivia. There never was a consensus to make articles for every episode because a minority can so easily make episode articles. Then people come on to Wikipedia, see that, and assume it was a thought out decision. It's not, it's just a big mess of "OMG, others have episode articles, we should have episode articles" misconception. Why can't we end this insanity? This episode is not notable on it's own, and does not need a dedicated article. -- Ned Scott 03:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Just noting that I would also be fine with a merge. -- Ned Scott 03:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Extraordinary Machine and agreed with Ned Scott comments. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 03:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. Per Extraordinary Machine and Ned Scott. Vassyana 12:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree with Peregrine Fisher, these just need to be expanded, not deleted.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 16:04, 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 17:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brandon Buddy

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

Fails WP:BIO as subject is an entertainment personality with non-widespread recognition. as a quick google search will confirm. Personally, from Australia, I don't know him from a hole in the ground. Contested prod. MER-C 08:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Actor doesn't even have a IMDB listing as far as I can tell. Mitaphane ?|! 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom and as above. Vassyana 12:20, 1 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Principle of Swiss Cheese Management

Principle of Swiss Cheese Management (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I'm not even really sure what this is, but it seems to be an OR essay. User:Zoe|(talk) 08:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 08:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom and 0 ghits. This is a case where WP:OR requires deletion. Wikipedia is not an academic journal where you come to publish your ideas. Part Deux 09:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Responded below. Part Deux 19:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:OR, unencyclopedic material. Terence Ong 10:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per UncleG's excellent comments below and complete rewrite of the article. CiaranG 15:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Delete I hope it's a joke. It's surely original research. (Is this AfD listed properly by the way, it doesn't look right to me) CiaranG 13:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, along with The Principle of Swiss Cheese Management. While the first-person storytelling narrative has been removed from this version, it is still a personal essay, promoting a particular viewpoint that is not notable in itself as an encyclopedia subject. If "Swiss Cheese Management" were being referred to as a term, it would be a protologism, but it isn't. None of the statements seem directly attributable to reliable sources, failing verifiability, and more specifically original research content policies. Dancter 14:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is an excellent case of where counting Google hits is not research. Research turns up the Swiss Cheese model of accidents, and the concomitant notion of having multiple defences against error, where errors occur when all of the holes in the various slices of cheese align, being discussed on pages 16 and 17 of ISBN 0826133460. (There's a diagram on page 17.) This in turn cites a paper by James T. Reason entitled Human Error published in 1990 by Cambridge University Press. Reason's "Swiss Cheese" model is also discussed on page 1065 of ISBN 9058095517, where it is described as "widely accepted in the health sector[s]" of the U.K., the U.S., and Australia. Page 16 of ISBN 075461591X also points to another paper by Reason discussing this Swiss Cheese model: Managing the risks of organizational accidents (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997). You can read about one application of Reason's Swiss Cheese model (in the aviation industry) on pages xv to xvii of ISBN 0071373624. (There's another diagram on page xvii.) You can read about its application to the firefighting emergency services (which discusses preventing firefighting errors by "inserting additional layers of cheese into the system") on page 20 of ISBN 1593700067. (This has yet another diagram.) You can also read about it on pages 11, 12, 353, and 354 of ISBN 0754646416. (The diagram is on page 12 in this book.)

    This idea is not original research. It is simply the case that this article is unreferenced, badly written, and incorrectly titled. Feel free to take the sources cited above, and the many more sources than a simple search for the common name of the concept (the "Swiss Cheese model") will turn up, and cleanup the article. Uncle G 14:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

    • That raises some new questions. Could the text of The Principle of Swiss Cheese Management be lifted from somewhere? That would probably qualify it for deletion for a different reason. Dancter 19:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I think that would qualify it for a rewrite rather than a delete, but since it's now redundant I took the bold step of redirecting it to UncleG's rewritten article that we're discussing here. (The two different articles make this discussion rather confusing anyway) CiaranG 19:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Uncle G and CiaranG. Dancter 19:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup per Uncle G. Thanks to his good research, we now have a solution. See a gsearch for "Swiss Cheese Model". Therefore, I heavilly suggest renaming the article as well to Swiss Cheese Model when this is all said and done. Part Deux 19:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, fine article after excellent complete rewrite. Sandstein 23:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, (I think it's an obvious keep now, but this is my first vote on a deletion, and the article happens to be about something I've actually read about before. Kudos to Uncle G.) ---Sluzzelin 02:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fuck The Earth Day

Fuck The Earth Day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete. A seemingly non-notable holiday. No reliabe sources are given (and I can't see the Facebook page), and good ol' Google gives 13 results. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Please do not delete this article. I do celebrate this holiday, as do others. You cannot judge this holiday based on the number of hits google comes up with. If you do not know about this holiday, you cant tell people who do celebrate it that it doesn't exist. If you celebrate this holiday, please help us make a good article about it, if you dont, please stop telling us that it doesn't exist just because the people who celebrate it dont post lots of websites about it. QuintusMaximus 09:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)QuintusMaximus
  • You do not celebrate this holiday, as it's never happened before. You may very well celebrate it this year, but that is future tense. If it becomes notable after the fact, write an article, but it clearly doesn't meet the notability guidelines at present. Nathanm mn 18:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
In order to keep this article on Wikipedia, you have to provide reliable sources to prove that it exists. The burden of proof is on you to show that the holiday exists, not on others to show it doesn't. Hut 8.5 14:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand, but IMO we have proved it, go to the discussion page of the article, I've posted a link to our reference where it was announded on national TV. People keep ignoring this source. If in the end, it is decided that this should not be on wikipedia, i guess that is what has to happen, but please dont ignore our source first... -- QuintusMaximus 23:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The "announcement" is a joke, as I'm sure you realise. Your article is not about the joke holiday, it is about a real one, which either doesn't exist or isn't notable. The fact that this is transwikied from Uncyclopedia suggests this isn't serious. Hut 8.5 16:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. 'Talk like a Pirate Day', which I notice does have an article here on Wikipedia, was also made up one day. It does not, as far as I can tell, have any importance whatsoever. 'Fuck the Earth Day' is actually supposed to mean something, to be a statement about the Earth and its current condition. Dearingj 09:24, January 28 2007 (UTC)
  • However, International Talk Like a Pirate Day has gotten lots of national and international press, radio, and TV coverage; it's a part of a few video games; and it's been going on for a few years now. None of those things can be said about this so-called holiday. Nathanm mn 18:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, this is an important point i agree with. Fuck the Earth Day is part serious/part satire-ironic... It is however significant in the same way MANY other things on wikipedia are... QuintusMaximus 09:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Talk Like A Pirate Day, however, is well-sourced and has been widely written about. --UsaSatsui 11:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This was announced on national television! Seriously, that is pretty solid... QuintusMaximus 12:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Quintus, I try to understand the effort you put in FTE Day and the significance it may have for you, but have you ever read the policy about notability in Wikipedia? For instance the fact that a topic is considered notable, and so suitable to be included, "if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other"? We are not questioning FTE Day in itself (or perhaps someone has, but this is not the point). The fact is, something is notable (be it a song, a crime or an event) if it is widely known, referenced and studied. Give yourself and FTE Day time to grow and become renowned. --Goochelaar 12:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I completely understand where you are comming from, but i doubt that it is going to get more renound then it already is. To me, it seems like being mentioned on national television seems to qualify it as notable. I agree it is still a bit obscure, but there are many other more obscure articles on wikipedia. Why argue over this one when it HAS been mentioned on national television. Probably a few hundred thousand people heard it announced on the TV. It is true that probably reletivly few have taken it to heart, but there is a group. And since it was mentioned on comedy central, I think it is notable enough for wikipedia. IMO. -- QuintusMaximus 12:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Quintus, please, provide some references. Trying to argue in favor of it without providing evidence is futile, we need reliable sources for this. If you can't do this, I hate to say, it won't survive. --Dennisthe2 20:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, created in 2007, meaning it hasn't even happened yet one time. User:Zoe|(talk) 08:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Can I make up my own holiday on facebook and put it on Wikipedia too? janejellyroll 08:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:NFT. Part Deux 09:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Brim 09:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, mirroring Part Deux, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school/college/wherever one day. Kyra~(talk) 09:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Em-jay-es 09:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Transwikied to Uncyclopedia here. It's good stuff, actually.--Abs Like Jesus 09:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia is not paper. It's pretty clear to me that this is a real concept that was broadcasted on national television. It also clearly has intellectual merit and originality. The policies that have been cited by those arguing for deletion are not ends in themselves, so I encourage those voting for deletion to read "Wikipedia:Interpret all rules." The concern regarding inclusion is not that we don't have enough space, it's whether the ideas themselves are misleading or utterly worthless. Jimbo has admitted himself that storing data is very cheap.--Abs Like Jesus 09:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not a real concept, it was a brief joke on a comedy newscast. How could anybody find intellectual merit and originality in that? I sincerely hope you're not being serious. Nathanm mn 18:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • gosh, and I thought it came from unencyclopedia. Part Deux 09:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I keep forgetting to reg there. You're going to have to copy&paste the article history if it's about to be deleted, otherwise your link to the article isn't enough under the GFDL (seeing as users can not click on it and see said history). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • By all means crosspost it whereever you want, i wont mind, but I really dont think its very respectful to delete our work on wikipedia..., so please consider this carfully and take off those tags at the top of the page... Thanks QuintusMaximus 09:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 09:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Alex Bakharev 09:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. DirtyJoe 09:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)— DirtyJoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Hmm since there seems to be some disagreement, maybe i should add a reason. I dont know anyone who celebrates this day, but I did see the episode of the Daily Show which they say inspired this holidy, and I must say i'm not surprised. If this really is a holiday with different people who observe it, i think it deserves a place here on wikipedia... DirtyJoe 09:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • But this isn't really a holiday that anybody observes. It was a joke on a comedy newscast. You know The Daily Show is satire, right? It's not supposed to be taken seriously. Nathanm mn 18:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTABLE, WP:RS. A small group of friends does not make a holiday notable. Build up some notability, maybe by starting a popular and notable website (as occurred in the cases you folks keep giving), then try again after that. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, we're getting somewhere here: at least we know where this came from: it is indeed from the Daily Show: [55]. That being said, too bad. It's not notable yet. You can argue til your face turns blue, but until it becomes a widespread pheneomenon with reliable sources, you're outta luck. Part Deux 10:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You just sound like a real exclusionist, if it was announced on national television, it deserves a place on wikipedia! -- QuintusMaximus 12:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Like I said before, provide reliable sources and we'll change our minds. Just saying that it was announced on national television is not enough. What network/channel/country talked about it? Can you provide more than one source? --Dennisthe2 20:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, We have posted our source. It was on the daily show, on comedy central, in the USA. A link to a clip of that moment is now posted on the discussion page for this article. Please take a look. Here is a copy of the link i posted there [56] -- QuintusMaximus 23:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It was on The Daily Show... with all due respect, where is it documented that The Daily Show is even conceivably a reliable source?! Putting it on a comedy show doesn't make it notable - and that's pretty much what The Daily Show is. Be that as it may, I'm changing my vote - to Strong Delete with prejudice. PUt a fork in it, I'm done. --Dennisthe2 23:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Terence Ong 10:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above (WP:NFT etc.). When it will be celebrated some times (say, at least once) and will get some renown, one will be glad to reconsider it. --Goochelaar 10:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I find it very hard to believe this is legit.--UsaSatsui 11:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as either a hoax or non-notable. Being mentioned in a TV comedy gag does not infer notability and does not mean the thing actually exists. Hut 8.5 13:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Neo-holiday.--Húsönd 17:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn neologism. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. 33 Google hits, all of which are trivial. Newly invented/neologism holiday. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Even their Facebook group only has 2 members. If, after the event happens, it gets enough media attention and notoriety to meet Wikipedia notability criteria, then write an article. Nathanm mn 19:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No references. --Dennisthe2 20:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Vote changed to strong delete, see my commentary above. --Dennisthe2 00:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as unsourced, immature, nonnotable and offensive (the last of these is not a deletion rule, but I can't help throwing fuel on the fire). YechielMan 20:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per all above stupid up made event not funny guys or girls at allOo7565 21:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Tom H 22:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFT.-- danntm T C 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Clearly something made up by two people from facebook. Non-notable, because there's no actual holiday. Also quite stupid. Where exactly do they plan to live once earth is gone? --TommyOliver 22:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is only partly serious, but it *is* a real holiday, announced on national television, and being organized. It may be stupid in your opinion, but that doesn't detroy its merit to stay on wikipedia. -- QuintusMaximus 23:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Respectfully submitted, it is not a serious holiday. They know that they'd be screwed royally if the earth just up and left some day. If someday it becomes more than a facetious novelty, it can be on Wikipedia. But right now, it's just silly ^_^ --TommyOliver 23:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is NOT a real holiday. It was a one-off joke/comment on the Daily Show. Should we make Wikipedia articles for every sentence that comes out of Jon Stewart's mouth? That would be patently absurd. Go ahead, you and your friend celebrate the so-called "holiday." If you can manage to get some press, or even start a sizable meme in the blogosphere, then it might be considered for an article after the fact. But Wikipedia isn't meant to be an advertisement for college parties. Linking to the article from your Facebook group hasn't helped its legitimacy there either. As of today, they added one whole group member! As I posted before, strong, STRONG delete.Nathanm mn 18:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Stong delete - unsourced nonsense. – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - as amusing as I find this, it seems to be nonsense-DESU 23:11, 28 January 2007(UTC)
  • Comment: Thank you. We need the earth ^_^ Earth = Good --TommyOliver 01:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah... It was a joke... Not a joke article, it really is a holiday, but the holiday itself is a joke, We dont really hate the earth. We are simply poking fun at earth day by listing our disapointments with the earth instead :). Its too bad people cant respect this, but whatever. QuintusMaximus 02:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, i understand, but it wasn't just made up one day, it was on television, and then has been discussed for a long time, I just thought i would start the wikipedia aritcle, but whatever... i wont argue further... QuintusMaximus 02:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it was indeed on TV. On The Daily Show. The Daily Show is like the Weekend Update from SNL for an entire time slot. --Dennisthe2 03:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not for crap made up on Facebook one day to get attention via mini-feed and show everyone how hardcore of an earth-hater you are. Milto LOL pia 03:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per above and per norm. I personally cannot find the humor inherent in Jon Stewart, or Stephen Colbert for that matter. They are sensationalistic at best. Not to mention the fact that this holiday as it is now came from a facebook group. The site that brought us "If 5,000 people join this group, I will eat a pinecone" and other such nonsense. Stick a fork in this article and sound the dinner bell. --HubHikari 18:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Added References!-- I have added some references to the history portion of the article. And I have removed all the unverifiable portions, mostly from the "Observance" section. I really dont see what would keep it from being an article now. It is sourced, short, relevant, unique, factual, and notable. Dispite your personal views as to the quality of the humor, this IS a worthy page. -- QuintusMaximus 19:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, your references include:
  • A Facebook group you created, which still has all of 3 members, and is only accessible by members.
  • The relevant quote from The Daily Show, "...Because at this moment, I'm declaring april 25th, f*** the earth day!" It was only added January 24th, just a few days ago.
  • Links to two copies of the same clip from The Daily Show, which are obviously copyright violations.
How does that make the article notable? Nathanm mn 19:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
You haven't addressed the fundamental problem that we have with this page - namely that this holiday isn't notable or is a hoax. Facebook pages don't count as reliable sources and your other sources only say that it was mentioned in one TV gag, which hardly makes it notable - you want articles on every line in every TV show? Hut 8.5 19:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It should be noted that used apparently sent out an email blitz to self-identified inclusionists. That is, I got one, although I don't ever remember supporting an article where mere existence can only be established via primary and/or unreliable sources. I believe in keeping meritorious articles, but WP:RS is very important to me. Make an article about it after it becomes Festivus. Until then Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thanks. 21:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly non-notable NBeale 22:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • How about a study in contrast with another "holiday" or more accurately, a day of observance. Monday, January 29, 2007, was prounounced Milton Friedman Day[57], after the Nobel Laureate economist. It's even been officially declared by the governor of the state of California and the mayors of the cities of San Francisco and Chicago, and is being sponsored in part by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and The Economist magazine[58]. There are at least 20 different events, in 12 different cities, in 2 different countries being held, and a new documentary being premiered on PBS[59]. Yet despite all that, it doesn't have its own Wikipedia article, and probably shouldn't. Instead, a single sentence was added to the Milton Friedman article. Please consider this when thinking about the so-called holiday in question here. Nathanm mn 05:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Tack on the observance of Richard Nixon Day, as observed in Yorba Linda, California every year on July 19th in the following fashion: "carry on as if it were any other day". Just as notable. --Dennisthe2 09:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah... I think perhaps this debate really just comes down to a fundamental difference of opinion regarding what should be included in wikipedia... We aren't dealing with an encyclopedia that needs to be printed, articles take up a few Kb at most and as long as they are verrified, add to the wealth of knowlege wikipedia has to offer... -- QuintusMaximus 00:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Except the article in question adds nothing to the wealth of knowlege [sic]. In fact, it detracts from Wikipedia. How can it be verrified [sic] before it's even happened? If, after the fact, you and your friend manage to get any publicity, then it can be considered for an article. As it stands, it's just a poor advertisement for your non-event. Nathanm mn 02:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • How do your comments help Wikipedia? And how does this article hurt it? It states clearly what it is, and Wikipedia's size is nearly unlimited (per Jimbo). He's trying to help the project, and quite frankly, I think you ought to read Wikipedia:Civility before you blurt out whatever stray thought you have in your mind. If this were your article, you'd be stumbling over yourself trying to keep it. He spent hours writing it. If you had spent more of your time expanding articles, Wikipedia would be better off.--Abs Like Jesus 03:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Please refer to WP:ILIKEIT, and note that articles about bopkes are more harmful than they appear to be. --Dennisthe2 03:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -- at 43 ghits, including this debate, it is absolutely not notable. Parody holidays can get articles once they become well-known and covered by reliable published sources. Antandrus (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to note: it is going up since the afd started. 13 at first, 33 above, now 43. If John Stewart actually plays this enough, it might become notable. But not yet. :) Part Deux 11:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • And not necessarily this variant either, as while it's based on the joke, it is also largely the creation of two "founders". The hits are largely for the joke (and a fair part of them seem to be TV show synopsis sites and Wikipedia mirrors), not this. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly not notable. --Tail 12:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete no references LazyDaisy 13:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, something recently made up. No reliable sources or notability. Dragomiloff 00:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable - AFTER it happens, we can think about a page for it. Before is presumptuous. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete TOMMAROW is Maverick423 day! Im ganna celebrate by sitting around and playing games on the computer! (after work of course) Then on April 23 is Maverick423's Birthday YAY im ganna celebrate it and so is my family and some friends. So lets write a article about Maverick423's holidays yes?... i thought so Maverick423 18:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete. Article is very POV (calls Earth Day "superfluous," for example) and seems to be chock-full of original research. "References" are completely non-reliable. Fails every standard of notability. Wikipedia is not Myspace. - Chardish 08:38, 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 12:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Yaoi Pairings

Popular Yaoi Pairings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced (WP:RS), unverifiable (WP:V) listcruft (WP:NOT) of "popular" gay pairings of anime characters. Considering 90+% of this list is mostly within a given series' fandom and not at all canon, it also fails WP:FICT. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 09:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, and add original research to the above list-who decides what constitutes "popular"? Seraphimblade 10:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Farix (Talk) 13:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Burn it to the ground -- Ned Scott 19:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Fanfiction is rarely, if ever, notable. --Dennisthe2 20:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible delete - I am amazed anyone thought this was a good idea for an article. --Haemo 22:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete immediately and ban whoever created it Aside from it being complete fantasy, and disgusting (incest???), there's potential libel for claiming homosexuality without strong evidence. --TommyOliver 22:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Burninante, drive them before you and hear the lamentations of their ticklish jihadists. But libel? Are fictional characters going to sue us now? --129.241.216.28 00:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Don't rule it out. More seriously though, the characters (fictional though they are) are not gay, and the point of an encyclopedia is to describe things as they are, not as someone wants them to be. --TommyOliver 00:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh. I just wanted to call into question your legal argument before you estalished some kind of consensus prescedent :-)--129.241.216.28 01:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. --Squilibob 23:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per WP:FAN, WP:OR, and WP:V. Most, if not all of this, is severely out of context, especially Lupin. Metrackle 00:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Civility, please. Unverified? Yes. Original Research? Pretty much. They could be sourced by a survey of doujin titles. But doujin isn't usually notable enough for Wikipedia. As a group they may be notable, but it's OR if done on Wikipedia. Libel?!?!? Huh? This is "moral rights" territory. These characters, gay or not in the original series, are FREQUENTLY depicted in homosexual relationships in yaoi doujinshi. It would be against the original authors of this material, not Wikipedia which is simply re-printing an observation of a derivative work. Out of context? No. The context is yaoi doujinshi. It's a well known product of a Japanese sub-culture. --Kunzite 01:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • strong delete not notable LazyDaisy 13:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It's mostly if not all Fanfiction. (Duane543 22:35, 1 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 12:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mandy Moore Live@ShoutBack

Mandy Moore Live@ShoutBack (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An article about a single gig played by Mandy Moore. Not an actual live album - no ascertation that this gig is notable in any way. Kurt Shaped Box 09:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per my nom. --Kurt Shaped Box 09:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It might be notable if it actually was live album as its infobox seems to claim, but it doesn't provide any sources to that effect, and it fails the "Google test" miserably, so I can't generate sources for it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 09:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP parys to the rescue. Shout back was Mandy Moore first and only headling concert. Its not a live album but her only concert, usually moore would open for other artist. Here are the links.

1 2 3 this one is moore peforming cry on shoutback. it fits th date because moore's hair is still blonde Those are just a few. I doubt anyone you did any home work. Or you would have found it. people stop just jumping on the bandwagon when there s something to delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parys (talk • contribs) 18:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

  • Delete Maybe I'm missing something here, but it sounds like this is just a single concert that happened to be aired somewhere. Maxamegalon2000 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Michael Jackson SINGLE concert has its own page. Mandy Moore is a notable artist, with notable songs during the performance, ONE A NOTABLE BROADCASTING!!!!!!!!! 20:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete articles in single concerts, as part of regular tours, are not that special.-- danntm T C 23:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
you must also delete Michael Jackson: 30th Anniversary Special since it IS ALSO a single concert. I am amused how non of you did research. Wikipedians jump on something when it is time to delete.00:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)~
Parys, have a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Music, Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS#What_about_article_x.3F - and please be civil. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box 01:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Are purposing a merger? Parys
  • Delete per nom-DESU 03:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — A1/A7. — ERcheck (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wyckd

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

Article has no context, nor assertion of notability Ozhiker 09:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per A1 (no context) and A7 (no assertion of notability). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - A1/A7/G11. MER-C 09:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 User:ERcheck (nn-web). SpuriousQ 14:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] YouSponge

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

Non-notable site that stores copyrighted videos off the net. The article makes no allusions to notability and doesn't explain what the site is about. The information provided on the Wikipedia page isn't borne out by anything on the YouSponge.com website, and is even contradictory in some cases. Also the page creator is the owner of this site and has been spamming Wikipedia with links to it of late. Ben W Bell talk 09:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete under WP:CSD A7 - website with no assertion of notability. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete spam, nn. But, should that fail, regular delete. Part Deux 09:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as stated in my prod: "No sources provided. Looking through LexisNexis, Newsbank, and Google hits, I see no non-trivial, independent coverage about this company." Some information may be false, cannot find anything about a "Soapy Investments" venture capital firm. -SpuriousQ 13:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lowest 0 to 60 acceleration for a given price for vehicles sold in the USA.

Lowest 0 to 60 acceleration for a given price for vehicles sold in the USA. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Direct content fork of a table from 0 to 60 mph where there is currently a discussion about the need to include that table in the talk page. I think it's best that until the discussion is resolved there, the article in question ought to be deleted. tommylommykins 09:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete unnecessary POV fork. Should be in 0 to 60 mph article, if anything. Part Deux 10:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 10:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete inappropriate WP:POVFORK fork and an arbitrary list.-- danntm T C 01:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inappropriate subject, with a strong flavor of original research. --Carnildo 03:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Carnildo. - Aagtbdfoua 02:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected and moved. MER-C 01:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Grammar School, Lahore

National Grammar School, Lahore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Duplicate of National Grammar School, Pakistan. I propose further to move National Grammar School, Pakistan to National Grammar School. Shorelander 09:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realize users could move pages. Silly me. So I did that move mentioned. Shorelander 09:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Dealt with the duplicate by using a redirect. Will close if no-one objects. MER-C 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, WP:V and WP:MUSIC still haven't been fufilled to any satisfactory standard despite five days passing since the plea to "wait for the sources" below. - Daniel.Bryant 03:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Riddler(Rapper)

The Riddler(Rapper) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This one is pretty good. I was suspicious because he's just 15 or so, but I realized that some rappers are young. Then, while researching I happened to find the Lil Wayne article. Most of "The Ridder's" biography is actually Lil Wayne's. Google turns up a few references to a rapper called "The Riddler," but he'd be older than this guy. Hoax. janejellyroll 09:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Okay, now the article has changed again. The author may have just used Lil Wayne as a template. This article is still unsourced and fails WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 09:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Give the page some time; the page wasn't even 20 minutes old when it was nominated for deletion. If the creator continues to add content to the page, a more informed decision may be able to be made later. tommylommykins 09:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
He is fifteen years old and the lead claims that he is the president or CEO of two different record companies. Yet later, the article states "The two (the subject and a friend) later on went to make plans for a future record label while beefin with rival rapper Royal T." A third record company? There are no sources in this article. janejellyroll 09:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete (I should have marked it db-bio when I found it.) Look at what I found stumbling around on Google: the Riddler has MySpace! He claims to be associated with Atlantic Records/Arkham Asylum Records. You can see for yourself whether Atlantic knows about him, and it is my strong suspicion that Arkham Asylum (don't you love the Batman puns?) was made up in school one day, as I can find no references to it anywhere except the guy's MySpace. And then, if you'll turn your attention to the eastern corridor, you can see that Edgar is both 15 and 17 at the same time. Very non-notable, very unsourced, made up in school one day, quite possibly a hoax... --Rae (Talk | Contribs) 22:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Rae. It's pretty obvious that this rapper is not only non-notable, but most likely a hoax. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 05:14, 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 12:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian pop art

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

Non-notable art movement, no articles link to it. Candy-Panda 09:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Totally unsourced, they can't even list a single artist connected to this supposed movement. Fails WP:V and WP:N. janejellyroll 10:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - 8 non-wiki ghits. Fails WP:V. MER-C 10:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. As above. Vassyana 12:19, 1 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 12:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encounter With God

Encounter With God (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable religious booklet, no articles link to it. Candy-Panda 10:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 10:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Terence Ong 11:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Not notable on its own, but Scripture Union appears to be. Merge there and fix that article's problems. -- Bpmullins | Talk 15:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, or possibly merge with Scripture Union. Hut 8.5 17:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete a religious newsletter, without sources to indicate its notability, does not warrant its own article. May be worthy of a merge to Scripture Union.-- danntm T C 00:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introducing God

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

Non-notable evangelistic video course, article created for the purpose of adverting. Candy-Panda 10:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as WP:SPAM. MER-C 11:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Hut 8.5 12:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It doesn't even make an effort to pretend to be other than an advertisement.--OinkOink 23:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete pure advertisement.-- danntm T C 01:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bollywood Review

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

This article seems to be the only mention of this "publication" online, maintained by the author, including a review to which he is linking. So nonnotability, COI, vanity, take your pick. Shorelander 10:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 11:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Per nom. Vassyana 12:19, 1 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 discussion was rather idiosyncratic, but anything with zero sources fails WP:NOR by default. Sandstein 19:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jack "Jackie" Mercer

Jack "Jackie" Mercer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Procedural. I discovered that this article had been tagged and no follow-through had been done. Neutral janejellyroll 10:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete unless properly sourced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Note No it was followed through with just the article's creator blanked the AFD. Just trying not to look bad...--M8v2 18:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I apologize! I couldn't find that a dicussion page had been created after the AfD tag had been placed. I realize that the article's creator had removed the tag from the article itself and I did remind them on their talk page that it was inappropriate to do that. janejellyroll 20:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep noteabel person so keepOo7565 22:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Note Please do not delete this article. I spent a lot of time on researching and gathering very rare info on the character. Many people find this article interesting and helped me troughout putting up a lot more information.--Jack Mercer 23:12, 28 January 2007
      • Note Oo7565, it's not a person it's a character. Jack Mercer, The rare info you found can't be found anywhere else thats a reliable source.--M8v2 22:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Note The movie contains footage of birth certificates, tomb stones, etc, that are easily missed on first viewing of the film. Also between production and DVD sale of this movie a commentary, by the producer, has been recorded, this divulges more off screen/alluded to information. Adding to this, the actors, predominantly Garrett, have been increasingly interviewed and asked about their previous characters, whereby they have divulged previously un-marketed information. Lyeac 08:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Note? Heres the info that was lost due to User:Jack Mercer's blanking of the page. It's the reason for the AFD.
          • None notable character from a movie. More important characters in the movie don't have a article. All relevant info is found in the main movie article. Full of speculation over sexuality.--M8v2 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Note Jack Mercer is one of the four main characters in this film. The actor, Garrett Hedlund - relatively unknown, who portrays Jack is credited aside the well known names of Andre "3000" Benjamin and Mark Wahlberg on the movies jacket and opening credits, and the character of Jack himself appears multiple times in all manner of movie jacket, advertising and trailer... Jack is a main character. Secondly to say that more important characters in the movie don't have an article is false, Bobby Mercer (Jack's oldest brother ~ Mark Wahlberg)has an article, and I've read several sites attempts at compiling information about Angel and Jerry for publish in this forum. Thirdly, all relevant info is not found in the main article; indeed being new to and inspired by this fandom, I found out about Jack's birthdate, the plans for the roof scene and that Jack was originally supposed to survive the shoot out, all from this article. Finally it is correct to state that Jacks sexuality is speculative at best, Bobby converses with Jack; "How have you been, still sucking a little cock left and right?", and latter in the bathroom scene Angel askes a question about a rash, concerned that he has contracted an STD, and Bobby states; "Ask the cockologist here" referring to Jack in the shower. Jack's sexuality was discussed un-biasedly here, in indeed, a more correct forum than the "Four Brothers" main page ~ that doesn't even report the movie divulged history of each character.Lyeac 08:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, contains nothing but in-universe fictional biography. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Note Shall we also delete Daniel "Oz" Osbourne, Julian Sark, Karl Agathon, Cole Turner, Hoban Washburne, or any other in-universe, perhaps majoritly unknown, but none the less, characters? Lyeac 08:50, 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 12:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Show-off

Show-off (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nominated for deletion after transwiki to Wiktionary Vadigor 10:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki and delete per Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary and nom. Jeepday 15:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOT#DICT. It's already on wikitionary making this entry useless. Mitaphane ?|! 22:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom and WP:NOT#DICT. Vassyana 12:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I bet someone could write an interesting article on this topic. However, this is not that article. Delete. - Chardish 08:40, 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 12:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] X-TREAM Sledsiking

X-TREAM Sledsiking (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Only claim of notabilit is a myspace page. Google only finds a few not particularly relevant sites. Carabinieri 11:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V. MySpace is not a reliable source. Mitaphane ?|! 23:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Vassyana 12:39, 1 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 17:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Bieniarzes

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

Only claim to notability is having invented sledsking. Its article is currently also on AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X-TREAM Sledsiking Carabinieri 11:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per WP:BIO. Not notable. Vassyana 12:38, 1 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. -- Steel 12:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis E. Clancey, Jr.

Dennis E. Clancey, Jr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

obvious vanity page Chris 11:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 07:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medowie Yowie

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

This article is a spoof. Only hits on Google come from Wikipedia or mirror sites Grahamec 11:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gregory T. McDuffie

Gregory T. McDuffie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

vanity or spoof page Chris 11:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:HOAX. The only online references to this holiday are mirrors of Wikipedia itself. YechielMan 21:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ghassan Bilal

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

non-notable actor as per WP:BIO Yonatan (contribs/talk) 11:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

delete also vanity and reads like an advert. Chris 22:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nomination. Suspect that it's self written (the photo was "taken by self"), but should be deleted even if not. Waitak 06:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#G4 – recreation with identical content, and WP:CSD#G7 – Author requests removal. ~ trialsanderrors 23:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tamaskan Dog

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

As before, there does not appear to be any documentation of this "breed" in reliable sources. There is not yet a standard of notability for animal breeds, but this breed does not appear to meet any of the criteria that have been proposed:

  • Recognition by a major kennel club or breed registry
  • News coverage
  • Historical importance

Little appears to have changed from the first nomination, except that some of the claims which were proved false have been removed. Most importantly, there are still no reliable sources documenting the breed's existence. Hence, I don't see any reason this article should have been recreated. Zetawoof(ζ) 11:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Clarification The article failed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamaskan Dog "The result was delete; fails WP:V rather miserably. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:44, 27 November 2006" it was deleted and this AfD is on a recreation of the deleted article. Jeepday 17:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Strongish Keep: "Breed" not registered by American or British Kennel Clubs, but Ghits indicate (a growing?) interest. Then, of course, we have the Cockapoo and Labradoodle articles. Both of which are non-registered but popular "breeds." Srebob 15:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)srebob

There's a big difference between the Labradoodle and Cockapoo, which are widely recognized by the public and by unofficial sources, and a "new, rare breed of dog" which does not appear to have been independently documented by anyone. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment -- Please be sure you are excluding wikipedia, its mirrors, blogs, advertising sites, discussion forums, etc. when you check for Ghits. I have seen a copy of the article printed in the small Finnish paper that is cited in the article. There may also have been an article published in the journal Our Dogs that the article's proponent removed for unknown as of yet reasons. Please read the article's talk page where I and some others have asked several questions. Keesiewonder talk 15:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep > Undecided > Delete and protect from recreation I Did a quick search on Google and came up with multiple hits that would support WP:N none of the hits a saw appeared inherently unreliable. I looked at the history of the page and see multiple poorly manged attempts to delete the article. If this is the second AfD what is there not a link to archive of the first attempt, if it survived the first why are you re-listing it? What is the source of the proposed standard of "notability for animal breed"? I was not aware Wikipedia had one. Jeepday 15:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • In light to the comment below I am re evaluating my position. I found that the article failed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamaskan Dog Also a first look for one of the books listed as a reference came up empty. Jeepday 16:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re evaluation complete, My first impression was incorrect (badly). I attempted to validate the references and was not able to, with one small exception the references had to removed from the article see Talk:Tamaskan_Dog#Section_Removed. The first sentence of the article implies that it is fails WP:N "The Tamaskan Dog is a new, rare breed of dog that originates from Mid-Finland.". As addressed in the prior AfD it fails WP:V "miserably" and it also seems to have significant WP:COI issues So I vote Delete and protect from recreation also there is mention of it on Established wolfdog breeds see Special:Whatlinkshere/Tamaskan_Dog that should also be removed. Jeepday 17:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment -- There is a link to the first attempt, up in the nomination, under the hyperlinked word "before." Ghits, in my opinion, are usually useless. Unfortunately, just like anyone can edit Wikipedia, even more anyones can put up a web site. That is all Google is categorizing. Also, please list either here, on the article's talk page, or in the body of the article itself the "multiple hits that would support WP:N"". I have literally searched for hours and found nearly nothing that I consider useful, except possibly a local interest article written only in Finnish and one other article that I will probably have to pay money for in order to see since no one who wants to keep the article has been able to provide me with a copy. Hmmmmmm. Keesiewonder talk 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I now have access to the web version of Our Dogs, but have not found anything yet. I think they have only posted through January 5, 2007 on their site so far. correction: Actually, they appear to have posted through January 26, 2007. Waiting to hear from article's proponent regarding the page number and date in which the reference appeared. It seems odd that the citation for Our Dogs was removed by the user who wrote the article. Keesiewonder talk 17:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Original Author Request Delete
  • This statement is on the page Talk:Tamaskan_Dog#More_Reference_Removed "I would like the Tamaskan article to be deleted now and don't plan to resurrect it." and signed by the original editor User:Blufawn. This section is added to the AfD page by User:jeepday who has contributed to the discussion and edited the article. Jeepday 21:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep maybe this a new breed because you not heard of this does not mean it does not existOo7565 22:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete again and protect from recreation Contrary to editor Oo7565, the burden is not on us to prove the breed of dogs does not exist. The burden is on those seeking to put the article in Wikipedia to come up with multiple verifiable independent reliable sources which have published articles with this breed of dogs as a primary subject. The article also appears to have conflict of intrest issues.Edison 06:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Except for the possibility of the cited Finnish article, I have to agree with Edison. I corresponded with the author of the WP article. They did not have a copy of the previously listed resource from Our Dogs, and were not even able to produce the date of the article or its title. For my own curiosity, I will work with these two publishers to see if I can obtain any materials. Regardless, the current article should be deleted. I have to say, per the article's talk page, I'm glad this is something we take way too seriously! Keesiewonder talk 11:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: AfD withdrawn by nominator. -- The Anome 23:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bartleby.com

Bartleby.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Refused speedy deletion. No ascertainment of notability. WP:WEB failure. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 11:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. WP:WEB is a guideline and in this case I think the notable content of Bartleby trumps it, if indeed it does fail. Looking at some of the contents, there is no other internet site which contains (for example) "The Cambridge History of English and American Literature in 18 Volumes" published between 1907 and 1921. Perhaps this 2000 press release gives an idea of what it's about. Sam Blacketer 12:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classic Concert Records

Classic Concert Records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Refused speedy deletion. No attempt made to establish notability. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 11:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep, there are thousands of stubs that just need the chance for expanding, rather than going straight into AfD. Lugnuts 12:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep record label with substantial and non-trivial catalogue, which I think could easily satify WP:CORP, although I accept the article doesn't currently try. CiaranG 13:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If you can modify the article to satisfy the guidlines, then I'll hapily withdraw the nom. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 13:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 425 Greatest Books of All Time

425 Greatest Books of All Time (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I don't believe that this list is notable enough for Wikipedia. I just can't see any establishment of notability. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 11:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Why do you feel it isn't notable? Pepso 14:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If one types "reading lists" into Google, over one million results are indicated (and 3.5 million for "reading list"). If one types "reading lists" into Wikipedia, the results show one page on speed reading and another on reading disabilities. This would thus seem to be an area of immense oversight on Wikipedia in comparison with global interest in the subject. Pepso 14:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The high number of results just proves my point: they are not notable merely for existing. Yes, I'm reasonbly confident there are some notable ones out there - in fact I'm sure of it - but so far as I can see this is not one of them. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 15:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename: The current name sounds like POV, and is misleading; a better name, since the info. is being drawn from a single source, might be, "Usenet list of the top 425 books of all time." ◄Zahakiel► 19:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • delete this does not meet WP:WEB and so WP:N. Madmedea 20:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Surely the question is whether the subject of the article is notable. The article is about a list created on usenet. I'm not normally a fan of Google tests, but in this case it should be fairly revealing. "Greatest Books of All Time" + usenet reveals " 11 hits while "425 Greatest Books of All Time" weighs in at 5. I fully agree with the nominator in the above discussions. This list is not notable - in fact, the article as much as says so. Talk of the validity of reading lists in general is just a red herring. CiaranG 20:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • On Usenet, this was notable. In fact, I recall running across it often ten years ago. Yet as years passed, it vanished, except for a citation on IMDb and a website where someone kept it with other book lists. My motive in importing it to Wikipedia was to salvage and resurrect something that was a valuable Usenet document and keep it from being lost to history. Pepso 20:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • If the list has vanished, then the article is unverifiable. That the newsgroup participants who organized the project didn't ensure that it was properly recorded should be taken as a lesson for the future: Publish your work properly. Usenet samizdat is not enough. Wikipedia only takes subjects that have been properly documented and published, and even then its purpose is to contain encyclopaedia articles. Wikipedia is not a repository of source material. It is not the place to come in order to ensure that source material is preserved. Uncle G 01:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I find it interesting to note the areas on Wikipedia frequented by vandals. Often these indicate the vandals are high school students, incapable of landing on pages other than those they learned about from school assignments, such as Shirley Jackson and "The Lottery." I felt the 425 Greatest presented a pathway through a vast landscape of literature that might intimidate the vandals. Pepso 11:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Once we delete 425 Greatest, we will be left with a world of YouTubers like this one:
whts da point? u tryin to encourage us to read or or u just tryin to shof off da no of books u hab read? and ir u had da gud intention i m afraid we cant even c da pictures clesrly although u wrote da name of da books on da side
It was a response to a video in which someone showed their favorite books. Pepso 12:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that people like that are somewhat ignorant, but how is that in any way relevant to this AfD? Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 19:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Notability not established. Is it worth saving? Sure. Just not on Wikipedia. Get a website and post it there. MakeRocketGoNow 15:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Once this is deleted we will be left with Ninety-nine Novels and Great Books of the Western World. But what about Clifton Fadiman's Lifetime Reading Plan which is mentioned on Wikipedia but minus list. However, all three of these were sources for 425 Greatest as were others:
  • The Lifetime Reading Plan by Clifton Fadiman. (l)
  • Great Books of the Western World, Mortimer J. Adler, Editor. (g)
  • Great Books of the Twentieth Century, as proposed by Adler. (t)
  • "Books for the College-Bound Student," in Books and the Teen-aged Reader. (c)
  • The College and Adult Reading List of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). (e)
  • Books for You, the secondary-level reading list of the NCTE. (b)
  • "List for the College-Preparatory Student" in Reading in the Secondary School. (s)
  • "One Hundred Significant Books" from Good Reading (Committee on College Reading). (r) Pepso 19:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
That it was based on more notable lists doesn't make it notable in itself. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 19:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
While Walter Tevis was teaching English literature at Ohio University, he became aware that the level of literacy among students was dropping at an alarming rate. This observation gave him the idea for his science fiction novel Mockingbird. It's the story of a far future when mankind is dying and everyone is illiterate. The central figure of the novel is a man who has taught himself how to read. He contacts the dean of NYU and tells him that he has figured out what "reading" is and can teach others. They're not interested in hiring him. Pepso 13:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Pepso, you are welcome to create articles for the above notable reading lists. MakeRocketGoNow 15:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I did insert a link at 425 for the list of Clifton Fadiman's Lifetime Reading Plan. since that will vanish here, I better move it now to Clifton Fadiman's page. Pepso 16:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm left wondering: is copying the entire thing a copyvio? Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 17:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Student Leadership Conference

Canadian Student Leadership Conference (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable event, comes as part of a larger parent with no article. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 11:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete even with notable speakers, it still fails notability. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 15:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Jefferson Anderson 17:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to spinal disc herniation. No actual deletion seems necessary here; RFD would undoubtedly agree that this is a useful redirect, and the edit history needs to be maintained behind the redirect for GFDL compliance. There have been claims that this article should instead be a disambiguation page, but no sources have been provided to indicate there is anything to disambiguate between. Discussion regarding shortcomings in the target article or possible needs for disambiguation should be discussed at talk:Spinal disc herniation before reverting the redirect. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 03:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slipped disc

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

Article should have been deleted when a new article (Spinal disc herniation) was created to replace it. The creation was successful and included all relevant material from the Slipped disc article. Unfortunately it was not deleted, and was only replaced with a redirect. Please delete Slipped disc. Fyslee 11:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The material that was relevant about the slipped disc article was how the term was often applied and mis-applied. None of this has been incorporated into the new article. The term "slipped disc" is not even mentioned until quite late on in the article. --Rebroad 12:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment This is not a normal edit war, but an article that should have been deleted, but was only replaced with a redirect. The article should be deleted, and only a redirect left in place. -- Fyslee 12:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Please vote Redirect rather than keep. -- Fyslee 13:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Keep the redirect, not the article. -- Fyslee 12:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. AfD is not the place to solve an edit war. The term is a common one and very likely to be searched. The currently suggested merge and redirect is the correct solution. Nuttah68 12:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment it does not need deleting, it is a valid search term. Nuttah68 12:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment That's why a redirect is appropriate. The concept itself is very misleading, and therefore it doesnt' deserve an article. The new article explains the problem. -- Fyslee 12:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The new article didn't mention the term "slipped disc" which is the layman's term, not did it even mention that it was a medical condition, nor did it mention the spine!! The article for slipped disc is far more useful for the layman, who can then be directed (not automatically!) to the correct medical term. --Rebroad 12:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • "vandalism" (not my words) here - the page has been blanked twice now by Fyslee. Please could someone explain to him/her that this is not acceptable behaviour since the discussion over deletion is still ongoing. --Rebroad 12:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Vandalism is a very serious charge. You are not assuming good faith. You are the one who deleted the redirect, thereby activating an obsolete article that had inadvertently never been deleted as it should have been. I have only restored it to the condition in which you found it. I am assuming good faith by assuming you did not understand the long history of this article. -- Fyslee 12:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment The new article does mention slipped disc. -- Fyslee 12:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - "slipped disc" is the term most people are familiar with, and is an important disambiguation page pointing people to the correct terminology, and also the mis-uses of the term. --Rebroad 12:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment That's why a redirect is appropriate. The concept itself is very misleading, and therefore it doesn't deserve an article. The new article explains the problem. This one is not a disambiguation page. -- Fyslee 12:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It's because there exists the term "slipped disc" that it needs an article. If it is redirected to another article, you will still need to address the fact that the term exists, and that it is sometimes applied inappropriately. --Rebroad 12:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The fact is addressed in the new article! Please admit your claim above is incorrect. It is mentioned and explained in the new article. -- Fyslee 12:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
        • From the article:
          • Some of the terms commonly used to describe the condition include herniated disc, prolapsed disc, ruptured disc, and the misleading expression "slipped disc." Other terms that are closely related include disc protrusion, bulging disc, pinched nerve, sciatica, disc disease, disc degeneration, degenerative disc disease, and black disc.
          • The popular term "slipped disc" is quite misleading, as an intervertebral disc, being tightly sandwiched between two vertebrae, cannot actually "slip," "slide," or even get "out of place." The disc is actually grown together with the adjacent vertebrae and can be squeezed, stretched, and twisted, all in small degrees. It can also be torn, ripped, herniated, and degenerated, but it cannot "slip."
        • It is covered! -- Fyslee 12:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
          • I would only agree that a re-direct is appropriate if you can demonstrate that "slipped disc" is used to refer to only a herniated disc, and never some other sort of spinal problem. Based on the opening sentence of the slipped disc article, this does not appear to be the case. --Rebroad 12:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
            • I didn't notice this comment. If there are other uses of the term, then they can either be discussed in the new article -- Spinal disc herniation -- or a real disambiguation page can be used to replace this one. Whatever happens, the contents of this one have already been merged, and the problematic nature of the term "slipped disc" explained there. That would be the logical place to do it, but I'm open to discussing it. I have left several messages on talk page. Why aren't you discussing this there? -- Fyslee 13:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, "Slipped disc" is a very common term people refer the medical condition as. Yes redirect it to the other article by its correct name. AFD is not a place to solve edit wars, discuss such things on talk pages not AFDs. Terence Ong 12:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe a re-direct would be a bad idea, since the term "slipped disc" has been used on articles (and elsewhere on the internet) to refer to medical conditions other than the page to which the re-direct is being recommended. --Rebroad 12:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I believe a better place to discuss this might be Talk:Slipped_disc, since it appears the previous merge was done without a concensus being reached. --Rebroad 12:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT ABOUT CONFUSION Do not vote keep for the article, only for a redirect. The article should be deleted. This vote is not about the redirect, which of course should be the only thing left in place, so vote delete. -- Fyslee 12:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee, I think from past experience, that people tend to vote Keep, Delete, or re-direct based on which solution they think most appropriate. The fact that people are voting keep indicates to me that the article should remain as an article, rather than as a re-direct to a different article, which addresses a different subject. --Rebroad 12:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The new article was created by including all the content from this one, and adding much more new content. I (a Physical Therapist) and Dematt (a chiropractor) did most of the work, and other medical personnel, including MDs, helped. It has been well-accepted. The term slipped disc is a misleading expression for the subject of the new article. It does not describe a "different subject." -- Fyslee 12:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Fyslee, can you please explain why the article needs to be deleted and redirected rather than simply redirecting it? Also, you keep saying it "should have been deleted". Should have been according to who? Was there a previous AfD? I don't understand why the article can't be kept under a redirect, particularly if, as others above say, it includes additional information that might be useful in the future. Thanks, Sarah 13:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
That's basically what I'd like to see, except that User:Rebroad has removed the redirect that has been in place since August 30, 2006. A redirected article should not be edited. Normally it's deleted, ASAIK. -- Fyslee 13:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I've never seen that done. Normally, the article is just redirected; there really is no need to delete the history. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 13:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Fine with me. Just as long as the redirect is left in place, and the article isn't edited. This article hadn't been edited since August 30, 2006, since all the editors back then -- PT, DC, MD -- all agreed a new one would be better. The new article is much better, and a well-accepted improvement here. Articles that are turned into redirects should not be edited or revived, or even linked to directly. A way to use the term, if one has no qualms about perpetuating the use of a misleading term, is to do this:
The term has a long history of misuse, and forms the basis of a billion dollar industry. -- Fyslee 14:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
In that case, Fyslee, I suggest we simply redirect the page and keep the old article in the history. If Rebroad feels there is material in the old article that needs to be merged into the new one, he is welcome to do so. I think everyone but Rebroad has qualified their "keeps" as redirects so there seem to be consensus here to redirect. If the other party refuses to accept that, we can look at protecting the redirect. But unless there's a particular reason to delete, I think redirecting should be sufficient. Sarah 14:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Re-direct per Fyslee - These are synonymous terms. There's nothing wrong with Reload adding information to the Spinal disc herniation page to clarify information for the layperson if that is the what is needed. Comment - I was one of the ones involved in the original decision to merge Slipped disc and Disc herniation, similar to Upset stomach being redirected to Indigestion. At the time, everyone was happy with the merge. --Dematt 14:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment that is not the best example as in that case I'd say the redirect from Upset stomach to Indigestion is wrong and very unhelpful. An upset stomach covers a number of conditions of which indigestion is only one.Nuttah68 15:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - definitely agree. Thanks Nuttah68, that was the first example I found. Hopefully you got the idea that the "lay" term is redirected to a "medical" term. --Dematt 15:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy with that as long as someone answers the question that seems to be at the heart of this. Can you confirm that the term slipped disc is used only to mean Disc herniation? If it is then the redirect is fine However, if slipped disc can refer to more than one condition a simple redirect will be no more helpful than the current upset stomach article. In this case we need an article at slipped disc explaining how it can refer to more than one condition and linking to the appropriate articles. Nuttah68 15:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
That is a very good point and deserves consideration. I would expound by asking if someone can come up with another condition that cannot be covered in the Spinal disc herniation, then I would agree. --Dematt 16:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem at the moment is that not many people will have heard of terms other than "slipped disk", and therefore a) won't search for the other terms, and b) won't understand what other articles mean unless they use this term. I think it was going OTT to change all articles referring to slipped disk to a term that no one would be familiar with. The best way to educate people as to what a slipped disk is is to continue using this terminology but to explain what it means and also what it doesn't mean. Uses of words change over time. For example, "gay" no longer means what it used to. It should not be up to the medical profession alone to decide the future of the meaning of "slipped disk" especially if it is a term the medical profession themselves chose NOT to use. --Rebroad 15:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Rebroad, maybe you misunderstand. That is the reason for a re-direct; so that if someone searches for Slipped disc it will go to the article that covers what they are really looking for. The medical profession stopped using the term because it misled people and anything that would be in an article with that name would be lay language and unhelpful - all they would be doing is repeating that it is misleading and link them to Spinal disc herniation. They don't need to know what the other words mean. The article that they are re-directed to explains that well, I think. But you are welcome to improve it if you think it needs it. --Dematt 16:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect and protect. (Also change all links which were recently edited to point to Slipped disc to point back to the original target, but that would have to be done on an article-by-article basis.) All information from the August redirect was included in the target article, and it should redirect. Any "new" information should be in the target article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect and protect per Arthur Rubin, with note on talk page as to why redirect is proteced. The merge already ocurred; links pointed to the new, accurate article. There was no reason to return the old "Slipped disc" article and change the redirects, as that article has been superceded with one under the accurate term. As far as "other meanings" given in the intro to "Slipped disc", the only ones I see which do not mean Herniated disc are pinched nerve, sciatica and degenerative disc disease - which are not cited, and not even in the See also of the article, so that seems to be very bad editing rather than a valid concern. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect then all searchers for "slipped disc" will get to the right place, and that article can be made excellent. Actually, I'd collapse it even further, putting disc protrusion and herniation into one article. Rewriting as a fork was/would be a retrograde step. Midgley 21:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per nomOo7565 22:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect and protect reading Arthur and KillerChihuahua's explanation makes this sound a no brainer. I think a delete is to be avoided since slipped disc is common terminology. The presense of a redirect has an educational component, in that the correct term is then discovered rather than it appearing there is no article on the subject. David D. (Talk) 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. There does seem to be a lot of confusion here. I do not support there being two articles, Spinal disc herniation and Slipped disc. Anything in the latter that has not already been added to the former should be merged into the former. The article should then be made a redirect with its history intact. I think protecting it might well be a good idea if "merge and redirect" is the final conclusion to seal that conclusion in place. --Bduke 01:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the correct medical term Shot info 10:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect It should be restored to its condition before this debacle was started by the removal of the long-standing redirect. -- Fyslee 13:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • redirect per all. Protect it if there is any inclination towards slippage. Bucketsofg 18:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. It was nominated only because it did slip, and Rebroad has not indicated that he would abide by the concensus stated here, as he has not abided by the concensus established in August. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect IFF the old article contains factually inaccurate material that could spell trouble. Simple redirect otherwise. We don't protect unless reversion becomes disruptive (3RR) or ignores prior consensus. ~ trialsanderrors 22:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge any relevant information, redirect after merge and protect the redirect. The term slipped disc is useful, but the article needs to redirect to the correct one, otherwise the two together form a POV fork. WHy is this not a simple procedural matter instaed of an AfD? Fiddle Faddle 00:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, redirect, protect per above. I see no useful information on this page that could not be covered by the pages it wikilinks to, and I have no idea why people are pushing POV over something this trivial. - Chardish 08:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment -- This article's contents have already been merged with the contents of Lumbar disc herniation, to create a third article that replaced them both. They are listed at the top here. There was consensus then (August 2006), and the new article has been well received. All that needs to be done now is to restore the long-standing redirect and protect it. The problematic nature of the term slipped disc is covered in the new article - Spinal disc herniation. -- Fyslee 11:03, 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 Redirected to Slipknot (album). Article's context already exists at merged target; no references were provided to assert independant notability. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 03:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 742617000027 (Slipknot song)

742617000027 (Slipknot song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

We cannot possibly have an article for every song in existance. It is not feasible. There are some attempts made to establish notability, but their really rather frivolous. If I tried hard, I could do the same for almost any song. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 12:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not every song is notable. Terence Ong 12:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. The article seems to claim that it is merely a link and isn't a proper track in its own right and despite the very low threshold for music around here, this is particularly non-notable. MLA 13:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into album, and Redirect nothing makes this individual song notable. SkierRMH 17:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I don't think keeping this page will somehow require that we "have an article for every song in existance" (sic). Slipknot is a very popular band and this track opened an album that was a huge seller. As the article itself states, "The song was, to most, the introduction to Slipknot when they first bought or listened to the self titled album." It should also be noted that most bands are careful to put a strong track to open an album. So the album's popularity establishes the notability of the song. And I would just note that no one in this AFD has made a case for the non-notability of the song, preferring to rely on assertions. Allon Fambrizzi 23:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
  • Delete the article really does not have sources or an explanation of how this particular song is notable, nor does it indicate that this song was released as a single.-- danntm T C 02:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Why does it matter whether the song was released as a single? Many notable songs were never released as singles. Also, I pointed out specifically in my comment an assertion of notability, namely as the first song in the first popular album of a popular group. Allon Fambrizzi 04:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
      • So haow about we have an article for the every lead song in, say, Category:American albums or Category:Brittish albums. Even if we say that only %50 of them are important enough, that's still far too many. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
        • See straw man. Not every group is as popular as Slipknot. Allon Fambrizzi 16:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
          • I allowed for aprox %50 not being important enough. If an album is important enought to have an article then so should the lead song be, says you're argument. Trimming it down by %50 or thereabouts is a move that would likly be opposed/ignored/argued over by some, but assuming it was practicle, then it would still leave far too many. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 17:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Slipknot (album). Nothing wrong with listing this kind of information on the album page. --Pak21 10:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Slipknot (album). Being the first track in the first popular album of a popular group does not make it notable. Pomte 02:12, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Study

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

Non-notable television program, has few links to it. Candy-Panda 12:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable unless WP:N is met. I expect this unlikely, but if someone starts making a solid case for notability, contact me on my talk page so I can consider that information. — coelacan talk — 06:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Vassyana 12:39, 1 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 17:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saturday Night Alive

Saturday Night Alive (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism, has no sources or references, has no links to the page other than a disambiguation page and a user-talk page. Candy-Panda 12:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as an unsourced neologism. Squirepants101 17:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a probably locally used neologism, non-sourced... SkierRMH 17:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two Ways To Live

Two Ways To Live (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable, few pages link to it. Candy-Panda 12:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Not sure what the number of articles linking to it has to do with anything, but regardless of that, it doesn't look to me like it's a notable work. Would reconsider with some proper references though. CiaranG 13:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete — per nom. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 03:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Thomas Jefferson Shadden"

"Thomas Jefferson Shadden" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

It seems to be a work of fiction, has no references and is written in an entirely unencyclopedic manner. Localzuk(talk) 13:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. It appears to me to be a cut-and-paste from a contemporary biographical note. I still don't see anything there to indicate notability, even if rewritten in encyclopedic style. -- Bpmullins | Talk 15:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of notibility. No sources. No attempt to meet WP:V or WP:BIO. Since this may be a genuine historical person, open to reconsideration if sources and evidence of notibility are produced. --Shirahadasha 15:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not claimed. Seems to be copyvio, but not off the web. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 20:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There's a web version of it here. Ohconfucius 06:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - it's not a copyvio since the presumed source is out of copyright. -- Bpmullins | Talk
  • Delete most likly copied from whatever source is stated at the top. Agree with the above points. SGGH 19:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete — per everyone else. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 03:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete even if it's out of copyright, I still think it's bad form to copy and paste from another source. Ohconfucius 06:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 House of Shammai Johntex\talk 20:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shammaite

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

Apparent WP:HOAX. Article purports to describe a modern group described in the present tense with links to articles on 20th century events with only "source" a general quote from the New Testament that appears to require interpretation (from another source) to justify a claim that it applies to any particular group. Shirahadasha 13:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. --Shirahadasha 03:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the article is trying to describe the historical sect, but the tense makes that unclear to say the least. I think the article is salvageable if rewritten. Abstain for now. -- Bpmullins | Talk 15:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia already has a House of Shammai article on the historical group. WP:POVFORK prohibits separate articles with a distinctive POV perspective and, if this article is attempting to describe the historical group, this guideline represents an alternative ground for deletion. Any reliably sourced material could be merged into an appropriate section in House of Shammai (e.g. a Christian perspective section). However, in addition to WP:V, notability needs to be established, it needs to be shown how widespread this view is within Christian circles. --Shirahadasha 15:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, but will change if it's independently and reliably sourced. Google searches (once you wade past the mirrors) are inconclusive; there are references to this in forums, but I can't find anything definitive to explain what it is. Probably not a hoax, but at the very least it's unverified and possibly unverifiable. Trebor 15:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's 65 hits on Google Scholar regarding this term. Just seems like a poorly-written article whose content can be addressed more clearly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I am a college-educated Jew (and I assume the nominator is also), so I feel it's okay for me to say that I've never heard of Shammaites, and I am not convinced that they exist, except in the imaginative minds of some Christians. The article is completely unsourced and must be deleted. YechielMan 21:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • comment probably shld be redirected to House of Shammai it's just a rarely used synonym, is distinct from historical 'zealotry'. any, sourced, info about zionist terrorists drawing inspiration from him (which sounds a bit fanciful) can be put in relevant articles. pretty sure neither hillel nor shammai are ever mentioned in christian scripture, so that's irrelevant.  ⇒ bsnowball  07:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to House of Shammai. (And should that article be moved to School of Shammai?) A quick skim of the Google Scholar result list that Erik found for us shows that it is being used as another term for the school/house. Such use is in both Jewish and Christian centered publications (for example, at least six articles in The Jewish Quarterly Review, back to at least 1926). As Gamaliel the elder, Hillel's grandson, is of the School of Hillel (see the Jewish encyclopedia link in our article), and is Paul's teacher, it is not only original research, but also false to attribute what Paul wrote to this school. So no merge should occur. GRBerry 18:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to House of Shammai, IZAK 12:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect per GRBerry. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 04:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to House of Shammai -- and yes, "house" is more correct than "school." (Bet Shammai). --Pastordavid 23:19, 1 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. Reading through the myriad of opinions here it is pretty clear that there is no consensus to delete at this time and no clear consensus to keep the article in it's current form either. Suggest continuing discussion on the article talk page.--Isotope23 18:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diarmuid O'Neill

  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}}
Diarmuid O'Neill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable IRA terrorist. Seems to be written to make a POV attack on the British Police Astrotrain 13:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. O'Neill became notable only in death, because of the dispute over whether the police acted correctly in firing at him; a major campaign was organised by his friends to try to get official acknowledgment that the police acted wrongly. The case has been taken up by Amnesty International. Sam Blacketer 13:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think terrorists are fairly notable in any case and this one is a particular case. Could definitely do with a cleanup and probably a more thorough de-poving. MLA 13:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment- the way things are going, Wikipeida is turning into some sort of IRA memorial site. Although some terrorists are notable, most of them are not- this man didn't even seem to have committed an attrocity that would have made him notable. Astrotrain 13:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • CommentThat comment actually disgusted me and really give me an incite into your vantage point with regards this type of topic. Do you think the only way a republicans can attain notability is by committing an "atrocity"?? This guy was pulled out of his bed and killed, so who is it that commits the atrocities. My advice would be to try and avoid POV and stick to fact in these types of issue. I have had to learn that lesson the hard way. regards--Vintagekits 21:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment I have sympathy for Astrotrain's position here and I can see the logic in that Astrotrain does not feel that this person was notable as a terrorist and as wikipedia is not a memorial, merely dying does not constitute notability. My position is that the death itself is notable, and I have a low threshold for the notability of terrorists. Though the language might not be sufficiently neutral, I don't think it is right to assume other than good faith. MLA 11:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think this could be alright if rewritten in NPOV. Seems to be notable; he is the subject of multiple independent reliable sources. Trebor 15:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - references show broad news coverage. Definitely notable; one doesn't have to commit a "major atrocity" to be included on Wikipedia. Walton monarchist89 18:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - noticeable individual with several news articles about him --Barrytalk 19:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as above.--Vintagekits 21:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • comment sorta maybe leaning towards keep, but really, it needs to say something more than x was an IRA volunteer killed by the British Police. I would also STRONGLY suggest we use the term "IRA member" rather than either of the terms terrorist or volunteer as both of them seem to be POV to me. Jcuk 22:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above.GiollaUidir 12:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. I'm beginning to think that User:Astrotrain's POV is so strong as to render pretty much any AfD by him as a bad-faith nomination. Argyriou (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Please vote only on the article in question- not the nominator. There is no bad faith on my part- I agree for articles to be included for notable terrorists - and have only nominated articles that clearly cannot go anywhere. Other than being shot, what else has this person done to meet the critera in WP:BIO? Astrotrain 22:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • When the nominator has a pattern of making nominations justified by his political feelings in the case, it is appropriate to regard further nominations as being against Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and thus, being in bad faith. If you'd show some selectivity about the articles you nominated, or hadn't expressed your opinions in the ways you have, I'd think that your blanket nominations of articles on IRA members was just an excess of deletionist zeal, especially since at least some of your nominations appear to be reasonable. But it's pretty clear that your nominations are based on anti-IRA animus, not on the merits of the case. I get the impression you'd AfD Gerry Adams if you thought it wouldn't get you laughed out of Wikipedia.
  • Delete: seemed to do nothing notable in his lifetime and was not a senior member in the IRA &c. If we allow all terrorists killed to have Wiki. articles why don't we give the an article to all the victims of terrorism?--Couter-revolutionary 22:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nom - Kittybrewster 22:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Soltak | Talk 22:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment, Additonally the "delete" votes immediately follow Astrotrain undergoing a campaign in canvassing!!!--Vintagekits 23:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be more aptly described as raising awareness.--Couter-revolutionary 23:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Raising awareness by leaving a biased messege to those he knew would vote "delete" is canvassing.--Vintagekits 23:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep. Questions in parliament and Amnesty's interest in the case amount to notability in my book. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Anyone who's turned up and said "Delete - nn" or "Delete per nom" (which is the same thing as the nom was "nn"), needs to show how it fails to meet the notability guidelines. Just saying "delete - nn" or "delete per nom" is worthless if you fail to explain why. Trebor 07:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
When they say delete per nom they are saying that it should be deleted per the nomination that this article seems to be written as a PoV attack on the British police. I agree to a certain extent but think it more important to realise he didn't accomplish anything of note. You say it is important as it raises questions of whether the police should've killed him...Surely all the victims of terrorsim deserve individual articles if this is allowed - there are certainly questions over their deaths! This deserves a few lines in another article, it doesn't need an article for itself.--Couter-revolutionary 10:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
And something being written in a PoV manner is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to clean-up. Which means they're arguing delete as not notable, yet no reference has been made to the notability guidelines. Their argument, therefore, is essentially baseless. Trebor 15:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it is Wikipedia's intention to carry a biography of every dedicated murderer of innocent civilians who ever existed. David Lauder 11:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment, Again the above "delete" vote immediately follow Kittybrewster undergoing a campaign amongest those who primarily edit on British Royal Family related pages. Is something going to be done about about the canvassing from Kittybrewster and Astrotrain - is this going to go unpunished?--Vintagekits 11:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I have yet edited an immediate member of the Royal Family. I may be wrong. But in any case I was not asked to vote in any particular manner. Surely every Wikipedia editor has the fundamental right to vote on deletions? David Lauder 11:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Why dont we let others judge by looking at you history of contributions--Vintagekits 11:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a dedicated monarchist to me!GiollaUidir 11:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
And if we look at your histories: [60] and [61], you both look like dedicated republicans, in fact Vintagekits states that he is!--Couter-revolutionary 12:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Correction: users dedicated to ensuring that there are accurate articles about republican subjects. Precisley in situations like this. GiollaUidir 12:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am a republican, I dont see I should hide that, the largest parties in Ireland, north and south of the border are republican parties, its hardly uncommon! However, the issue here is canvassing, we were not canvassed therefore our history is not in question, the question is why did Kittybrewster canvas you and other and therefore we should look at your history. Action should be taken against Kittybrewster and Astrotrain for their canvassing!--Vintagekits 12:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Kittbrewster did not canvass me. I found this page and contributed as he clearly is not notable enough for a Wiki. entry, the article tells us nothing about what he did except that he was shot. Was he an Olympic medalist, author, politician &c. who was shot? If not he is not notable! If this article is allowed it sets a dangerous precedent. Why not articles on each individual victim of the Omagh bombing? You are clearly in possession of a PoV that doesn't allow you to judge this article objectively.--Couter-revolutionary 12:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
By the same logic then we should delete the Jean Charles de Menezes one. Or indeed ones such as Princess Beatrice of York or Princess Marie Louise. These obscure members of the monarchy contributed nothing to society. JCdM done nothing except get executed rather publicly by the police. Your own POV is getting in the way of assesing this article. GiollaUidir 12:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Members of Royal Houses invariably appear in encyclopaedias because of their status. One of the problems with some of the posters on this page is that they clearly have never read an encyclopaedia. David Lauder 08:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Agree with the comments posted variously above: (1) that Wikipedia is in danger of becoming an IRA memorial site; and, (2) that the subject of this article merits a couple of sentences in an associated article rather than a dedicated page.--Major Bonkers 12:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment, Again the above "delete" vote immediately follows a messege left by Kittybrewster, still not action taken to stop this abuse! why?--Vintagekits 12:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I am quite capable of thinking for myself and you should note that Kittybrewster merely drew my attention to this issue and nothing more. What 'abuse' is this, other than someone disagreeing with you? If you bothered to check Kittybrewster's discussion page you will see that I have previously communicated with him on removing some of the more egregious POV comments on the Bobby Sands article. Why don't you address the points that I make instead of shouting 'conspiracy' and calling for contributors to be 'punished'?--Major Bonkers 12:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Really, maybe you need to familiarise yourself with WP:CANVAS--Vintagekits 13:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:What is a troll. I notice that you still haven't yet answered the points that I originally made.--Major Bonkers 13:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Please try and keep this discussion civil, I have attempted to stick to the facts, there is no need for an outburst like that, please remember WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA - also the issue at hand here is WP:CANVAS, thank you--Vintagekits 14:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The issue at hand here is my support for deletion of this article, and the two points that I raised. Your issues are completely separate.--Major Bonkers 15:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the points you raised. Point 1 is a non-issue; nobody really thinks Wikipedia is in danger of becoming an IRA memorial site. It's not even close to being a reason for deletion. Point 2 is also not a reason. It says "delete" because "the article doesn't merit a dedicated page". That basically says "delete" because "it should be deleted". We have policies and guidelines to help, so try arguing from them. Trebor 15:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Point 1: There seem to be a large number of articles, of doubtful worth, about IRA militants on Wikipedia, and Astrotrain has made a start by nominating some of the more worthless ones for deletion. Kittybrewster and I previously cleaned up the Bobby Sands article, which was so POV at that time as to be simply propaganda. As I say above, I have no problem with a general article about minor IRA personalities but I find it suspicious and disturbing to have a series of individual articles, padded as they are with references to POV sources and a strong bias of republicanism and/ or anglophobia. It seems to me that certain contributors are making it their job to list every IRA personality that they can. Point 2: As Douglas Bader had it, 'Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools'. The Wikipedia policies and guidelines are sufficiently broad so as not to compromise users' common sense and do not, in any case, help either side in this debate. You also misrepresent my argument: I do not say, '"delete" because "it should be deleted" ', I say delete because the subject is comparatively trivial and being used to advance agendas, not knowledge.--Major Bonkers 16:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent) How is it suspicious and disturbing? And what relevance does certain contributors' actions have to this debate? The policies and guidelines are not completely binding, granted, but they are established through general consensus and can't be ignored on a whim. This decision is clearly not "common sense" as there is plenty of disagreement.
Added to that, you still haven't constructed an argument. "Being used to advance agendas, not knowledge" is not a reason for deletion as far as I can see. I'm not even sure what's meant by it. Saying it's "comparatively trivial" is also meaningless as you're not comparing it to anything; it's like saying it's "too trivial for an article", which is again essentially saying "delete because it should be delete". When I analyse your argument, I'm still not finding anything that holds up. Trebor 17:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I have the feeling, Trebor, that we are simply not going to agree on this issue and that further discourse on the subject is pointless. However, to answer your questions: (1) I find it 'suspicious and disturbing' that what is being promoted as an objective source of information is actually tendentious; (2) particularly so because this article is one of a series; (3) that if someone wishes to construct an online shrine to IRA militants, that is their perogative, but it is not something for Wikipedia, no matter how artfully disguised. (4) I used the phrase 'comparatively trivial' carefully, because life is sacred and obviously his death caused pain to those who loved him. However, frankly and from an historical perspective, the sole interesting feature of this individual is his accidental shooting by the Police and that could be dealt with on a page dealing with that subject rather than giving this individual a page of his own.--Major Bonkers 22:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting the same feeling, and so will let the discussion run its course from here. Trebor 22:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, the farce continues, the canvassed, canvasser--Vintagekits 12:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment, I have officially reported the matter here if you would like to comment.--Vintagekits 14:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep With news coverage that broad it sure seems like a notable enough event to make him notable by extension. No one's saying this needs to become an "IRA memorial" but this person definitely seems to be more noteworthy than the average IRA member.--Dycedarg ж 14:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia should not glorify murdering terrorists. Chelsea Tory 14:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - If we allow this article then it is against PoV not to have one for every innocent victim of the troubles in Northern Ireland. I don't think there is any need for it but if we allow this for a terrorist who did nothing of note, at all, in his lifetime then why not for terrorist victims?--Couter-revolutionary 15:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Um, Wikipedia's not censored. That's a non-argument. Trebor 15:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
See Mohamed Atta. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Article does not seem to be especially relevent or informative or to add anything Matthewafallen 15:22, 30 -- comment actually placed by User:192.76.26.101
Relevant to what? Add anything to what? Again, these aren't arguments for deletion. Trebor 15:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I often find myself arguing that WP:ILIKEIT is not an appropriate keep criteria, but here, I find myself arguing that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. I don't think anyone would seriously dispute, for example, that Amadou Diallo is notable and suitable for an article. There is plenty of nontrivial secondary source coverage here, and any NPOV problems should be addressed with the good old WP:SOFIXIT. Seraphimblade 15:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep He's clearly notable, for his death as much as his life. Arguing that keeping the article glorifies him is attractive, but the same argument applies equally to every evil person of notability, from Hitler and Stalin downward. It's a fallacy. --Dweller 15:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
What on earth did he do in life that was notable? Hitler and Stalin lead nations! This chap did nothing except get shot, or so the article suggests!--Couter-revolutionary 16:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment You may well be correct, but it doesn't matter if you are or not. Just as we write from sources, not our own personal knowledge, so we choose our subjects based on what there is enough source material to create a decent article on, not whether we personally think the person deserves to be written about. Sometimes, the media does have a bias toward writing about the sensational and bad. If you wish to try and correct that, you can certainly write letters to editors, start a citizen's group, or use any number of other means. But this is not the place to correct anything-either the sources exist, or they don't. In this case, they do. Seraphimblade 16:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
My point is not that he was bad! My point is that he is totally unnotable! I would also oppose articles for all the victims of the troubles! Can you imagine every victim of the Omagh bombing, for instance, having an article - they got press coverage too!--Couter-revolutionary 16:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I refer you to this article about a non-notable electrician. Try taking that to AfD and watch the "speedy keeps" fly. Someone can be notable for the manner of their death even if their life is utterly without merit. Indeed, some people can become notable as soon as they draw their first breath. --Dweller 16:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: if kept, the article should be rewritten with attention to WP:NPOV. The subject is only notable for the circumstances of his death, and those are very poorly sourced at the moment. —xyzzyn 16:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment::I am not sure if that is entirely true, it is highly unusual to have a guy that was born and bred in England join the PIRA. I will do some work on filling the article out tonight.--Vintagekits 16:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment- is there any reliable evidence he was even in the IRA? The only reliable sources in the article are the Telegraph which just name him as an IRA suspect. I seem to remember an article being blanked recently due to your unsubstantiated claims about murder and terrorism for a living person. Astrotrain 16:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The Irish Republican source cited in the article ([62]) seems to confirm that he was "a volunteer". --Dweller 16:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't consider that to be a reliable source. Astrotrain 20:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Why? Trebor 16:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Article contains links to this article and this one which clearly satisfy the central criterion in WP:BIO. Amnesty Int'l campaign further confirms notability. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't be speedily kept; it doesn't match anything in the guideline. Let it run the full course. Trebor 17:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep appears to be notable, given the attention in multiple news sources and Amnesty International. Mairi 18:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Amnesty Intl. follow the cases of thousands of prisoners, this doesn't make them notable and it doesn't make this chap notable.--Couter-revolutionary 18:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thousands of people is a pretty select group out of a historic world population of over 10,000,000,000. That's fewer than the number of local politicians listed on Wikipedia. Argyriou (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Well then, why don't you start a category for "people supported by Amnesty International" and write about each of them. This is all an absolute farce, I just wish someone would put a stop to the blatant PoV in creating memorial pages for terrorists, especially when they didn't do anything important except go to Catholic comp. in London that Tony Blair's son went to.--Couter-revolutionary 19:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
He's notable because of the news coverage. The notability guidelines do not specify whether or not the person is allowed to be a terrorist, or what the basis for their news coverage must be. If you think the article is POV pushing than fix it.--Dycedarg ж 19:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not bothered about it because he is a terrorist! I am bothered about it because he JUST DID NOT DO ANYTHING! Where is the guideline specifying the amount of press coverage making one notable????!!! Lots of people are shot dead. The news will report it. They do not have articles, why does he!--Couter-revolutionary 19:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
You ask for the guideline, and I provide. WP:BIO states "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." No mention of whether he had to have done anything to generate said works, only that he must have done so. Explain how he fails to meet that criteria.--Dycedarg ж 19:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
In fact to get more specific:"Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated." is mentioned specifically as a usable criteria for inclusion.--Dycedarg ж 19:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm afraid assassination is what is known as a "loaded term" and should be avoided on Wikipedia (I'm being very ironic), besides he wasn't assassinated because he wasn't famous, he was a nobody, which is my point.--Couter-revolutionary 19:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I never said he was assassinated. He was involved in a newsworthy event, which is something the guidelines specifically state is grounds for notability. Assassination is just the example they used. If the event he was involved in weren't newsworthy, than there wouldn't be as many newspaper articles to link to as there are.--Dycedarg ж 19:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Well then, perhaps there should be an article on the event, as opposed to a shrine to the person, such as the Omagh bombing.--Couter-revolutionary 19:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
If he "didnt do anything" why was he shot? Should we delete articles of Harry Stanley, Jean Charles de Menezes, Abner Louima or Sean Bell?--Vintagekits 19:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
All very left-wing anti-police articles which deserve, possibly, a place in, say, the News of The World, but not in an encylopaedia. David Lauder 19:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The subject of the articles don't deserve a place, or the manner in which they are written? The former surely isn't true, and the latter is not a reason for deletion. Trebor 19:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Here are some more references listed by Amnesty International regarding the shooting of Diarmuid O'Neill that you might be interested in if you want ot know more.
  • (1) This refers to the Canary Wharf bombing of 9 February 1996. The bombing resulted in a number of casualties and two deaths at the scene.
  • (2) Tracey Davanna: “Why Was Diarmuid O’Neill Killed ?” in Fortnight, November 1999, p. 12
  • (3) Patrick Kelly, Brian McHugh and two others were charged with and tried for conspiring to cause explosions and with possessing explosives. It was during this trial that the officers involved in the raid were questioned about the incident in the hotel.
  • (5) The post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr Iain Eric West at Guy’s Hospital, London. The quotes are taken from his report which was written on 25 September 1996.
  • (6) Although the latter of these quotations appears in the police`s official transcript of the recording of the incident, the first one caused some controversy during the trial mentioned in footnote 3. According to the police transcript the words said are an order to shut up (“Shut the fuck up!”). Brian McHugh, however, claimed that the words in question were a command to kill (“Shoot the fucker!”).
  • (7) This quote is taken from the report of the PCA, handed over to the CPS on 11 April 1999.
  • (9) After Paul Philippou of the Justice for Diarmuid O’Neill Campaign had met the PCA to discuss the report, he summarized their argument to delay the interview with ‘Kilo’ as follows: ”They [the PCA] said it was standard procedure to talk to all the other officers first and then to question him [Officer ‘Kilo’]. That sounds very reasonable but only if the time period is quite short—not if it is two years.” [Tracey Davanna: “Why Was Diarmuid O’Neill Killed ?” in Fortnight, November 1999, p. 13]
  • (10) Tracey Davanna: “Why Was Diarmuid O’Neill Killed ?” in Fortnight, November 1999, p. 12
  • (11) “Minister Rejects Inquiry Pleas” in The Irish Democrat, December 1999 / January 2000
  • (12) Amnesty International has already expressed its concerns in earlier publications: Amnesty International, News Service 170/96, 26 September 1996: “United Kingdom: Killing of Diarmuid O’Neill Raises Serious Questions”, AI Index: EUR 45/12/96; and Amnesty International, 30 September 1996: “United Kingdom: Killing of Diarmuid O’Neill”, AI Index: EUR 45/14/96. --Vintagekits 19:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep please this article is very good and has many sources so what if the person becomes notable after death it does not matter yuckfoo 20:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
There may be lots of sources but the article is rubbish! It doesn't tell us anything other than he was a terrorist who's been shot. He wasn't a senior leader in the terrorists or anything! He was just a nobody, it doesn't matter whether he was good or bad he's just not notable. The list of sources is basically longer than the article which seems absurd to me. This needs mentioned as an aside somewhere else, not in an article of its own!--Couter-revolutionary 20:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
your arguments are for merging not for deletion anyways so it is irrelevent yuckfoo 20:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Where do you suggest this information is kept? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep scum who I'm sure burns in hell with all those other murdering bastards but sadly notable and should be kept. --Fredrick day 20:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this sack of shit was all over the media for his murders. Media coverage entitles him to inclusion per WP:BIO.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notability under WP:BIO is obvious and indisputable. —ptk✰fgs 23:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets WP:BIO, a bounty of references (that could be cleaned up by the way,) Wikipedia isn't censored, etc. Grandmasterka 06:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Generally, as soon as you appear in one newspaper the others all follow suit. Countless nonentities appear in newspapers all the time. By using the arguments put forward her this terrorist gets his page on Wikipedia not because he was notable - he was not - but because he appeared in the newspaper. Its quite pathetic. It is not a question of censorship, just whether or not this complete nobody, who never did anything in life other than join an organisation dedicated to furthing its aims by murdering innocent people and violence, should have an entry in an encyclopedia. I don't believe he should. No credit in any way should be awarded to him. David Lauder 08:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Um, appearing in multiple newspaper articles confers notability, according to the definition we use; we aren't judging his "importance" or "significance". And the second half is irrelevant - it makes no difference what his organisation does, or about awarding "credit" to him. That's not how we decide these things. Trebor 11:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Apparently not. Lt Cmdr Neil Rutherford, DSC & Bar, RN was deleted in spite of appearing in several newspaper articles. - Kittybrewster 11:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
As were the Oxford Monarchists, who had appeared in Hansard no less!--Couter-revolutionary 12:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Referring to David Lauder's comments and !vote earlier, that's the most blatant example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT I've seen on Wikipedia. Your moral outrage isn't a criterion for deletion. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
This article was not flagged for deletion. I merely joined int he discussion and gave my reasons for voting for a delete. If your mother, sister, or child got blown to smithereens by these evil people maybe you'd have a bit of "moral outrage". David Lauder 16:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I read the following on the internet just now:
  • "Hardworking people have become alienated with politics because they don't have the time or inclination to struggle with its complexities. When they do try to put their view across, rational, well argued points are fobbed off with nonsense - spin, platitudes and stonewalling. So they give up, believing the world to have gone mad. Their silence clears the way for a small number of extremists to dominate policy making with their own agendas."
  • Does this sound familiar?! It sure does to me.
  • This comes from a guy who is speaking against the proposed new system of road-pricing in the UK, Nigel Humphries of the Association of British Drivers (ABD). This is NOT an endorsement of his views!!! (although...)
  • It's everywhere, this rubbish! We need a new order of politics that cuts through the bo**ocks. - Kittybrewster 12:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What has this to do wit hthe debate? Were any of them terrorists?--Vintagekits 12:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Is that some sort of justification for carrying more of them? David Lauder 16:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Your argument is becoming very repetitive, becoming very repetitive - who is the terrorist? how many civilians did he kill? - on the other hand he was dragged out of his bed and shot while providing no resistance by "the good guys" - remind me again who the terrorist's are? As pointed out, you may not agree with what he stood for, you may not like what he stood for but that is not the issue at hand here, notability is! We will have no whitewash on wiki no matter how much you canvass--Vintagekits 16:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, this is getting kind of old. The guy's case has been taken up for review by Amnesty International, he's the subject of multiple independent reliable sources, and the question of notability is an easy one. Please don't confuse recognition of notability with the support of a cause. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and we don't change the notability requirement for people whom we merely believe to be evil. —ptk✰fgs 17:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed.--Vintagekits 17:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keeep- an important individual in the struggle Our Day Will Come 19:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC) — Our Day Will Come (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I've blocked the above account as an obvious sockpuppet (user's first-ever edit was here, followed by a number of "rv vandalism" and "rv POV vandal edits" edit summaries). | Mr. Darcy talk 19:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • ...and I've taken the liberty of striking that editor's !vote because yeah, this is a pretty obvious puppet... I was just looking into this when I saw you already blocked 'em.--Isotope23 19:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. He looks like he has edits on pages that I am involved with - however, just incase accusations come flying my way I would just like to say that he is nothing to do with me - I would be happy for a user check or IP check to be undertaken to prove it also. Also it is interesting that he was nailed as being a sock, any proof of that? I kinda like his edits and want him to stick around, lol! Also on the issue of striking his vote, shouldnt the vote of the canvassers be struck out also?--Vintagekits 19:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Without any proof of sockpuppetry I see no justification for striking the user's vote. Esp by a user involved in this dispute. I've restored it until such time as someone can prove that the user is a sockpuppet. RE: newness of the account. User could well be a long-term editor of wikipedia but only recently registered. Newness is no reason to dismiss a vote in the absence of sockpuppet evidence etc.GiollaUidir 20:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators: For example, administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article. So yes, newness is, in fact, a reason to dismiss a !vote. Now, all that said, the user in question has been indef-blocked for obvious sockpuppetry, so his/her !vote may be disregarded on that basis as well. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, at least for now. This was recent enough and well covered enough that it just about fits the criteria. My suspicion is that in years to come this article will eventually be deleted as non-notable but at the moment there is enough secondary information to support keeping it.--Jackyd101 04:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per all above. It is highly recommended that if you cannot keep a neutral point of view that you refrain from editing articles related to that bias. - Chardish 08:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No sign of being the subject of anything other than routine contemporary press reporting. Not a book or journal cited in the article, and the press reporting ends almost at once as evidenced by the feeble, partisan references cited on the CIB report: nobody cared. Wikipedia-is-not-a-memorial refers. Confession: my !vote was effectively canvassed (by Vintagekits raising this at AN). Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:27, 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 speedy keep per WP:CSK, no one actually wants this deleted, and the idea of merging or redirecting can be discussed in an appropriate forum. GRBerry 19:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trophy hunting

Trophy hunting (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • Keep and Expand - This article has plenty of potential for expansion, which is all that is required for an article to exist at wikipedia. There are 7 articles at wikipedia linked to this page. Article was +tagged for merger with hunting January 3, 2007 and #redirected January 5, 2007 : i.e. inappropriate time for participation. Headphonos 12:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Why is this nominated? --Sigma 7 14:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    Note I left a message on the nominator's talk page asking him to complete the nomination by giving a reason! SkierRMH 17:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: Stop acting childish and read my entry - two animal rights activists #Redirected the article to hunting, this would be the same as a "Rename" nomination, so it should be voted on, wikipedia does not want slanted opinions, even those of animal activists...got it ?! Headphonos 17:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    Comment First off, lay off the personal attacks - clearly two people were curious why an "Article for Deletion" started out with "Keep and Expand"! Normally the nominator is giving reasons for "Deleting" here, not keeping. Second, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments that the change to a redirect was inappropriate, ill timed, and biased. Third, this appears to be more of the beginning of a content/merge dispute, which I agree should be nipped in the bud (as per walton monarchist89). SkierRMH 20:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • When discussing redirects, it's traditional to use the talk-page rather than using an AFD. In any case, the redirect request isn't related to a POV, since an unbiased user would see that the Trophy Hunting section on the Hunting page is much more developed (and has been that way for at least a year when compared to Trophy hunting.) While the trophy hunting page was created first, it seems as the associated contributor to the hunting article was unaware of the subarticle in question and developed the content in the main page instead.
Calling people animal rights activists also undermines claims of POV, especially when they write what appears to be reasonable explainations to their claims or edits. Even though the discussion window was shorter than normal (since Trophy hunting wasn't edited that much), redirects will take place if there's no reasonable expectation of opposition. --Sigma 7 20:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, don't redirect - should not be merged with Hunting, as there's enough info already to make this an independent article. More sourcing needed, but I don't even see why this article's being considered for deletion. Walton monarchist89 18:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect - based on edit histories, the section in Hunting was much more advanced and developed independantly. If the section becomes too large or unwieldly, it will then become suitable for a seperate article. --Sigma 7 20:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't feel strongly either way. However, if the trophy hunting article is kept, the text should be deleted and replaced with the text at hunting#trophy hunting which is fuller and more neutrally worded. MikeHobday 22:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy close as the nominator is advancing a keep opinion thus not nominating for deletion. If the nominator wishes to have a broader audience for the content and merge dispute, please use WP:DR e.g. WP:RFC. --Dhartung | Talk 00:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Popular Pop and Rock Live Albums

List of Popular Pop and Rock Live Albums (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Another in the list of ill-defined, hopelessly POV, bordering on OR, unencyclopaedic lists. Nuttah68 14:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. "Popular" is absurdly POV and we have numerous lists covering best-selling albums etc. Trebor 15:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Trebor. Also constitutes original research, as the designation of albums as "popular" is the opinion of the author. Walton monarchist89 17:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per monarcist89 69.65.123.206 17:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - and I created it (the article, not the actual list.) I only did so because it was an absurdly long, distracting section in the Live Album article. I figured it'd been around a while and there would be a stink if I did away with it entirely - guess not. --LeCorrector 04:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] League of Heroes

League of Heroes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/League of Heroes. The page is non-notable and a recreation, and the subject's existance is questionable. Delete. Grand Slam 7 | Talk 14:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, can't find a thing to show this even exists, let alone enough to pass notability. Seraphimblade 14:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This could also pass as a speedy delete as a recreation of previously deleted material. J Milburn 14:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Duplicate nomination: Due to the article's author removing the original AfD template (diff), Grand Slam 7 has accidentally proposed the article for deletion for the third time. The original re-nomination is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LEAGUE OF HEROES and discussion should be kept there. -- intgr 17:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize that. Should we somehow move this discussion there?--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 17:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; notability, verified by multiple independant third-party reliable sources, haven't been provided. - Daniel.Bryant 02:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The T Team

The T Team (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, the 'official website' is hosted on freewebs. Delete. J Milburn 14:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and WP:WEB. Walton monarchist89 17:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:WEB isn't really appropriate here... J Milburn 18:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, sorry, you're right - on closer inspection it's not primarily about a website. Nonetheless the important factor is the lack of independent online coverage - the links are to a freewebs site and a Myspace, which do not constitute evidence of notability. So my Delete vote stands. Walton monarchist89 18:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see why just because the troupe has no money their page should be deleted. Having a freewebs site doesn't make them any less important than sites with a .com—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elijah Burns (talk • contribs) 01:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment: In practice, groups with official websites as free domains are pretty non-notable. However, that is neither here nor there. There is no assertion that this band meets WP:NOTE. J Milburn 20:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No assertion of notability. Also watch out for socks and meats, they asked people on their site to "support our cause not to be deleted". Philip Gronowski Contribs 20:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • An open letter from The T Team to whom it may concern.

Hello all, The T Team here to shed some light on this little discussion. Several days ago, a young man named Elijah (see earlier comment) told us about how he had set up this little page for us on wikipedia. We had no desire to join good ol' wiki, but this young chap seemed to think we were important enough. We thanked him. Unsurprisingly enough, the article immediately came under scrutiny, mainly due to our unfortunate.....lack of funds, as it were, to get an actual domain name.

Side note for a minute, a quick message to J Milburn, your comment about free domains being non-notable....stupid. I'll have you know that professional wrestler Rick Steiner (one half of the tag team voted the second greatest of all time in North America by Pro-wrestling Illustrated) uses freewebs, and I'd call him pretty goddamn notable. Stupid comment.

Anyway, it's pretty clear to us that the article is hated, so we're more than happy for you to take it down. We don't need a wikipedia article. It was just something a young man decided to do to give back to the group he so loved, thinking others too would enjoy learning about this team. After all, in an encyclopedia that dedicates an entire article to "Allip" (yes J Milburn, that's a note to you), surely they encourage everyone to contribute whatever they can. Surely a great encyclopedia would cover as many topics as it possibly could? There are some articles with no external links or websites referenced at all, yet this seems fine as long as no freewebs sites are mentioned. We'll pass on the message to Elijah that for all future articles he hopes to set up, to put no websites at all to stand a better chance at not being deleted.

Well, that's all from us. We appreciate you taking an interest in our group, and hope you get a laugh from it here or there. This whole discussion has sort of made us wonder what you guys could possibly get out of scrutinising others peoples works. It makes no difference to you if these articles stay up. You put a lot of time into your articles and they put a lot of time into theirs, yet you say theirs aren't important enough for a website that you dont even own. You're just another brick in the wall. I wonder how many people have left this site in anger after they put a lot of time and effort into their own articles, only to have a Dungeons and Dragons nerd delete it. Sad, in a way. Anyway, that's by-the-by. Take it easy, guys

Signed, The T Team —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.191.159.13 (talk • contribs).

  • Delete Non-notable Maustrauser 09:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have recieved so much abuse on AfD of late. First of all, the IP from which the long message was posted was the same IP that recently vandalised my userpage here and here, so I guess this person has some agenda against me. As for the matter of me commenting on the official site being on freewebs- it was just that, a comment that, as far as I could see, summed up the article. The actual reason for deletion, as I stated in my initial comment, was the fact that no notability was asserted. The official site, according to the article, IS on freewebs, and so if it is a stupid comment, it was your friend Elijah who made it. Bringing up Allip is just a classic case of the Pokémon test, and is irrelevent. Also, guess what? Wikipedia isn't about everything. Why is there no article on me? Why is there no article on any of my friends? Because, much like (as far as I can see) this comedy troupe, we are not notable. The fact that so many articles on Wikipedia suck- If I come across one that does suck, I will do something about it. If there is no question that it is non-notable, I will speedy delete it. If there is question, I will bring it here. Sometimes I will 'prod' it. Other times I will help rewrite it, or at least leave a message on the talk page, contact other editors, or tag it as needing attention in some field. The fact that I choose to edit Wikipedia as a hobby is irrelevent, and yes, I am just another brick in the wall. In nominating articles that should not be here for deletion, I am helping the encyclopedia in many ways. I don't own the website, but the whole point is that almost all of the work is done by volunteers. That doesn't mean that it is free web space, or that anything that is written should stay. Also, I haven't deleted it. I have nominated it for deletion, so that there can be a community consensus on the matter. It is not me who has chosen to delete the article, if it is deleted, but the community. J Milburn 16:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kelvin Hayes

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

No assertion of notability, appears to be non-notable. I am open to being proven wrong. J Milburn 20:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Apologies, I nominated this yesterday, but forgot to list it for some reason. I am doing so now. J Milburn 14:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • delete no real assertation of notability I agree, does appear to be unnotable at this time. No real references, and it reads like an autobiography, (see Wikipedia:Autobiography). SGGH 15:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No sources. No evidence of WP:Notability or attempt to meet WP:BIO. No evidence any of the books of poems were published, reviewed, or have any notability. The tone of the article does not help matters but the complete lack of assertion or evidence of WP:V or WP:BIO is what's decisive. --Shirahadasha 15:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it me or are you the most boring people that ever lived!? There are many entries that read like a biog, that's part of what makes an encyclopedia an encyclopedia. Also if Wikipedia allows its pages to be moderated by a 16 year old tit that knows nothing about nothing and clearly has nothing better to do with his dull existence, then I would be delighted to remove the offending article myself. Evidence of my books being published are on the Welsh Books Council site if you would care to check. Oh, and my Voyage of Nomad book was reviewed in Buzz magazine, that's a South Wales arts and entertainment guide if you know as much about that as you do Welsh poetry. Who is notable? Certainly none of you pathetic individuals. That probably doesn't meet God knows how many of Wikipedia's idiotic pointless directives which are a complete contradiction on what is a free encyclopedia, but who cares. KH

  • Delete Kelvin Hayes may be notable for lame rants, but little else. One Night In Hackney 21:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Children's Church of Stannington

Children's Church of Stannington (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There's no evidence this is a notable organisation, other than a website created by the page author, User:Jlove12, who also claims to a vicar in the Church of England, yet is aged 15 PMJ 15:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, there's nothing even on the linked webpage. (Though I bet that hit counter jumps from curious AfD-goers, it's at 47 right now.) Might even be speedyable as organization with no notability asserted. Seraphimblade 15:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Apologies, User:Johnathan Love created the article, although I assume he and User:Jlove12 are the same person —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PMJ (talk • contribs).
  • Delete No sources. No evidence of notability. No attempt to comply with WP:V or WP:ORG. --Shirahadasha 15:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete either its a hoax or its not notable, and their webpage doesn't help establish notability - it's so recent it doesn't show up on Google. Hut 8.5 17:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's well-established that minor religious congregations aren't automatically notable, unless it can be shown that they're well-known outside their local area. Walton monarchist89 17:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Walton monarchist89. --Candy-Panda 10:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 User:RyanGerbil10. MER-C 01:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deadly Disease

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

This article is an apparent hoax, and references an apparently nonexistent medical journal. John254 15:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:HOAX. the deadliest disease in history could be expected to get a google hit. Also, the article title is improper -- it covers a broader scope than this single alleged disease, and since there's no evidence the "disease" exists, there's certainly none that it goes by "deadly disease" as a common name. --Shirahadasha 15:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete if "gastrimophorises" is a real disease then it would have found its way onto the web. Hut 8.5 16:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. nom MRoberts <> 19:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete No evidence or sources, and I don't think anyone has ever heard of anyone dying from this. The name also doesn't fit medical nomenclature. Jem 19:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as nonsense (G1). So tagged. --Dennisthe2 20:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 03:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holiday (Dilbert episode)

Holiday (Dilbert episode) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is comprised entirely of a plot summary, contains no specific references, and concerns an apparently non-notable episode of a comic strip. John254 15:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Just noting that the nom no longer supports deletion. [63]. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as an individual episode of a comic strip is not worth its own article (unless it's been covered in independent sources). Trebor 15:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Keep per below, but my word this needs cleaning up (as in I couldn't even tell it was a TV episode). Precedent does suggest individual episodes of a notable TV series are kept. Trebor 23:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • What you say about precedent may be a correct description of the outcomes of past AfD's, but that has nothing to do with how our policies and guidelines apply to the article under discussion here. Note that WP:AFDP emphasizes that "This page is not policy." Pan Dan 16:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I'm now sorry I got into the whole TV episodes discussion in the first place. Given my general ambivalence and confusion over the correct standards, I'll abstain. Trebor 16:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
        • With TV episodes, from what I've seen both policy and precedent don't make a blanket judgement either way on TV episodes. Individual articles are OK, but only if the episodes are notable and the articles have sufficient content to justify their existence (or at least show the potential to get there with some editor effort). Really, TV episode articles should be judged on a case by case basis, not a notion that all should be kept or all deleted. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Jem 19:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this is an episode of the Dilbert TV series, not the comic strip. I'm not sure that that makes a difference in this case, though. Maxamegalon2000 19:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Individual television episodes of a notable series are generally kept: (WP:EPISODE). Some other, more well-developed articles on this series are linked here - List of Dilbert animated series episodes. This one obviously is in a terrible state. SubSeven 20:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Nothing here to be kept-- the article is written at a third grade literacy level. * Keep now that its been rewritten. Allon Fambrizzi 23:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi

  • Keep, per SubSeven. I cleaned up most of the grammar/syntax for what was there, but I'm reluctant to do much more, since I don't really know anything about the show. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable television series, plenty of potential for expansion. Wikipedia is NOT Paper! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - There is a consensus to work on and fix pages like this, not delete them. - Peregrine Fisher 21:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all Notable episodes get articles not episodes from notable series. Why would that logic fly for TV and not other parts of Wikipedia? Are you apart of a notable family? Does that mean cousin Franky gets an article, even though he's never done anything? Get out of the old state of mind, people. These articles suck ass, no one will ever fix them, and they only encourage people to use Wikipedia as their "OMG" fansite of useless trivia shit. -- Ned Scott 03:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Since when do we determine deletion because articles "suck ass"? Trebor 07:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh come on, if you want me to bullshit you and retype my message all Wikipedia-PC with neutral sounding words, ok, but don't tell me people don't think that. Certainly, that should never be the criteria alone, as Wikipedia is a work in progress and we are here to improve rather than delete. BUT, it's not likely that such articles even can improve. Yes, some minor improvements have been made, such as an infobox and the slight rewording of the painfully small content, but it's still nothing more than an episode that is not independently notable, nor information that needs to be split due to size. It's just mindless plot summary for the sake of plot summary (WP:NOT#IINFO #7). You seem to be missing the point of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and other similar pages. I don't like it because it's not a good article nor does it have the potential to be one and because it is needless plot summary, which our policies and guidelines strongly discourage. I actually liked the Dilbert show (wasn't great but I enjoyed it). -- Ned Scott 23:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd like you to humour me and construct proper arguments, yes. But if you think this article should be deleted, why aren't you nominating all of these? To the best of my knowledge, general consensus is in favour of keeping episodes of a notable series. Trebor 23:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe for the same reason I haven't corrected every typo on Wikipedia, time. The idea that this is a general censuses is what gets under my skin. It's not a consensus. I'm not saying there's consensus against episode articles, but there never was a real consensus for them. It's so painfully easy to make articles that it makes it appear there is wide support for this. New users come on (and even old ones), see the articles and do the same for other shows. It's not a horrible thing, and everyone was acting in good faith, but for the vast majority no thought was really given to the creation. It was not the result of a discussion, rather it's the result of a misconception on a major scale. Precedent does not help us in this situation. -- Ned Scott 00:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
And nice double standard you have there, considering the "reasons" some of the keeps have made. That being said, I have no problem with further explaining myself. If you wish me to explain more on my reasons then I will. -- Ned Scott 00:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to note that, in contrast to what Ned said above about consensus, a consensus to include articles on episodes of notable TV shows was reached at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes. It's also worth noting, given his objections to plot summaries, that the very first thing included in a list of items "to include about a television episode, where possible" is a "plot summary of the episode". Furthermore, he should know both of these things, since he's edited both the page in queastion and its talk page. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
But it should also be noted that that page also says to create individual episode articles "Once there's enough independently verifiable information included about individual episodes". It certainly doesn't say that every notable show should have an individual article for each episode, in fact it recommends starting with series and season articles first and only splitting individual articles as necessary. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
This is true, and ordinarily I would've suggested that this be merged back into List of Dilbert animated series episodes, except that in this case doing so would break that page's table format. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a big supporter of WP:EPISODE, so yes, I know all about it. As Milo's note says, the topic of an episode is ok, but not necessarily an article dedicated to an episode. The episodes do not need individual articles, and only make themselves a target for cruft, trivia, and OR. Even forgetting anything about notability or any of those shades of gray, we still don't actually have anything more than a plot summary to write about that is unique to a specific episode. As for the table formatting, the solution to that is easy, just use the Template:episode list system. I would have no problems with a merge. -- Ned Scott 19:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I will 2nd Milo's and Ned's comments here. And I would like to introduce a term for this problem "Episode creep" :D. Yes the discussion says that. HOWEVER. It also says that you should not default to such behaviour, but where possible start with Shows -> List of episodes. Then once you establish notability for a seperate article (translated: more then a plot summary and the stuff which is usually tracked in imdb) you can create seperate articles for episodes. This does not say you have to create articles for ALL episodes of a show. The idea here is to improve before you create instead of simply duplicating effort by creating a ton of episode articles. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep All this article needs is a longer summary, and that's it :) .. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 16:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It's a bad thing if all there is is plot summary. WP:NOT#IINFO #7 and WP:WAF do a good job at explaining why. -- Ned Scott 15:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge (all episodes) into List of Dilbert animated series episodes and work from there, from a practical standpoint for centralized editing, and per User:Ned Scott. Doubtful most of these will grow beyond plot outlines anyway. Pomte 02:23, 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 Merge. Cbrown1023 talk 03:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laxmi Road

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

Notability is questionable, and this article has been in essentially the same useless state for more than a year. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - lots of major shopping streets have their own articles at present, and as far as I know there's no specific policy on this issue. As to the article being in a "useless state", that can easily be fixed, and isn't necessarily a reason for deletion. Walton monarchist89 17:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to the article on the town. There is no reason to have it as a seperate article. As for their being plenty of articles on shopping streets, that is in no way a criteria for inclusion. The same logic can be used in reverse- there is no article on my local shopping street, so why should there be here? Well, actually, it was decided [[64]] that it should be merged with the article on my local major town. I guess that is what should happen in this case too. J Milburn 18:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Pune. I agree with User:J Milburn.
  • Keep The main shopping street in a city with over 4 million population is notable. Besides, just a quick g-news archive search and I see Laxmi Road the subject of multiple Times of India articles [65] [66] [67]. Don't usually see streets or roads pass the letter of WP:NOTABILITY, but this one does. --Oakshade 06:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per J Milburn, unless there is a substantial increase in information. As it stands currently, it's notable, but doesn't seem likely to expand beyond a stub. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 01:48, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Syed Waqar Ali Naqvi

Syed Waqar Ali Naqvi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced, and written in an unencyclopedic list format. John254 15:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete unless sources can be found. (Although the unencyclopedic style could probably be fixed with a rewrite.) Walton monarchist89 17:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Being unsourced is not criteria for deletion, I would say that more than half of articles are unsourced. J Milburn 17:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, but in this case the subject's notability is not verifiable per WP:V - there are claims that he's founded a number of organisations, but this isn't verified using reliable sources. Walton monarchist89 18:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The use of all CAPS is off putting, links are to pages under construction. It needs to be wikified so badly, that they really should start from scratch. My Google search was inconclusive. MRoberts <> 19:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Disregarding the formatting, the subject doesn't appear to be particularly notable; the article reads like a resumé, not a biography. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • delete this is a vanity page. Chris 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  08:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted early, a7 - Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Garry Schultz

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

It seems that this article about an Australian high school principal was recently speedy deleted (see User:Mangojuice/a7) but recreated. Not sure whether the recreation was by the same editor but in any case, AfD seems like the way to go for re-deletion. Pascal.Tesson 16:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - no assertion of notability. Walton monarchist89 17:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being head of a school does not confer notability. J Milburn 17:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. People who invent things belong in Wikipedia. Principals belong in yearbooks. Come back to us when you cure cancer. MRoberts <> 18:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inadequately referenced, and no evidence of notability. WMMartin 14:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 03:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -- no assertion of notability. - Longhair\talk 03:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mens Sana Research Foundation

Mens Sana Research Foundation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT a directory. Please also see an entry I placed on the article's talk page. Keesiewonder talk 16:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete or merge with Mens Sana Monographs. (Not even sure the whole project meets WP:N; there's no evidence of coverage by third-party sources.) Walton monarchist89 17:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP is not for advertising or promotion, and is not a publisher's catalog. There is nothing included here but the names of the books. The article is not even about its ostensible topic, the Mens Sana Research Foundation. EdJohnston 18:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I notified the creator of this article, User:Mensanamonographs about the deletion debate. EdJohnston 18:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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". Agent 86 01:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courtney Audain

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

Disputed prod. Non-notable session musician with about 500 G-Hits to his name. kingboyk 16:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - A primary member of Timbuk 3 and has demonstrated notability outside that band too. [68]. And I come up with 1,530 g-hits [69]. --Oakshade 17:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • 500 English language hits. I probably have that many!
    • Do we have hard evidence that he was an official member of this band? The reason for my suspicion is the tiny number of hits (500 English hits for a member of a famous band?) and the fact that AMG don't list him as a member. It's quite possible I'm wrong, but it all adds up to "session musician" with the evidence available. I don't think an article in a local paper helps much either. --kingboyk 23:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The Austin Chronicle article confirms he was in the band and doesn't lower his status to "session musician". And the Trouser Press magazine profile of Timbuk 3 further confirms his membership... "Big Shot in the Dark presents Timbuk 3 as a bona fide quartet (with drummer Wally Ingram and bassist/etc. Courtney Audain)..." "[70]. --Oakshade 01:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • And interestingly, in that AMG profile of the band, a photo of the band is included with Audain in it (you have to click on the photo to toggle to the forth one which includes the full band instead of only its two founding members, but I can't isolate the photo.) The VH1 website has a mirror of the AWG profile which does include that photo --> [71]. --Oakshade 01:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep contingent on expansion. There is precious little here, but the Austin Chronicle article is non-trivial, and if it can be multiplied this reaches the standard. Bucketsofg 19:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep per aboveOo7565 22:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep contingent on expansion. Timbuk 3 struggled to not be a one-hit wonder in the pre-indie days. Aubain joined in their latter days when they were not as successful. I think he meets strict WP:MUSIC, though. --Dhartung | Talk 08:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to meet WP:MUSIC. There are lots of good sources for expansion on a GNews Archive search, but unfortunately, they all seem to be PPV due to age. Maybe someone with Lexis-Nexis will do the honors? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 03:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leicestershire Combination

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

This league is strictly a reserve league. We have articles for the reserve leagues of the Premier League and the Football League, which are reasonable I think, but the reserve league of the Leicestershire Senior League is not notable. By virtue of it being a reserve league, it's not actually in the pyramid, as it falsely states in the article. Balerion 17:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 17:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep and Cleanup Although there may a factual error, this requires cleanup. The fact that a team won in the previous season and it is a valid competition gives it nobility. Jem 19:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Saying that it has notability because a team won it last year is an odd comment. Every league that's existed for more than one year has a team that won it last year, they aren't all notable. My boss's son plays in a team that won the South East Staffordshire Regional Under-12s League (or some such) last year but that league certainly isn't notable.... ChrisTheDude 08:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as strictly the reserve league for a rather low level of football. Robotforaday 23:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - the league plays 2 levels below the minimum for inclusion here. -- Bpmullins | Talk 04:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - That's actually a misrepresentation of the rule - leagues below level 10 are included, but not clubs. That being said, this league exists only as a reserve league for the Leicestershire Senior League. Lots of other small leagues have reserve divisions which are not notable enough for their own article. Just because the LSL decided to call theirs by a different name (other than "LSL Reserve Divisions 1 and 2) doesn't make it more notable. As I've said, it's not in the pyramid at all as it's strictly a reserve league. I favor keeping leagues outside the pyramid like the Perry Street League and Amateur Football Alliance leagues, but they are first-team leagues. --Balerion 05:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question - Is it actually the reserve league of the Leicestershire Senior League? Or just an independent league that is for reserve sides? I've seen nothing other than a single sentence in this article that it is the former, but if it is, then this article deserves to go. - fchd 06:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - League description - "This is the reserves league for the Leicestershire Senior League". It contains reserve sides for all the LSL sides plus Friar Lane & Epworth Reserves, whose parent club just promoted out of the LSL. --Balerion 07:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to a brief mention on the Leicestershire Senior League article ChrisTheDude 08:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 22:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marlboro Blend No. 27

Marlboro Blend No. 27 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Recommend deletion as per WP:N Piddle 17:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom - also reads like advertising (Also, cigarette are extremely healthy for you and will not effect your health one bit - yeah right). Walton monarchist89 17:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Apart from the obvious untruth re health, this is a wholly obvious and blatant advertisement which I would have slapped an immediate {{speedy}} tag on.--Anthony.bradbury 18:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The crap about health was vandalism - it's been since reverted. I'm not sure where to go here, so for now I abstain. --Dennisthe2 20:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • clear delete well the truly absurd nonsense is gone but the article will still always fail to meet notability criteria. it's a brand of cigarettes, not even a particularly popular one, which is not groundbreaking or much different from dozens of other currently available varieties of cigarettes. Piddle 02:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per discussion. Piddle raises a point, and it's clear that a single type of cigarette is probably not notable inherently. --Dennisthe2 05:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per discussion LazyDaisy 13:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Although this reads in part like advertising, I think wiht some improvement it can be made into an article. I for one was researching Marlboro brands and this article was a useful source of info that they are a type of marlboro cigs - we dont have these in UK - only Blend 28.

Personally, I think this article will be deleted as I did create an article on Cafe Creme cigarillos - it was wiped after a week with no discussion which I personally thought was wrong and the Wikipedian who did it should be ashamed of themselves.

Aside from that - people have made an effort with this article, and have put a picture of the brand too. It deserves to have work on it before deletion.

Many articles on this site would not appear in a normal encyclopedia. But this is no ordinary encyclopedia. I think if you delete this sort of article (aside from the arguements on health of this product - lets not forget artciles on BUrger King are bad for your health too) then other articles such as companies, majority of celebrities should be deleted too PrincessBrat 20:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Please refer to WP:ILIKEIT insofar as your argument that others should be deleted if this one goes. With all due respect, your suggestion at deleting celebrities because we're debating deletion of a brand of cigarettes is a non-sequitur. --Dennisthe2 00:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The comparison was made simply because there are a lot of 'celebrities/sportspeople' on this encyclopedia who are not that famous outside their profession - by all means have an article on someone like Charlie Chaplin they are very well known but other celebrities who are still alive and not that famous, such as some soccer players who are on here is pointless - so on that basis if your going to keep the non celebrities/sportspeople why not keep other brands of cigarettes which are not that popular. Let us not beat about the bush, you wouldnt see this or some soccer player article in Encyclopedia Britannica would you?

I hope that this article is not being considered for deletion due to its content matter -i.e tobacco and someone who hates smokers is proposing its deletion. If it is, can I say that it is unlikely a non smoker would find this article and start smoking based on the content. I for one wouldnt! --PrincessBrat 21:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • As far as notability goes, we do have our standards, and every article on here is required to adhere to that. If it doesn't... well, that's why we have AfD. =^_^= As far as the purpose behind the deletion of this article, just remember to assume good faith, and note that a true bad-faith deletion has a habit of getting closed in a big hurry. --Dennisthe2 23:06, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 03:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Karlsson

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:V 999 (Talk) 17:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, appears to meet Category 2 of the WP:MUSIC section for "composers and lyricists", due to his work with Therion. The band's official site confirms the lyrical credits on the respective pages for each of their albums (as here with the page for Secret of the Runes, for example). Could use some work, but what here couldn't on one level or another? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hit Bull.--Kubigula (talk) 20:36, 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. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Klay World: Off the Table

Klay World: Off the Table (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)
Take note of the deletion logs. I am pretty sure there are others, I'll add them if I find them, most have been deleted more than once. Benfer has edited as User:Stillz1, 100% of whose edits were to add articles on Benfer or links to Benfer and his websites to other articles. Most have by now been deleted. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert Benfer is a Newgrounds flash artist and claymation filmmaker. He also seemingly has the most vocal on-wiki internet fanclub, having been himself and his related projects being deleted here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Indeed, if you click through to those links, you'll probably find even more deletions. If you look on Talk:Knox, you'll find an unrelated user supporting the inclusion of Robert "Knox" Benfer into the list just to stop edit wars and vandalism. This article refers to Benfer's latest project, his first full length claymation, made and distributed by himself. This is not a notable release, there are no third party sources, it fails WP:NF (film notability guidelines). - hahnchen 02:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Non-notable. IrishGuy talk 02:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Satisfies the first criteria of the film notability guidelines for having been the subject of "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers" ([72] [73]). Besides that, the film is notable for being affiliated with Newgrounds (being the first feature to have the Newgrounds logo on it). I contest your hypothesis that Benfer's popularity is limited to Wikipedia users or is stronger on Wikipedia than elsewhere on the internet. WP:DP says this: "Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article" The admin who deleted his entry and prevented its recreation last October (see page logs) based his judgement on this deletion vote in February 2005. A review of his notability since that time has not been undertaken. According to WP:BIO, "a large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following" and "Name recognition" may be signs of notability. It would seem to me that he satisfies those criteria: his website is the #1 result when you search for "knox" on Google ("knox" is a common word which is used in many other contexts), he's the 6th-most bookmarked artist on Newgrounds (a website with over 1 million members), his website has been visited over 14 million times and his films on Newgrounds had been viewed 10,959,036 times as of Oct. 12, 2006. Also, this very film that we're discussing now sold 2000 copies in its first month despite being sold only online through his website (according to the Film Threat article). Since the film is a continuation of the "Klay World" series that have been so popular on Newgrounds, I would argue that it is notable. Esn 21:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The Filmthreat article is alright actually, I didn't spot it before. I did a google before nominating and saw the ArticlesBase one too. But the ArticlesBase article isn't a reliable source, anyone can submit articles there. It's pretty much an SEO magnet for backlinks. Newgrounds rankings are useless, you'll see that Legendary Frog has been deleted multiple times. Whereas Xiao Xiao has had a court case victory against Nike, and Alien Hominid has had various professional reviews and published by a third party, Knox, hasn't. - hahnchen 21:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd say that generally Film Threat shouldn't be considered a reliable source. It's basically a fanzine, with articles and content from unpaid volunteer writers. They're not at all discriminant as far as what they cover: to directly quote their site: "Send your film to us, and we'll review it. That simple." I used to love their print version when it existed and I admire their anything-goes attitude, but they're far away from being a reliable source for our purposes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 18:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per original nom. As of yet, there doesn't seem to be multiple, non-trivial discussion. (ArticlesBase is insufficient, per hanch.) Bucketsofg 19:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as usual. I am getting a bit fed up with Benfer's tiny fanbase making Wikipedia articles on their hero. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Just a small note - some of the points I made above seem to suggest that his fanbase isn't exactly small. But anyway, I'm not really willing to fight this one - let it be as editors decide. There's a high likelyhood that the Benfer article will have to be unprotected eventually, anyway, so there's no rush. I'm not actually a fan of his (I realize this may be difficult to believe) - but I think that judging by his popularity, there is enough demand among readers to warrant a few wikipedia articles about him or his films. Esn 03:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Oh God, make it stop. --Calton | Talk 04:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Re-Delete, since it still doesn't appear to meet sourcing/notability guidelines. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable fan-cruft, created by Benfer's small but rabid fanbase. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 05:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Let's see, we are offered the site (not independent), IMDB (enough said, enough times), articlesbase ("Submitting articles has become one of the most popular means of generating quality backlinks and targeted traffic to your website. Join us today - It's Free!"), and filmthreat ("Send your film to us, and we'll review it. That simple."). So we have nothing here to evidence notability. GRBerry 19:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the established and longstanding precedent that Benfer himself isn't notable, which thus extends to his creations as well. I'm on the verge of calling for a speedy on this as re-creation, but I guess it can't hurt to be thorough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:37, 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 17:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caveat Emptor EP

Caveat Emptor EP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

All of this info is in the Greeley Estates article. I'm not convinced this article will be relevant to anyone 50 years from now. MRoberts <> 18:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Bucketsofg 19:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. Jem 19:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete — per nom and everyone else. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 03:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Conspirators

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

This is a new band that hasn't even sold an album yet. It belongs on MySpace, not in an encyclopedia. MRoberts <> 17:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The band does not yet pass WP:MUSIC, and there is a good deal of crystal-ballism here. Bucketsofg 19:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral: Seems to be a borderline case. It is difficult to search for them because of how general their name is, but Googling "The Conspiritors" Yorkshire got me a couple of things. First of all, they are talked about here, but the link is dead. May be worth checking the Way Back Machine. Also, they feature on a 'rockumentary', the trailor for which can be seen here. If anyone can actually find those sources, and not just mention them, then I think we will be good to keep this. J Milburn 19:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No bias against re-creation if they ultimately hit it big. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 10:14, 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 withdrawn by nominator. John254 19:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Women's rights in the Arab world

Women's rights in the Arab world (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is a POV fork of Women in Muslim societies John254 18:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not true. I just started the article and it is in progress. Muslim society is not equivalent to Arab world. Muslims in india and Afghanistan etc have different cultures and traditions. Many restrictions are not due to religion. Instead it originates from traditions and cultures. This article is going to discuss the issue in the context of Arab culture and Arab social norms. Ioukawa 18:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Also Arab world consist of Jews arabs, Christian arabs etc. Ioukawa 18:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now per Ioukawa. "Muslim world" and "Arab world" are not the same (one is a religious category, the other ethnic). There is the danger of this becoming a POV-fork, and there will surely be some overlap between the two articles, but I think the topic is a defensible one. Bucketsofg 19:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bebe Nanaki Ji

Bebe Nanaki Ji (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

The sister of an important religious figure, but it's unclear how she's notable by herself. Her name, in some obvious spellings, gets low-3-figure Google hits. Also, per the tag in the middle of the article, all or part of it may be a wholesale copyvio from two books (which however don't appear to feature her as the principal subject). Sandstein 20:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep and rewrite: although the article needs copyediting, if this woman is credited with being the first Sikh in history as the article states, then I think she is of historical importance. Rosemary Amey 20:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this what is meant with the tortured phrase "There is no doubt that perhaps first Gur Sikh was none other than Bebe Nanaki Ji"? OK, but then undoubtedly we must perhaps also address the copyvio issues. Sandstein 20:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio - Much/most of the article (such as the paragraph starting "He was named") is lifted straight from [74]. --J2thawiki 20:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep and rewirte: I agree maybe the article does need re-wording in some places, however Bebe Nanaki Ji, is of great historical importance in the Sikh Faith. The reason for my humble contribution to Wikipedia was to add valuable insight into the life of the first Sikh of the Sikh faith. As well as being the first sikh, she was also a woman, which has far reaching conoltations in regards to one of Guru Nanak Dev Ji's core messages of equality between men and women.

She also played the pivotable part in the recognition of Guru Nanak Dev Ji as an enlightened spiritual leader. There was a unique relationship not just as the first sikh but also as a Sister.

Admittedly there is not nearly enough reference material regarding her life, which is also another reason for posting the article.

If you could all make suggestions in the areas you think that need work, i am sure that the work could be accomodated rather than deleting the article as a whole. I think this would be an injustice to the readers of wikipedia. The fact is people come to wikipedia to learn about something that they did not know before they came to read its pages. I am sure a fair number of people read the articles around Sikhism and Guru Nanak Dev Ji and as such it is a shame that such a prominent Sikh Figure as Bebe Nanaki goes without a mention on Wikipedia.

Forgive me for i am a literary novice with the best of wishes.

Kind Regards, Jaswant Singh Sagoo 16:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the copyright violation issue? Didn't you just copy the contents of this article from other books? If so, this content at least cannot stay. Sandstein 04:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep/REwrite - He is an important Sikh figure.Bakaman 04:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
She's a woman. Sandstein 04:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Illustrating why we need a rewrite.Bakaman 21:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
So... you mean the subject of the article is a man? Even though the article talks at great (copyvio) length about a woman? Which means we can usefully keep approximately zero bytes of the present content? This, sir, is one surreal debate. But tell you what? We delete this content first, then you can rewrite the article, about the man. Or you can even do this right now and there's no need for deletion. OK? Sandstein 22:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
No I meant that I was incorrect in noting the person was male. The spelling of Bebe is confusing as Sikhs would use "Bibi" instead. That still hardly matters as "Bibi NAnaki" (as she is more commonly known) is notable. See refs like these that provide a better feel for the subject [75].Bakaman 22:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the gender confusion is over :-) ... but someone's web page isn't a reliable source for notability. I know too little about the subject, but possibly you could at least rewrite the article as a stub? We can't keep the current text around if it violates someone's copyright. Sandstein 22:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm merely noting that the web page provided a less jumbled form of the text that may actually be understandable.Bakaman 01:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but this still doesn't solve the problems of (1) establishing notability through reliable sources and (2) removing the current article text which is in violation of copyright. Sandstein 06:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite per above. Regarding Sandstein's good faith comments, I would suggest the aim of Wikipedia is to produce a balanced encyclopedia. In order to achieve this goal, more effort is sometimes required in cases such as this and more severity in cases involving popular culture.Addhoc 13:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite as suggested above. Bucketsofg 19:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep/REwriteIn the Punjabi language, out of respect, the elder sister is called Bebe. Bebe Nanki Ji was the elder sister of Guru Nanak Dev Ji, and thus not refered to as Bibi. The article will be re-written in a more consistant format taking out any copyright issues. In terms of reliable sources, the information can be supported by the Bebe Nanaki Charitable Trust (UK) and the Bebe Nanaki Istri Satsang Charitable Trust (India) who manage the historcal sites in Sultanpur Lodhi and the leading body arround Bebe Nanaki Ji's history.

Jaswant Singh Sagoo 15:13, 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 17:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rodney Orpheus

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:V 999 (Talk) 19:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • delete per nom. Chris 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per WP:BIO. Not notable. Vassyana 12:33, 1 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 Cool Hand Luke 02:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lon Milo DuQuette

Lon Milo DuQuette (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

fails WP:BIO and WP:V. It's been tagged as unsourced since August 2006, but no sources have been provided. 999 (Talk) 19:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • delete per nom. Chris 22:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep—actually passes WP:BIO pretty easily as far as I'm concerned. Both in terms of being the subject of multiple non-trivial published works and in terms of being a published author with multiple independent reviews. [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84]

Note, of course, that those are only some of what I could find from google--there's likely much more in print-only format. --Jackhorkheimer 06:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


  • Keep per Jackhorkheimer Zero sharp 06:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the only sentence that now lacks reference is that which is about Lon's Archbishop-dom. The other paragraphs are merely summarizing the titles of his books (e.g. as it is read: His books are about Freemasonary, Tarot ...) What else remains that may need reference? That he is humorous or where he lives? Or maybe his marriage?! --Sepand 18:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You do realize that you have to use third-party sources, don't you? Autobiographical sources are not sufficient. Also, everything in an article about a living person must be cited. Dave Null 19:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:V. Dave Null 19:08, 1 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Francis M. Wilcox

Francis M. Wilcox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Editor of the house paper of the Seventh Day Adventists. No other claim to fame, as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I think Francis M. Wilcox is a very significant Seventh-day Adventist individual. His name appears in the Historical Dictionary of the Seventh-day Adventists edited by Gary Land ([Scarecrow Press, 2006], pp. 328) and the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia ([Review and Herald, 1996], vol. 11, p. 900). Both have sizable articles on him. The article is a stub so it is a start and I (and I see at least one other person) have begun to work on it. His most significant contribution is editor of the Seventh-day Adventist church paper, the Review and Herald for which we have articles for the other editors. The editor of this publication is usually a "heavyweight" when it comes to dealing with denominational issues and he is therefore a key person to helping understand the milieu of Adventism.
I think a redirect & merge to the article on the paper would meet the situation. DGG 00:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and added sources and expanded it a bit. I hope it helps and will receive further consideration. Thewalkingstick 23 January 2007
  • Very Weak Keep positions, as editor of paper, president of publishing company, and chairman of the Estates board look to be notable, but the only sources are clearly not independent. I'm inclined to keep given the relative difficulty of finding sources for something of this age (i.e. no google), but they still need to be found per WP:N. Eluchil404 10:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect, "difficulty of finding sources" does not excuse "requirement to cite them". Seraphimblade 12:08, 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, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no significant hits from Google News Archive (he does show up in apparent trivial mentions in ancient WaPo stories behind a paywall), Google Scholar, or Google Books. Even with the longtime editorship he just seems like a minor figure with no wider significance. --Dhartung | Talk 08:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Significant as noted in above entries, and also that he published many books. Google Scholar etc. are not the test of notability. Please allow time for good citations to be found and included. Colin MacLaurin 22:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This individual is significant and I've already expanded it from a few lines. Yes, it does need more sources, but as a Ph.D. student in history I also know that Google scholar is not a very good test for reliability. There are several academic treatments of Adventism from reputable, scholarly sources that need to be cited (and will be). I would urge for this article to be kept so that these sources can be added and the article expanded. The area of my doctoral research is on the 1920s and F. M. Wilcox was a significant figure in the interactions between Adventists and Fundamentalists, was a cutting edge leader in espousing Adventist doctrines, and played a very significant role in developing views of Pacifism by World War II. Thewalkingstick 31 Jan 2007
  • Weak Keep. Meets notability. Needs more sources and expansion. Vassyana 12:30, 1 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 12:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] T39 Bogatyr

T39 Bogatyr (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable vehicle from a video game, no reason to have articles on every vehicle from this or any game. Daniel J. Leivick 19:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The counter part of the t39 bogatyr is the L5 riesig and it has an article too so either they both stay or leaveDestroyer 65 22:05, 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 12:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karma Rosenberg

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

From the article: "Very little is known about her by her small cadre of fans". Quite so. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Robdurbar 14:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nalzaxx

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

non notable game character. Wikipedia is not a game guide, WP:NOT Daniel J. Leivick 20:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Doubtful that even the game itself warrants an article, never mind the characters. Very obscure. SubSeven 21:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - 8 ghits, created by User:Nalzaxx. WP:NFT. Part Deux 22:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, patent nonsense and self-admitted neologism. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bandarousness

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

This is an entirely unreferenced article concerning a neologism. John254 20:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 03:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Sampson

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

Non-notable indy wrestler. A google search turned up a Fred Sampson (that isn't a wrestler), fan sites such as OWW with Fred Sampson on it, and so on. The TV.com link just lists his WWE appearances: which isn't that notable either. WWE is known to hire indy wrestlers for matches and segments. Because Fred has done a bunch, he is notable for Wikipedia? I don't think so. If we had wrestling bio articles for everyone WWE has used for matches and segments: Wikipedia would be flooded with tons of cruft. This article is better suited for a wrestling wiki. RobJ1981 20:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I created this article because there are links for this wrestler on other articles on wiki. I know he isn't majorly noticeable but I don't like seeing links that have nothing on them. I did do some checking and a google search brings back this many results "1,300 articles for "Fred Sampson" #wrestler". There is some interesting facts for him, I included references and source martial with him. He is on the WWE scout list, hasn't had a full contract. But has had Heat and Velocity jobs.
  • Comment Your not entering it right, The search you are performing is looking for two separate terms. You want to do "Fred Simpson" #wrestler because using the # sign looks at the articles for where exactly Fred Simpson is located and finds if it has the wrestler word attached in that same area. This is the better way to search using relative terms. Govvy 09:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Commment If I include the '#' I get 93 unique hits in English. It's you who isn't looking for unique hits. One Night In Hackney 17:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Commment One Night In Hackney, That search results 1,240. :/ Govvy 18:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment No, it does not. Did you actually click the link? Do you understand what a unique hit actually is? I've already explained it's unique hits in English, and 356 unique hits in all languages. Looking for unique hits is the true measure of Google data, instead of just looking at the figure on the initial search page. One Night In Hackney 18:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Nope, I really don't get ya, I have no idea what you mean, I know what results I get and know exactly what you entered. And you obviously get different results to me. Also I know that google does meta searches, I've even tried that, but it really is useless results for that. Govvy 19:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Yes, I know exactly how you got that result. You typed in your search string, looked at the first page, then claimed 1200+ hits. However if you keep looking through the pages of results (no need to do it one at a time) you eventually get to the last page which gives you the number of unique hits. See here for more information, it only returns one hit per domain and disregards substantially similar pages. One Night In Hackney 19:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Results your way Govvy 19:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that isn't my way. Your end of the URL has the "&filter=0" qualifier, so you won't see unique hits. Take off the qualifier and you get 346 unique hits, and if you search for English only we're back to 93 hits again. One Night In Hackney 19:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

On a personal note, I think the user RobJ1981 was doing this to attack me. Govvy 21:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • delete per nom-Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Chris 22:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • comment why do you believe this user wishes to attack you? That is a different matter entirely, but needs explanation. Chris 22:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • comment because I felt it was, a feeling you get. But I really do feel that this article is not that bad and I have a feeling that Fred Sampson will be in the WWE in about a years time. Just something about this person, great wrestling ability, good personality, I got that gut feeling that this is one of those characters that will make it pretty far. Guess have to wait and see! Govvy 23:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete NN wrestler, hasn't been in any notable capacity in major promotions, just a bunch of independent work, who come dime a dozen. Booshakla 03:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep He is being scouted for WWE, I say keep the article Kris Classic 01:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No verifiable reliable source that he's being "scouted" for WWE anyway, and WP is not a crystal ball anyway. If he becomes notable later, recreate the article. One Night In Hackney 04:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. Vassyana 12:25, 1 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 12:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Petupia

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

Delete - I read through some of the copyright stuff and I couldn't find anything directly addressing the notion of including text while asserting "all rights reserved" as this article does. If there's something else besides a regular AfD that needs to be done, point me toward it. Regardless, the article is trivia, non-notable and without independent verifiable sourcing so it needs to go. Otto4711 20:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as phrase/term used by that site and a handful of blogs; couldn't find any 3rd party coverage of this (maybe neologism?) in the c. 50 ghits that weren't wiki-mirrors. SkierRMH 20:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The article lists it's self as a sub topic off of the main article Fantasy world but the word Petupia is not even on the main article. Fails WP:N significantly. Jeepday 01:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, copyvio if nothing else and see also Otto4711. Stifle (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per above. Vassyana 12:25, 1 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--Jersey Devil 02:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dupobs

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

Tagged as WP:CSD#A7 and deleted, but restoration requested so I'm bringing it here. No evidence of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources, sole claim to notability appears to be one member who was briefly part of a barely-notable band before they were barely-famous. There are only 49 Google hits in total, 35 of which are unique, none of which appears to be a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If non-trivial coverage is an overriding criterion, then I agree, as I cannot locate any press about Dupobs, and indeed the google hits are as you describe, for what that's worth.

But since this is a guideline open to interpretation and flexibility, we should consider the case on its merits, and according to criteria relevant in the world of music. The criteria for Notability:Music apply here, don't they? Reading the article would indicate that the crossover in band membership is current (a simple perusal of the relevant band URLs confirms this) - even though that shouldn't matter -, so the charge that the 'sole claim to notability appears to be one member who was briefly part of a barely notable (sic) band' is incorrect (emphasis added).

As regards the band upon which Dupobs relies for its claim to Notability, I don't know what you mean by 'barely-famous', but I had thought fame was not a criterion for Notability. And if said band satisfies Notability (by association with other undisputed notables, and by multiple, nontrivial coverage in independent, reliable sources), I fail to see how you can make the claim that this constitutes "barely-notable". I don't know what that concept means; I cannot find a definition for it in Wikipedia's guidelines. Do we really need to create such categories? --Jeandjinni 22:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: notability and fame are exclusive. And seeing as fame is not a criterion for notability, the article should not be deleted. I doubt a deletion would be considered were dupobs to comprise a member from a famous (not just notable) musical group. Also keep in mind that searching the internet is not necessarily an effective means to determine notability for musical groups that were in existence, and ceased to be active, before the proliferation of the internet, as was the case for another music group (not the one meeting notability criteria) comprising one of dupobs' members (see article). Consider also the cross-reference to PRISM international, which, according to its website, has published works by highly notable authors such as Jorge Luis Borges and Margaret Atwood. Interestingly, there's no article for PRISM international on Wikipedia. So who's to determine what's notable or not? The article should stay.

Per policy, we can't have an article without sources. Per policy we are not a directory. So per policy we ask for multiple non-trivial sources. We clarify that in the notability guideline, which explains it all in some detail and represents a distillation of many thousands of deletion debates. No sources = no article. Sorry. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Guy, as has been argued before elsewhere - doesn't the lack of any sources make this a case of verifiability (not notability)? Anyway, if this rule were applied to a jazz ensemble of fifty years ago, would the case be viewed differently? I know what an encyclopedia is; I just want to help make a better one. To me that encyclopedia would include marginal, specialized music that is "notable" in circles where specialized cultural or aesthetic knowledge (like specialized scientific knowledge, which is protected on similar grounds) is required to assess the music's notability. There's plenty of outside music that could be considered "notable" on artistic criteria alone, and which is the result of twice-or-thrice removed collaborations between musicians who work in other projects, written about in respected publications long out of print and never digitized. This music surely did not not exist! I also understand the need to keep out the garage bands, the false starts, and the fictions and I forcefully agree with that reasoning. But surely the Music Notability guidelines (and we can debate how these could be refined on that page to account for this) should reflect and respect the logics of particular music scenes and traditions, rather than rest on a simple reiteration of the "verifiability" criterion, which could throw out a huge chunk of important music.--Jeandjinni 15:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, the two are inextricably linked. A notable subject will have sufficient sources to be verifiable, a subject verifiable form multiple non-trivial sources is likely to be notable. I have yet to see an example of a subject which has multiple independent non-trivial sources but which is not notable. This is not an article about a jazz band from fity years ago, it's about a band from right now which has no independent sources. There are folk muscians now with negligible Google presence, but these are not folk musicians, theya re argued to be a significant rock band. No evidence of significance is presented. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, plenty of corporate-funded musical entities build whole careers on multiple purportedly 'independent non-trivial sources' without otherwise establishing Notability by any aesthetic criteria. I know that relying on sources is convenient (esp. considering the number of nn band articles that should be deleted), but the problem with using sources as a basis of distinction is that the independence and non-triviality of many sources can be in question. Are we to accept that a magazine such as Rolling Stone deserves its italics when it is arguably not much more than an advertiser-supported PR gallery for large record companies, essentially a "Billboard" with a bit of critical artifice? Secondly, that it's not a jazz or folk ensemble is precisely the point. There are different standards of Notability in different genres, which is (or ought to be) the rationale for the more open guidelines specific to music articles. 'Avant garde rock' is the genre in question, not 'rock'. No one's arguing that the Dupobs are Notable in the same way that Led Zeppelin is. The yardstick used should be different. --Jeandjinni 16:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
You appear to be arguing for us to have articles on bands because you think they are good, not because there are independent sources on which an article can be based. It doesn't work that way. A young performer I heard recently, Etienne Cutajar, has more talent in his little finger than the average boy band has in its entire collective body, but there are no sources (well, one, but it's in the journal of the British Horn Society so not widely circulated), so no article. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Guy, where did I ever say I thought Dupobs was good? I agree that Dupobs doesn't satisfy verifiability - that's an objective test. However, I disagree that Notability is the same thing for all musical genres or subcultures. There are other criteria I've suggested (aesthetics, relation to various traditions, coverage in dead press), but no one seems interested in talking about that. I agree with the proposed deletion on the grounds of verifiability, not on the grounds of notability. Further, in the hypothetical example you've cited, why would you think wide circulation mattered? As I've suggested in a more general sense previously, wouldn't the deletion of the Etienne Cutajar article constitute bias of Wikipedia in favour of coverage by commercial publications? Surely you wouldn't go that far?--Jeandjinni 01:40, 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 keep. --BozMo talk 09:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Closing early: no votes to delete and arguments have convinced me as nominator for AfD.

[edit] Jules Siegel

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

No visible notability. Prod deleted by user with name matching subject of article. Looks like non notable author.--BozMo talk 21:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - does indeed appear to be notable - has interviews with important sites: [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90] and especially [91]. However, dropped from keep, as he loses points for WP:VANITY. Part Deux 21:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Am interested that these are "important" sites...--BozMo talk 21:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Granted, it does seem to be a cult following. Lots of mentions in borderline publications. Except for the last one: mexconnect.com is a notable website. Part Deux 21:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Vanity books? Are you kidding? Three are in the Museum of Modern Art's Artists Books Collection. Two are reprints of books published by independents, including Straight Arrow. Another of my books was published by Workman. I design and publish my own work because that's the only way that I can have 100% creative control. "Freedom of the press is limited to those who one one." A. J. Liebling. I take that really seriously. Well, what the hell, Wikipedia is all just one big vanity press -- and now it wants to cull out people like me. AlterNet.org is non-important? This is really silly. It reminds me of a fraternity hazing. --Jules Siegel

I'd like to add that Jules Siegel is not only a notable author, but also a notable person, one that should not be deleted. -- Sharon Secor

Listen, all that is required rather than lots of WP:SPAs
You are using the term in a demeaning way that reveals your bias. I was informed about it by an admirer, who suggested that I fix it and inform my friends about it. The people respond who are interested in me, not the rest of your system. They take the quickest opening for defending me. I am not going to go into this at length. Suffice it so say that the Wikipedia instructional system has become obscure and unwieldy. Look at the bureacratic thicket that's growing right here as I attempt to get you to understand that perhaps you might be a bit out of line. A bit. Have you ever heard the term "kangaroo court?" I thought not. Well, follow the link. Shall we have a dreaded smiley here? Why not? :) --Jules Siegel
appearing and declaring that JS is notable is "visible notability"... that means the basis for notability has to be visible in the article. Include details in the article establishing notability as defined by the guidelines and we will rejoice. Jules, I don't think you should edit an article about yourself because of the guideline WP:COI but you are welcome to include things on the talk page which establish this. --BozMo talk 20:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The "visible notability" material has been in the article since I originally posted it back when Wikipedia was young. I don't want to sound testy, but has anyone read it? As far as editing my own article, doing so is entirely consistent with my life and work. As you can see, I haven't glorified myself. I've simply listed a few of my accomplishments with pointers to others. I was unaware of the WP:COI guideline (which I note are guidelines, not rules) when I added a few more items. I really don't get any of this. You've instituted a set of rather obscure "guidelines" and you are now zealously enforcing them retroactively as if they were rules in the most heavy-handed way possible. Does it occur to you that perhaps you should have read the article and looked at the external links first? In my view, Wikipedia should strive for inclusiveness, not exclusiveness. --Jules Siegel
Hmm. Please understand we have to deal with vast numbers of people who want pages about themselves. Yes, I read the article and followed the links. This is not personal please don't feel "testy". In return I ask have you read WP:BIO? I couldn't see anything which met the guidelines hence I tagged it for notability. You took the tag off without answering the question so ending up here is a bit procedural.
I added a link to the Museum of Modern Art Dadabase and Franklin Furnace. --Jules Siegel
Some good independent reviews of your work (i.e. not lulu.com or blogs) would be enough to qualify: I presume you have some, just provide them and I'll withdraw the AfD. Or if the links provided contain such say which: I do not have a deep knowledge of the nature of US publications. --BozMo talk 10:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
If you read the discussion, you'll see that I supplied the links to the reviews. Since you've discouraged me from editing my own page, I now have to wait for someone to spontaneously post them, I presume. Oh well, I'll just go ahead and post them myself and you can use that against me, too.
I also want to take exception to your comment about "blogs." You are setting criteria that you have absolutely no competence to judge. A review is a review. Who are you to determine the credibility of the source? You admit that you don't have deep knowledge of "the nature of US publications." In my case, the nature of the publications in which my work has appeared -- not reviewed -- is what actually counts the most and what makes me "notable." So if you aren't aware of the significance of New American Review, Saturday Evening Post, Playboy, Village Voice, Library of America, Rolling Stone, The Rock History Reader, you should perhaps do some research. All of these publications are listed in my cv.
People who come looking for me do so because of the quality of my work, often because they've seen my name mentioned in an online discussion, or because they are historians and scholars who are researching Brian Wilson, Bob Dylan, Thomas Pynchon and other celebrated people about whom I wrote articles that are unique original sources of information. The Brian Wilson story has been anthologized several times and is used as a primary source in every book about him. It's usually referred to as a "classic."
Now I can get one of my admirers to write that up and put it on the page, but I don't really feel that would be much different from doing it myself. The basic issue here is honesty. That's what my work is all about. If you can't perceive that from what I've written in this discussion and you can't get the points raised by the people who have written in my behalf, I think that I have to challenge you to defend your credibility and your judgment. Who are you exactly? Why are you tearing around Wikipedia imposing your rather legalistic edicts in areas where you admit you have little or no expertise?
Let's get something straight. I don't need Wikipedia. I posted some corrections in the story on Cancun quite a while ago. I don't recall when I decided to put up a brief item about myself. It just seemed like a good idea at the time. I did not realize that I would later be subjected to a "procedure" about it by an over-zealous administrator intent on maintaining the purity of Wikipedia from the un-notable. I was later invited to contribute by Jimmy Wales after I wrote to him to complain about offensive remarks about me that appeared in the Thomas Pynchon article that I could not edit because my IP address had been banned for unknown reasons. The remarks were immediately corrected by one of the administrators who was responsible for the page and my IP was fixed. So it's really more of a case of Wikipedia needing me, specifically because of my "notability."
If you want to delete, please do so. I've really had quite enough of this absurd and embarrassing discussion which has been an utter waste of my time. Nothing seems to satisfy you. --Jules Siegel

A friend has pointed out to me that the vanity remark refers to the fact that I wrote my own entry. That's right. I am a self-referential artist. My work is about me and what I see. That's the only truth I know. It's the only truth I believe. Anything else is hearsay. I used to write about Very Important People -- Brian Wilson, Bob Dylan, Thomas Pynchon -- for very large publications. A time came when I realized that my own life was what I knew best and that was what I should record.

Go ahead and delete it. If someone else chooses to restore it, that's fine with me. Dumped from Wikipedia for writing my own brief bio. From Wikipedia?. It's just the greatest! I love it. --Jules Siegel

I don't profess to be a Wikipedia expert, but Mr. Siegel appears to meet the "notability" test for authors set forth on the Wiki help pages that "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Perhaps he can elaborate, particularly with respect to the "art" and travel books. -- Jack Lebowitz Jackl2400 17:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Lineland: Mortality and Mercy on the Internet's Pynchon-L@Waste.Org. Record. Cancun User's Guide. Mad Laughter: Fragments of a Life in Progress I don't know why I am doing this. I am pathetic. Masturbating in public at 71. Help. --Jules Siegel

Last entry. Now I get it. I'm losing points for defending myself. WP:VANITY. Reminds me of [Bobby Seale]] bound and gagged at the Chicago Seven trial. Interestingly enough, I interviewed Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Tom Hayden, and Bobby Seale, four of the seven, for "Revolution," Playboy, March, 1970. But let's not get that heavy. Go ahead and delete me. I give up. Wikpedia has rules. You've got to know those rules. Other people have to point out that I am notable. Other people have to delete the delete Jules Siegel notice. [Slaps head.] How could I have been so stupid! Now I'm not going to be in Wikipedia and I am banished to the dustbin of history. That's what I get for talking back. Will I never learn?

Keep it. Siegel is a noted author with an compelling life story and an established body of work, who has been widely recognized by his peers. It seems to me the wikipedians are getting a little heavy-handed with their wanton purges based on an overencompassing vanity criteria. Self-submitted entries should be scrutinized certainly, but this should not be solely used as a convenient and to my mind, somewhat lazy excuse, to delete. Surely if his work is considered important enough for MOMA, that alone should render the request to delete moot. -- Libby Spencer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.57.79.132 (talk)

Keep -- his work is in the Museum of Modern Art; that gives him a certain level of notability that at least equals a lot of other people who have articles in WP.--Bookgrrl holler/lookee here 14:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep -- I've been reading the work of Jules Siegel for decades. To leave him out of Wikipedia is narrow-minded and misguided. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reference. Refer to him. David Goen Dsgoen 16:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Seems good enough to keep, the flood of socks notwithstanding. Stifle (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep The article is sourced, and N is clear. We should not be prejudiced against it because of the subject's/editor's absurd comments in this AfD.DGG 04:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep -- Jules is a genuine person, reputed writer. While it is not proper for a writer to write about him/herself in an encyclopedia, the things Jules has written are sourced and not out of the blue. Nixdorf 08:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, article about a real town; nomination withdrawn. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sengottai

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

This article about a place in India was clearly written by a few users who are unfamiliar with how to write a good article on Wikipedia. I am not making a statement about the notability of the place. However, as it stands, the article needs a complete overhaul at the very least. If an expert on the geography of India can shed some light on this, that would be great; otherwise, it may need to be deleted. YechielMan 21:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Note - this kind of problem is often best handled by the {{cleanup}} tags, or, at most, a {{prod}}, in my experience going through some pretty bad pages at WP:DEAD. Part Deux 21:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep and clean from looking at the what links here, it appears to be part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject India. Nobody is asserting that it is inaccurate or un-notable so I say keep it and try and get it cleaned up (maybe add a wikify tag as well) it's on the Wikipedia:Dead-end pages/L-Z so should be getting some attention soon. Jeepday 01:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Real places are notable and a simple google search reveals that this is a real place [92]. I think it's the same place as Shenkottai though I could be wrong. Also, this nomination is not a proper use of AfD. cab 03:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, I blew it. I spent a half hour trying to clean up the article, but someone beat me to it (edit conflict!) and did a better job anyhow. I don't make mistakes very often, but I made one in this case. Let's put a speedy keep on this article and move on. YechielMan 04:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Up Town Smoke Volume 1

Up Town Smoke Volume 1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Also including in this AfD the rap group and individual artist:

  • Crystalballism. Unreleased album from group that has never released an album on a label that has never released an album. If this was an anticipated release from an established artist, that would be one thing, but this requires a heavier dose of skepticism. De-prod-ed by author, without explanation. eaolson 21:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • delete all, per nom. Chris 22:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Author says this album is going to be released in Estonia. But WP not a crystal ball, and even when it is released there are no sources to establish notability. Author removed my prod request and AFD tags from article. Whole thing smells like spam/advertising. - Ocatecir 01:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all until and unless actually released. Until then it's just crystal-ballery. Stifle (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Miner

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

contested prod, non notable individual. Natalie 21:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - non-notable, with unreliable sources. – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • speedy delete vanity. Chris 22:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Unheard entertainment unless that is deleted in which case delete this also. Mallanox 23:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Delete, The Newsnight website seems not to have heard of him which makes me doubt his notability. Mallanox 00:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Reads like self-promotion. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above and WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diary of a Crazed Mimbanite

Diary of a Crazed Mimbanite (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article full of original research on a non-notable webcomic. /Blaxthos 22:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete a7. Only 117 ghits; and usually, went content is online, we expect more than normal ghits. Part Deux 22:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom mikmt 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I checked, and it's already been mirrored on Comixpedia, in case anyone wanted to transwiki. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Hit bull, win steak. Stifle (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mall emo

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

Low number of Google hits suggest that 'mall emo' is a non-notable neologism. The article seems to contain mostly original research, as none of the sources/references listed contain the term "mall emo". I am also nominating the following as the articles on the listed bands don't mention "mall emo" as a genre.

List of mall emo bands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

mikmt 22:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete A collection of OR that seems to be a soapbox to attack those the author has a distaste for. janejellyroll 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nomintation. Goodnightmush 22:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete both per all above. Sounds like OR to me. Natalie 22:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per all the reasons stated. Evan Reyes 23:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know anything about this style of music so I am not voting just want to ask if this reference altmusic.about.com given on the page supports the article. 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I'd say "no", because there is no mention of "mall emo" (or even the word "mall", for that matter) mikmt 01:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

*Comment. Assuming this article does get deleted, be aware that the creator has added this to a bunch of other pages. Those should probably be removed to discourage recreation. Natalie 20:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC) they have apparently removed the article themselves. Natalie 20:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. --Stormie 00:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Franklin Johnson

Thomas Franklin Johnson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced bio of a "legendary" musician, born in 1980, who is now in "early retirement." No sources for anything and it reads as if it was written by somebody with firsthand information of the subject. I did a google search for Thomas Johnson" and "bluegrass" and only came up with a mixer, no mentions of a musicians (The name is common, so I guess I could have overlooked something). Fails WP:N and WP:V and as far as "legendary" goes, I'd even say this might be a hoax. janejellyroll 22:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - and so tagged. [93] gets 28 ghits, almost none of which refer to this man. Part Deux 22:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing on allmusic, discogs. mikmt 22:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • weak keep so there is time to produce evidence, if there should be any. The assertions-- if correct --are sufficient N, even without the word "legendary;" Sources are of course needed. Speedy is not the route to go if the objection is that the article is unsourced. DGG 07:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't find anything on the guy, and a lot of the info in the article smells hoaxy. It's a shame that someone wrote this, instead of taking the time to work on the stubby little article of genuinely important '20s bluesman Tommy Johnson. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified. Stifle (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Target Longlife Media Player

Target Longlife Media Player (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a very minor modification of the software Media Player Classic, such a minor change does not afford it its own article. In addition, it is not notable enough for an article. Qutezuce 22:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. We are not Freshmeat. --Dennisthe2 00:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:SOFTWARE despite the pedigree. I could not verify the claim that it is based on MPC either way.--Dhartung | Talk 00:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above and WP:V. Stifle (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newgrounds timeline

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

A whole list of teenaged vanity namechecks and uncited information, spam links to things whose articles have been deleted and other sundry nonsense. This is the job of the Newgrounds FAQ, not an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete looks like a Résumé Jeepday 01:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unsourced and unsourcable. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia isn't a free web host. Belongs on their own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 group of people/spam. Stifle (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unheard entertainment

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

Delete: Little evidence of notability, unreliable sources given.  – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Natalie 22:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per nom, also see Richard Miner above, speedy vanity. Chris 23:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • abstain, I realise this is a strange suggestion but I think we should wait and see what happens as a result of TV coverage on Monday. Mallanox 23:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. AfDs are supposed to be open for five days, so there will be plenty of time to reevaluate if anything changes as a result of the TV coverage. Natalie 00:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Target Longlife Productions

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

This is a non-notable company. It lists many "films" based on popular game franchises, but none of them are licensed by the owner of the games, yet they are still "negotiating" to get the rights. The page was created as self-promotion by the company itself. Qutezuce 22:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as crystalballery and spam. --Dennisthe2 00:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete could not find any support for WP:N looks like spam to me. Jeepday 01:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Add and block from recreation based on entry below by User:Caesar, signed Jeepday 02:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, I was trying to verify if Trevor Jones (composer) really wrote a theme for them, but if so their website is the only confirmation. The principal is real but a non-notable actor. One finds postings like this: I just want to let you know that I am very serious about this cast and soundtrack, and that is no joke or hoax, although this is 100% fiction. --Dhartung | Talk 08:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete – Non-notable wannabe. I proposed deletion once before, and it was deleted. We've deleted it twice from svwp: Swedish VfD, March 2005. –Caesar 22:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Stifle (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tracy Press

Non-notable company. No assertion of notability. Fails to satisfy any WP:CORP criterion. Valrith 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • merge to Tracy, California mild notability but certainly not its own article. Chris 23:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, long-established newspaper in a large city. Needs expansion, not deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since it is the only newspaper in Tracy (pop 75,000) it is presumably the newspaper of record for Tracy; bigger impact on the world than Spot (Star Trek); deemed "encyclopedic" by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles project (always check 'what links here'); primary difference between Tracy Press and the also family-owned The Seattle Times is that Seattle is much bigger, so anything from Seattle will get more G-hits than comparable things from Tracy. 71.231.107.188 00:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect short article that does not look like it has the potential to be more then a long stub. Merge until it needs it's own article. Jeepday 01:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There's too much subject specific information here to be merged into another article. Primary newspaper for a city with over 75,000. --Oakshade 06:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Tracy Press is included in Google News Archive, & in business since 1898. If there were a WP:NEWSPAPER standard, surely it would meet it. --Dhartung | Talk 07:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge per Chris, minor newspaper of small city doesn't appear to merit inclusion. Stifle (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dániel Erdély

It does not look like he meet criteria on notability. He is just a student Alex Bakharev 22:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the page, defaulting to keep. It is very likely that this would survive a new listing anyway. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Google tv

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

Nonsense; nothing more than an elaborate hoax. Technostalgia 23:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete G1 (nonsense). So tagged. --Dennisthe2 00:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Changing vote to Keep per User:Canley's note, but fer cryin' out loud, clean up that article and make it more presentable! --Dennisthe2 23:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete looks even the blog on the you-tube supports it's hoax status. Jeepday 00:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC) change vote to Keep per User:Canley's note. Good job on putting it together :) Jeepday 03:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete or rework to CLEARLY state that it is a hoax and that this article is only for preserving the fact that it became somewhat of a phenomenon on the web. Perhaps move to a list of Internet fads? --LoganK 03:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as utterly A7. This isn't even an internet phenomenon, it's only been uploaded a day ago. That said, pretty subtle, and I hope not too many people bork their iTunes because of him. --Dhartung | Talk 07:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Obvious hoax, patent nonsense.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 12:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, hoax and nonsense. Terence Ong 13:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Dont delete this isnt a hoax. Try it if you dont belive me. I spent all day Friday trying it out and I just now got it going.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.226.119.201 (talk • contribs).
  • Yes, this appears to be a hoax, but -- and I am new to editing wikipedia -- but it appears the deletion standards make room for articles "about" hoaxes, such as this one, whereas it not permit articles that are in and of themselves hoaxes. Here is the language from one of the diagrams: "Article is a hoax (not an article about a hoax)" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.107.250.200 (talk • contribs).
If this makes it into major media like the NYT, then it will be a notable hoax. As of yet (January 29, barely three days after the video was first uploaded) there hasn't been that sort of coverage that would allow us to write an authoritative article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

all i know is, if this article had been deleted, i would still be trying to get google tv. please keep it up.

  • Delete apparent hoax.++aviper2k7++ 03:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not a speedy delete, as it is not patent nonsense, but it is a delete for lack of verifiability. Stifle (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - if there's nothing verifiable on there, then I have the same comments as above. Of course, there's nothing wrong merging some of the info into a page regarding hoaxes or Google, etc. CoolGuy 02:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as probably hoax. Also fails WP:V. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 02:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete... This article is about a hoax, therefore the very nature of it is unverifiable. As long as it has that disclaimer, why shouldn't it stay?--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 03:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
How is the very nature of a hoax unverifiable? A hoax is simply a hoax and thus known to be false--otherwise it would not be a hoax.--LoganK 14:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep i just added 3 references so it might be verifible and notable now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The P++ Man (talk • contribs)
  • Keep the above refs obviously carry weight and if this afd is to process it should be relisted. great save. frummer 18:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm still waffling, and the article may be a keeper now, but can somebody check the reliability of the sources added? --Dennisthe2 20:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm satisfied from the references (several reliable tech commentary sites) that this is a notable hoax, and I agree the AFD should be relisted on that basis, with the article rewritten to clarify that it's a hoax. --Canley 23:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep But make clear that this is a hoax (and quite a notable one). ShawshankRedemption 07:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite Google Video is a hoax by a production company called Fatal Farm; you can see them credited in the end titles of the Infinite Solutions videos, and they are also circulating a series of hoax TV ads and recut television show intros. Rewriting the article to be about Fatal Farm would cover the hoax unambiguously as well as being a more general topic of broader interest. --Stlemur 16:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • In which case, I'd say merge and redirect, but there doesn't seem to be much to merge to at this time. Still, my !vote above stands. --Dennisthe2 22:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wake Up

"If this makes it into major media like the NYT, then it will be a notable hoax." Why should an electronic public encyclopedia use foolish standards of inclusion, when there's no limitation of print, pages, or storage? The notion of a useful standard of "notability" is an idiotic enterprise, on the part of wiki policy. ALL MANNERS OF MINUTIAE are "notable" for somebody somewhere who has cause to find information that particular thing, at some point in time. The Infinite Solutions video exists in the world. Secondly, people have already taken the cell-phone/network video seriously. If anybody wanted to understand whether the videos were "real" or "fake" a wiki would obviously help. To assert that the hoax isn't "notable" because there's no big-media mention, and therefore that it shouldn't be included in wikipedia, is nothing more than snobbish ignorance. (By the way, the suggestion that NY Times coverage somehow inherently lends "authoritative"ness to any issue or topic, or set of facts, is extremely naive.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.132.160 (talk • contribs)

If you think our standards of notability are "foolish", as you so put it, then please also note that we have a very firm statement on what we are - and equally important, what we are not. Before you declare what Wikipedia is for, please note that it is more important to note that Wikipedia has its own statements on what Wikipedia is, and it will stand by that. --Dennisthe2 22:41, 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 Speedy Keep No reason to speedy the nomination; but I am closing it per WP:DENY.--Isotope23 17:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IPWA Election Day Anarchy

IPWA Election Day Anarchy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

what makes these events any more substantial an professional wretsling event than the hundreds of other professional wrestling events? Not sayin i expect em to be a WrestleMania but a separate page for all of these vents seems very weird. Maybe merge them to IPWA EVENTS?

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reason listed above:

IPWA Holy Land Havoc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
IPWA Kosher Clash (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
IPWA Passover Bash (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
IPWA SUMMER SPLASH (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
IPWA Netanya Havoc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
IPWA Collision (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
IPWA EVENTS (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
IPWA WrestleNovella (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Jarfullofempty 23:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT: Bad Faith Nomination from now indefblocked user (blocked as a SOCK of User:JB196), and I have placed a db-ban on it with no prejudice towards renomination. SirFozzie 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] L5 Riesig

L5 Riesig (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable, serves really no purpose. William Pembroke(talk) 21:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of BF2142cruft. Stifle (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.