Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 28 January 30 >
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 delete as unverifiable. The one Japanese source looks pretty doubtful as it appears to be seller company. - Mailer Diablo 03:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Lloyd Glover

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

Subject of article does notmeet guidelines of WP:V. I can tell he is an artist, just can't find how he is a notable artist Nv8200p talk 00:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom as WP:V. Bigtop 00:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified somehow. Possible conflict of interest. --N Shar 00:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 02:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Just H 03:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless his notability can be verified.-- danntm T C 14:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but thoroughly rewrite and wikify LHOON 14:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and attempt to find citations. I'm not a fan of deleting articles on WP:V alone, because I think that it could be cited. JCO312 14:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
In which case, if it's deleted, it can always be recreated later with proper citations. Generally speaking articles without references run the risk of potential deletion until such time as the references can be provided, even if the information appears to possibly be accurate. Dugwiki 21:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unsourced is bad, unsourced from a single-purpose account raises red flags. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think deleting is wrong in this case. I think this article should be kept. It should not have been tagged for AfD. It should have been tagged {{Citations missing}} or {{unreferenced}}. This is a notable person if the facts check out. TonyTheTiger 17:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Article seems to lack notability. Tellyaddict 18:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - about 190 Google hits on the name in quotes, but nothing substantial or third-party coming to the fore in a look through them. There's some notability mentioned in the article, but I don't see citations to back it up. If it's deleted but he's notable enough for an article, someone can certainly recreate - with the sources included. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A search turned up nothing on this person. While I understand and admit that the internet doesn't contain all the works of mankind and it's quite possible to be thoroughly notable with no internet presence at all, it's not the job of individual editors to thoroughly search for sources which should be included in the article at creation. Cheers, Lankybugger 21:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep appears to be verifiable, and the course for missing refs is to mark unreferenced. . WP does not (or should not ) exclude notable figures whose supporters dont know how to write WP articles.DGG 04:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure it does. Articles are frequently deleted in part or in whole because they are unreferenced. The fact that it might be verifiable simply means that it will be easier to recreate the article properly at a later time. Deletion due to lack of references doesn't mean the article can't later resurface in a better form. Dugwiki 22:45, 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 No conesnsus. Cbrown1023 talk 04:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lengths of superhero film and television series

Lengths of superhero film and television series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • also nominating Lengths of science fiction movie and television series (second nomination)
  • Delete - I know some folks don't care for the use of the word "cruft" in discussing articles to delete, bu this is cruft. A list of various superhero franchises by how long, if all filmed components of the franchise were run start to finish, it would last. Thoroughly unencyclopedic, and any bits of data that might actually be useful (like the number of episodes in a series) should be included in the articles on the series themselves. Otto4711 00:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - 'Cruft' is not a wikipedia policy, nor is the fact that a single editor finds the information useless a reason to delete. Certain readers may well find it interesting and informative to compare the depth of several canons. (After all, why is number of episodes so clearly more useful? Long 1 hour per episode series cannot be compared to a series consisting of 10 minute shorts. From internet downloading to buying dvds, and given multi-episode arcs, episode number has little meaning after original broadcast, whereas total length does.) The info is verifiable, and besides, has passed AfD before (see first nom on the scifi listing). Nothing has changed to warrant reopening that decision.--Fangz 01:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - The Point of the list is to show time, which is practically useless for any research or knowledge such that it is WP:NOT violation as indiscriminate collection of information. There is no point to listing like this since there is no real notibility in lengths. Doesnt fit with WP:FICT or other rules because it is indiscriminate. Also put up with this article these two: Lengths of fantasy film and television series Lengths of science fiction film and television series.--Dacium 02:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - indiscriminate listcruft. MER-C 03:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - textbook case of indiscriminate information, which Wikipedia is not. Resolute 04:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete (W)hol(e)y pointless listmaking Batman! WP:NOT#IINFO pretty much makes "Wikipedia is not for listing the running times of a small number of films and TV shows for no particular reason" a foregone conclusion. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • See comment above re: use of WP:NOT#IINFO. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • 1. Consider my comment a pre-emptive response to yours. 2. Your BBC article is not an independent reliable source, it was issued by the same corporation that produces the television programme in question, while it backs up the factual content of the article it goes no way to assert its notability. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • BBC News is completely independent from BBC Drama, and is, I believe, forbidden by its Charter from giving its own programmes preferential treatment in news coverage. But if you're worried that they're a biased source, the matter was also covered at the Guardian. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep No valid reason is given for deletion. Valid almanac data. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is indeed information of the same kind found in an Almanac, and which can even make the news from time to time. Now that said, I do think these lists should be expanded, and cover more series, but I also think List of longest running U.S. television series would benefit from some organization like this page as well. I also must continue to express my concern with nominations using the term "cruft" . If you can't articulate a problem with an article better than that, maybe you should reconsider your nomination. FrozenPurpleCube 06:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment When did Wikipedia become an almanac? -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia is a reference work! It has encyclopedia articles (prose) and almanac articles (charts and tables). So I guess it became an almanac when the first list was compiled. Its also a gazetteer. Both are useful. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep To reiterate my point from the last time this was nominated and kept: "I have twice seen this article used as a reference on other websites, meaning people are finding it useful. It is an accurate, up-to-date, almanac-style list." --Arctic Gnome 06:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an indiscriminate collection of information without coverage in independant sources. The BBC article mentioned several times above talks about Doctor Who as the "longest running" such series, but they are not talking about cumulative run time. See List of longest running U.S. television series for how "longest running" is used in the industry context. Also, the original AFD primarily addressed the topic of WP:OR rather than WP:NOT. Although, for the record, I am not convinced the correct outcome was reached on the OR issue either; not only was much of the support in the form of WP:ILIKEIT, but many movies and television episodes exist in multiple versions with different runtimes (this is especially true of the original Star Trek series and any movie with a Director's Cut version). How do we determine which are canonical for these lists? Serpent's Choice 07:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As further comment, there doesn't seem to be any real criteria for what material is counted toward these "total running lengths". While the disinclusion of Corman's 1994 ashcan Fantastic Four is perhaps justifiable, the Superman listing is missing substantial material, including any of the animated material (the 17 Fleischer cartoons, the 68 New Adventures of Superman, the 1988 series or the 1996 series) as well as the 1948 and 1950 serials or the first theatrical feature. As further evidence of the difficulties involved with actually computing running time, that first theatrical release was re-cut as the pilot for the first TV series, which is counted. Should the movie be counted separately? The Batman material suffers from similar arbitrary standards of inclusion (missing, for example, the Hanna-Barbera live-action specials, the 1943 and 1949 serials and several animated runs). Serpent's Choice 11:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a problem with those sections, which you should either rectify yourself, or bring up on the talk page. As deletion arguments go though, it's not convincing. If there is reliable information as to different lenghts, or other series, then include all of that information with the proper annotations. FrozenPurpleCube 13:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • However, this isn't something that I can fix by editing. The problem is that I can see no way to come up with a total runtime number without resorting to original research. So many of these sources exist in versions with different lengths, that an effort to list all the possible totals would itself approach article length for some of these franchises. Let's look at Superman. Superman and the Mole Men had a 58 minute runtime. It was recut and retitled into two 26 minute TV episodes. Do we count 58 minutes, 52 minutes, or 110 minutes? The 1978 film had a 143 minute theatrical release, a 188 minute International Edit, a 182 minute ABC television broadcast, a 151 minute DVD cut, and a 127 minute VHS/Laserdisk compressed version. Then there is Superman II. Do we add 127 minutes for the original release, 151 minutes for the television premiere, 144 for the ABC recut of the television premiere, 116 minutes for the 2006 official studio recut, or some combination of those values. Now our total -- from just three movies! -- might be 295, 301, 306, 311, 312, 317, 319, 322, 323, 325, 328, 329, 330, 336, 339, 345, 346, 347, 350, 352, 353, 354, 356, 360, 361, 362, 364, 367, 369, 373, 377, 378, 380, 381, 384, 385, 388, 390, 391, 397, 404, 405, 408, 412, 414, 419, 425, 436, 442, 443, 449, or more if we count the Donner cut as a separate movie from the Lester film. When we add the 68 6-minute New Adventures of Superman, do we just add 408 minutes?. They were not broadcast as standalone programs. 36 of them bookended The Adventures of Superboy short in the New Adventures of Superman program, while the rest were broadcast along with non-Superman material in The Superman/Aquaman Hour of Adventure and The Batman/Superman Hour. Does the entire runtime of these programs count? If not, do the Superboy shorts from the first season count as Superman content anyway? What about material that includes Superman alongside other characters? Super Friends? Nearly every franchise has this problem. Without a means to reconcile it, I cannot envision a way to assemble these articles in compliance with WP policy. Serpent's Choice 06:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Seems fixable to me. I would include either the longest length or the length of the most widely available version, or the original version, or all three, depending on the circumstances. If I was unsure, I'd bring it up on the talk page, or just include it all with the proper annotations. You do not, however, total two presentations of the same material just with different cuts. It should only be included once in the total, even if you can get different totals depending on what cuts you use to create the sum. The same with your questions about the Superman animated material. If you're not sure it should be included, bring it up on the talk page, get the consensus of other editors as to the proper presentation of the information. To me, your arguments make for a good reason to present this information in the fullest and most complete manner possible, not a reason for deletion. Sure, you can get different numbers, but you can get different numbers talking about casualties of war, or the costs of natural disasters. Or even the census. FrozenPurpleCube 17:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • BTW, I felt I should add that your concerns are also going to apply to the articles of the material in question anyway. There is no doubt in my mind that articles on movies/tv shows should include run time information. This is information that's included on the box of the movie/television show. Yet there will be problems like you mention in the article itself. Thus your concern also applies there, and since it will have be resolved for those articles, I don't see it as a particular problem for this article either. Might be difficult at times, depending on the circumstances, but it can be done. FrozenPurpleCube 17:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom/otto and WP:NOT -- where does this silliness end? /Blaxthos 08:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, its updated, don't see why its cruft. Terence Ong 10:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per the last AFD. I see this list as useful and not crufty. CheekyMonkey 10:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Its already survived one AFD, thats plenty good enough for me....can we move on now please? Jcuk 11:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Serpent's choice. The BBC article is talking about the number of episodes, not total running time. The point about director's cuts and special editions is also well taken.--Nydas(Talk) 11:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep both this s a bit silly, but it is verifiable data of at least minimal interest.-- danntm T C 14:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the last AfD was primarily about WP:OR. This doesn't appear qualify under WP:NOT. This is an indiscriminate collection of information, all of which should just be included on the individual movie pages. JCO312 14:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Actually the last AfD brought up WP:NOT and people calling it (in exactly the same words) an "indiscriminate collection of information". And the consensus has been to keep. Nothing has changed in the meantime. Makgraf 21:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete facts <> knowledge. This is facts. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not really a place for this and if it were to be kept it would need some cleanup. Tellyaddict 18:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't see why the film lengths aren't in the individual articles (if not already). this is simply a silly article to have on wikipedia.--Tainter 19:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • In some cases, no article exists for the film or television series — generally, articles exist for individual films or television shows, not for franchises. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per cruft, and no articles link to this one except the other "lengths" lists. HalJor 19:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete (but not because of "NOT" As mentioned by others above, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE would not apply to this article. It refers only to specific classes of information that have already received consensus among editors to discriminate against inclusion. Statistical lists, however, are not currently included under that section of policy.
Now, that being said, I do have some concerns about the list possibly having arbitrary inclusion criteria, since it says it includes "popular" shows and films. It seems likely that there are numerous other shows that should be included, but aren't (eg where are all the Spiderman shows? Flash?). Not to mention that I'm not sure why the list is focussed narrowly on superheroes to begin with. Why superheros and not "sci-fi/fantasy"?
I'm also concerned about upkeep of this list. It seems to me this information is only useful if it can be kept current. But the current list is only as of May 26, 2006. So it appears that noone is updating the list, and even if someone does update it that's no guarantee editors will keep updating it over and over regularly every week (as would be necessary to keep the information accurate.
So even if you assume the information might be useful, it looks like the list has somewhat arbitrary rules for inclusion, is oddly framed as just a list for superheros, and can only be kept useful by constant, regular editorial updates. Sounds to me like a recipe for problems - I unfortunately recommend deletion. Dugwiki 21:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • While I certainly agree with your conclusion, I disagree strongly with your assertion that WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE only applies to those things which are specifically named at the policy. Otto4711 22:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: Dugwiki's comment about updating applies only to the "superhero" list; the science fiction list, which is bundled with this delete request, is regularly updated.
Also, if certain series have been omitted that is an argument for improving the article, not for deleting it. I don't think that the series you mention have been deliberately excluded — I just don't think anyone's gotten around to adding them. Last time I looked, incompleteness wasn't a deletion criterion.
Incidentally, the superhero and fantasy lists were spun out from the science fiction one when that became unwieldy. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to reply to Josiah and Otto -
Otto, sorry we aren't seeing eye to eye since, if I recall correctly, we usually go the same way on afd/cfd. Guess we can't agree all the time, eh? Either way, feel free to post your comments on the WP:NOT talk page where there are a couple of discussion threads on the topic of just how broadly to interpret WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. I've made similar arguments there that I did here, and it is an interesting policy topic in general beyond just this article.
Josiah, normally I'd agree that it's better to improve an article than delete it. However, my concern is that this particular type of article is only useful if it is intentionally and regularly updated. "Incompleteness" isn't a deletion criterion, but articles and categories do get deleted on occasion if they are determined to be too difficult to properly maintain or their information is determined to be inaccurate or misleading. In this case, the list in question hasn't been kept properly up to date, having sat for a year with no updates at all. I'd be more inclined to recommend Keep if I felt comfortable that the article could maintain its information in a timely and more complete fashion. Dugwiki 22:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to put it one more way, if I thought the maintainence problem was short term and could be fixed in a reasonable amount of time, I'd be ok with the article. But my concern is that the lack of maintainence is due to a long term, systemic problem with the list that probably can't or won't be corrected. But hey, if someone can prove me wrong, go for it! Dugwiki 23:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Lengths of science fiction movie and television series has been regularly updated. The fact that the superhero list hasn't been would therefore seem to be more a question of whether there are wikipedians with the interest and inclination than an intrinsic problem with this type of list. If regular updating is the concern, the superhero list should be deleted and the science fiction one kept. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree with the delete votes above, and I also agree that just because WP:NOT doesn't specifically say "not for lists of television shows based on length" doesn't mean we can't cite the premise of WP:NOT to include this list, which is nothing more than trivial almanac data (although highly, highly unuseful, despite assertions above).-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: "unuseful" is something that varies from individual to individual. For example, I would never use List of National Basketball Association career steals leaders, so to me it's unuseful. But I recognize that there are many people who would find it useful. The same goes for these lists — just because you don't find them useful doesn't mean that they are universally "unuseful". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft. JuJube 01:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Serpent's Choice derided "keep" arguments in the previous AfD as being WP:ILIKEIT — for consistency's sake, it should be noted that this (and a few other "votes" in this discussion) are prime examples of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Josiah Rowe, we all appreciate that you are taking this AfD seriously, but it is not always helpful to respond to every single person who disagrees with you. You can make your point eloquently and concisely once and not have to post a comment under every delete vote.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. per WP:N and WP:V. No evidence has been provided that the lengths of these films has any notability. Without evidence that the subject of this article has notability, this article must be deleted. Absolutely no independent sources of any kind have been produced showing media coverage or scholarly publication specifically on the subject of this article, the lengths of these films. The policy has nothing to do with whether we think it's appropriate or not or whether we like it or not. Notability as shown by sources is a must. Delete. --Shirahadasha 03:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'll try to stop responding to every posting, but I just thought of an alternative to deletion; the article could be moved to something like List of long-running science fiction film and television franchises (and, perhaps, List of long-running superhero film and television franchises) with the content restricted and focus altered accordingly. This would make the articles more analogous to List of longest running U.S. television series, which I take it is uncontroversial. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • One last thought, and then I'll try to shut up: It's not quite a reliable source, but here's an example of someone citing the "lengths of science fiction series" list as an example of what's great about Wikipedia, and someone else links to the article here in a discussion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Firstly, "cruft" is not a reason for deletion, (see WP:ILIKEIT). Secondly, it is notable series, and all the facts are patently verifiable. This also falls under the "information" purpose of lists. —siroχo 08:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for two reasons: 1) Notability of show's running times has not been demonstrated by referencing "multiple, non-trivial 3rd-party reliable sources". One BBC and one Guardian source do not make a strong claim, not-to-mention the ambiguity of "longest running" as mentioned by an editor further up this page. That the Wikipedia article itself has been mentioned elsewhere is a self-refernce and is not evidence of notability in the Wikipedia sense. 2) User:Serpent's Choice's frankly bloody fantastic and well-considered argument above illustrates exactly why these sorts of lists will forever have problems bordering on original research which can NEVER reasonably be fixed. Zunaid©® 13:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Josiah Rowe. -Toptomcat 13:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful reference, although incomplete and using a fairly arbitrary definition of what tou be included. Should get a Fixup tag and have some editor discussion to firm up the scope of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arakunem (talk • contribs) 17:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep, per Josiah Rowe. The Wookieepedian 20:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This list is totally indescriminate; these facts should be in the relevant articles for each series, if at all. Salad Days 22:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I still believe this could be a useful collection of information, and it's not, properly speaking, an "indiscriminate" collection. It does require cleanup. It's true that the facts can be found in various other articles, but I think there may be some value to collecting them in a single place for ease of comparison. That value admittedly seems rather limited to me (hence "weak" keep), but that's just me. Serpent's Choice presents the best argument for deletion, but I feel the key points could be addressed through consensus among the list maintainers -- in fact, by defining precisely what is included and how, they'll also be making the article less "indiscriminate." I doubt I'd shed many tears if it were deleted, but it seems worth a shot, considering. Shimeru 10:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is hardly crufty at all, useful list, not indiscriminate, certainly has a place on Wikipedia (Not paper!) - too valuable to delete. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. While a list of longest running insert-genre-here may have some worth, I think this in particular is too narrow a genre to offer a valuable or notable comparison. It's been around since May and there's still only five canons mentioned. Tiakalla 06:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an important article Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 16:07, 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. TigerShark 12:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lengths of fantasy film and television series

Lengths of fantasy film and television series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - see also the nominations for the equivalent superhero and science fiction runing time lengths. Thoroughly unencyclopedic cruft consisting of how long various franchises, if run start to finish, would last. Otto4711 00:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry, my bad for assuming that people would access this nom through the AfD page rather than the article page. See this concurrent nomination of two additional "length of" list articles. Otto4711 04:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Either way, the article provides information only about the length of a television show. The topic itself is not notable, and could probably be considered a directory. Delete Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 03:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - indiscriminate listcruft. MER-C 04:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you please explain how you see this as indiscriminate? It isn't in any of the categories listed at WP:NOT#IINFO. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't have to meet a specific point. It's still an indiscriminate collection of information. It's trivial and probably original research as well. MER-C 05:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not original research — the information is derived from IMDb and tv.com. Lengths of science fiction film and television series has links for each series pointing to the relevant IMDb page (although the citation process stalled out a while back, the citations can be added). Similar citations could be added for this page. The fact that the citations are currently lacking is an argument for article improvement, not deletion. Please see the previous AfD nomination for the science fiction series article, in which OR claims were made and rejected. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is original research to the extent of gathering the times and adding them together. Regardless of whether it's OR or not, the information is still indiscriminate and trivial and unencyclopedic. Otto4711 16:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Original research is defined at WP:NOR as "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." " Addition of times advances no position, nor does it create a novel narrative or historical interpretation. There's a world of difference between a crackpot scientific theory (which was what WP:NOR was created to exclude) and simple addition of times. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per MER-C Resolute 04:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep — notable and not indiscriminate almanac-style list. See my argument at the related AfD for superhero and science fiction franchises. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep No valid reason is given for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per others above /Blaxthos 08:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, listcruft. Terence Ong 10:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above Jcuk 11:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the reasons discussed in sibling Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lengths of superhero film and television series, namely that this runs afoul of WP:NOT, that selection between differing versions of television broadcasts and movies renders runtime determinations original research and that inclusion of works within series (or, especially here, within "canon" status) is arbitrarily defined (and thus also OR). A more elaborate discussion has take place at the other linked AFD. For all practical purposes, this article should be conisdered bundled with the other two. Serpent's Choice 12:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • "Canon status" is determined by consensus discussion on the articles' talk pages. Many franchises have made official statements on what is and isn't canonical; the articles reflect those statements. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep it's verifiable and at least of minimal interest.-- danntm T C 14:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete facts <> knowledge. This is facts. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete again like the above article, a waste of space, facts could be included in the film articles. --Tainter 19:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete (but not because of WP:NOT) As I mentioned in the related afd, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE does not cover this type of statistical list article. So I am discounting those arguments. However, I do have concerns about upkeep, since this list requires constant upkeep to be useful and accurate. Given that the list hasn't been updated in almost a year, I'm skeptical it will be updated as consistently as it needs to be. I'm also concerned about the list's arbitrary inclusion criteria. How do you decide which shows to include and which not to include? It seems like this list is particularly small and probably missing a number of fantasy shows. So with a seemingly arbitrary inclusion criteria and a problem with ongoing upkeep of accurate information, I'm reluctantly recommending deletion. Dugwiki 21:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete with the same reasoning given in the previous AfD above.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. per WP:N and WP:V. Just as in the companion AfD above, no evidence has been provided that the lengths of these films has any notability. Without evidence that the subject of this article has notability, this article must be deleted. Absolutely no independent sources of any kind have been produced showing media coverage or scholarly publication specifically on the subject of this article, the lengths of these films. The policy has nothing to do with whether we think it's appropriate or not or whether we like it or not. Notability as shown by sources is a must. Delete. --Shirahadasha 04:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm going to try to stop responding to every posting, but I just thought of an alternative to deletion; the article could be moved to something like List of long-running fantasy film and television franchises, with the content restricted and focus altered accordingly. This would make the articles more analogous to List of longest running U.S. television series, which I take it is uncontroversial. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per my reasoning in the above AfD. Notability of the subject has not been demonstrated by citing mentions in multiple non-trivial 3rd-party reliable sources. User:Shirahadasha above puts it quite eloquently. Zunaid©® 13:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per my opinion in the above AfD. Shimeru 10:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete "Popular" is not defined, making the list completely unmaintainable. ShadowHalo 10:28, 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 03:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Lonero

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

Endorsements by sponsors are not one of the criteria supported by WP:MUSIC. Shawnc 00:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Does not meet notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 02:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The only chance at satisfying WP:MUSIC that I see here is in his album Slather, but I cannot find any indication that it has been certified gold status. All other criteria listed under WP:MUSIC are simply not met at all. --Wildnox(talk) 02:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 04:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable --Euzebia Zuk 13:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete regardless if notable or not, there are no non-trivial sources to back the claim. If that would change i.a.w. WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC by end of this AfD that would also change my vote Alf photoman 15:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep This article is about an artist and does have some notability. Tellyaddict 18:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
What notability would that be, exactly? A Train take the 20:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep the guy is notable. I think it's more of a question of the author rewriting this and adding more (reliable) referencing --Abu-Bakr69 13:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. 284 gh [1], but added a few weak references to the article if that helps. Only the one album on AMG, no credits. Did find an album review and a sponsor bio. I have used sponsor bios on other musician articles before though to help establish notability. Cricket02 04:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lack of google hits and failure to clear WP:MUSIC hurdles. A Train take the 19:50, 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 03:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eric C. Novack

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

This is the alleged author of novel Killing Molly, which was deleted from wikipedia due to non-notability, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Killing_Molly, and I was the one who initiated its deletion process. If this person's work was worth being deleted here because it is not notable, then this person is probably not notable enough to be here. Wooyi 00:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Killing Molly does exist as a publication. It is currently a literary property under development with a Detroit film production company called Thought Collide. The selling of 3000 copies, which is hard to verify when a press is independent, is a pass on a criteria of notability. The hurdle is selling 1000 copies of a work of art, such as a compact disk of music. I understand the difficulty of verifying all of this independently from where you are executing your wikipedia duties. Not a hoax. Nowak is a keep, and the Killing Molly article will be reposted with easier aids for verification. Wmjuntunen 01:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As best as I can tell on Ghits his best (and almost only) claim to fame is the book that has failed a AfD. Jeepday 01:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. "The selling of 3000 copies, which is hard to verify when a press is independent, is a pass on a criteria of notability. The hurdle is selling 1000 copies of a work of art, such as a compact disk of music"? No! Please see the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (books) and the definitively established guidelines WP:BIO and WP:N. One reliable source is not notability. --N Shar 01:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The novel he wrote doesn't have an ISBN? Then it's not notable, and he's not notable for having written it as far as Wikipedia's concerned. Just H 03:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 04:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. "Self-styled as "The Bad Boy of Literature" may be one of the saddest things I've read on Wikipedia. janejellyroll 08:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:V. Terence Ong 11:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Self-styled, self-published, self-promoting. NawlinWiki 19:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete very short and somewhat promotional article that does not meet WP:BIO.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • To take these objections in turn is important.
    I read 1000 copies in a guideline. It's a good number; some limited editions of undoubtable notability are published in lower numbers. The guidelines you mention are proposed guidelines, as you say. Until these proposed guidelines go into effect, kindly adjudicate by the ones that are current. Any reason for the exclamation point on your no? I thought this forum is a learned, genteel discussion, with no need for yelling, 'No!'
    Much valuable literature is published without an ISBN or a Library of Congress call number. I wonder if Abby Hoffman's 'Steal this Book' had an ISBN number at first. Why should the Wikipedia be bound by the decision of the board that issues ISBN or Library of Congress's call numbers as a gauge of notability.
    The Killing Molly article failed a AfD probably because of improper writing of the article, so the book didn't fail an AfD. An article about the book failed an AfD.
    Saying that "Self-styled as The Bad Boy of Literature" is the saddest thing you've read on Wikipedia is an unusual statement. Many authors self-style themselves one or another monicker. Heck, one of the fine points of Cassius Clay is the way he self-styled himself, especially when preparing for a prize-fight. Any one who follows publishing knows that many authors self-publish and self-promote books. The latest example is Eragon, which came to the attention of Carl Hiassen in its self-published, self-promoted, un-ISBN-ed form.
  • Hey, I just checked Amazon. Killing Molly is there ! Did you really chase down any of those ghits?
    And Killing Molly has an ISBN Number ----> ISBN-10: 0975407406 and ISBN-13: 978-0975407400[2]
  • One of my greatest complaints about this adjudicative process is the process starts to resemble a mob far too quickly. More, it seems I've rarely found bulls wasting time participating in these put-down sessions. The article for deletion process seems to attract a bearish kind of person, most irresponsible of all those who write the argot, 'nn'. If you can write full thoughts, do your comments belong in a deliberative process? Wmjuntunen 21:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
but in the AfDs the mobbing can also work the other way--once the consensus seems to shift, people come and agree with it, though they may not have contributed much to the actual discussion. --just compare the beginning of any long AfD with the end. It would, however, not be in the traditional spirit of WP to ask that people read the article before voting. The first step might be to automatically delete the comments/vote of anyone who used the word: per X. --its just as meaningless as nn (sort of a smile) DGG 07:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • These deletions only delete the article but does not prevent you to write it again. So if there are more sources (like you said about Amazon) are added on, you can well reinstate the article. Wooyi 21:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - despite the comments of Wmjuntunen, wikipedia is not the place for things that are not currently notable but might be in the future; in particular, it is not the place to increase the appearance of notability to further that agenda.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Research & Rewrite The link at the article http://www.elitistpublications.com/km_reviews.htm cites five reviews of his book, but we need a better reference resourse than the author's website. Can someone verify any of these sources? Maybe a rewrite of the text would make the article more appealing. It's not improper grammer, but it just doesn't work for me. This could be a keeper with some help. I do agree with the author that too frequently the AfD looks like a mob, at first blush, but if you fix your article and recontact the mobsters you will find that each of them is a thoughtful and understanding person who will reconsider. Good luck! --Kevin Murray 01:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Note I rewrote the article, but my ego will not turm "self-styled bad boy" if someone reverts me. --Kevin Murray 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment I can see the improvement being done, if more sources are added on I would suggest to keep. Wooyi 02:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I would like to point out that I never self styled myself as the "Bad Boy of Literature" that was a given nickname from Living for Sundance Group and Thought Collide Films and members of Detroit Synergy. Also I appreciate the debate on if I should or should not be in Wikipedia. If the article stays I would appreciate the addition of thedetroiter.com and/or mrbellersneighborhood.com for reference purposes. I have written for both online magazines. Thank you Eric C. Novack

  • Delete References so far are unconvincing/insubstantial. Wikipedia is not a free publicity and advertising platform. We need significant, reliable evidence of encyclopedic notability. So far we have a local newspaper event promotion article of uncertain significance, a review from a website which Mr. Novack is himself involved with as the website's literature section editor[3], and a couple of small reviews in obscure publications of uncertain reliability and significance printed on the book's own website . And yes, the title "Bad Boy of Literature" needs referencing as well if its claimed that his fans call him that rather than it being self-styled. Bwithh 01:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete With Mr Novak now invloved in the editing it seems to be heading farther into vanity spam. Can't support this. --Kevin Murray 01:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Why? If I am involved why would it go more toward "vanity-spam". As far as I am concerned if the article is to be in Wikeipedia then it should be correct is all. And to be accurate the review of "Killing Molly" came months before my work at thedetroiter.com, the editor in chief called me and asked to work on the Lit section because maybe he felt I had a passion for the written word, who knows. And obscure lit reviews? HA please, they are probably the only reviews in Literature today that aren't bought and paid for. HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH. You guys make me laugh. And why wouldn't I print the reviews on my website. Hey maybe I should put blurbs on the back of the book too, damn author trying to give a perspective reader an idea what the book is about. What could I be thinking? (for you slow people this is called sarcasm.) Now as far as my validity of being in Wikipedia, let me ask is Marc Spitz or Jame Frey (what a piece of crap that was) in here or the author of "twelve" (one of the worst books ever written to get "big" time reviews that were complimentry. Again I don't mind that I might be up for deletion, but please when you make an argument for deletion, please make it valid and speak of something you know about. If any of you would like to trade literary blows please let me know.
  • The point is not that you are editing your own article, although that is discouraged but not forbidden; the point is the style of your writting. Good Luck! --Kevin Murray 03:28, 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 03:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Young Mase

DJ Young Mase (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (people) and/or Wikipedia:Notability (music) at this time. Also reads as a bio/blog/ad.  — MrDolomite | Talk 21:10, 23 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 00:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Can anyone find out just how "featured" he was on MTV? If it was a five minute promo, I would go with deletion, but if it was an entire half hour, then he meets WP:MUSIC criteria 12. --Wafulz 03:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence provided that the subject meets WP:MUSIC. Google hits are scarce, so seems to be a minor feature. MER-C 04:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete — per MER-C. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 03:55, 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 03:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haversham Hall

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

Nominating this article for deletion for the same reason as The Cheetah Girls (TV series); it's an article about a show that was canceled before it was even aired. The information on the article is somewhat speculative, violating the policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Only sources are IMDB and an article in Variety confirming the existence of the show, not enough to pass WP:RS. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete How could a series that didn't air be notable? Jeepday 01:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    It's possible a show that never aired could be notable because it received a fair amount of published media attention due to the way in which it was cancelled. Of course, that's just hypothetical. This article doesn't appear to meet that bar of media attention. Dugwiki 22:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    Or if the show or it's content generated a lot of controversy that resulted in the show being canned; see the controversy over If I Did It for an example. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Wildnox(talk) 02:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 04:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's not a show if it never showed --Euzebia Zuk 13:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Whpq 16:44, 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 all - Failing WP:CORP. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ardaco

non-notable company and products. Google only 633 hit [4]--Evpf 22:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: It seems like this might be okay for inclusion, but the pages seem to read like adverts almost. At best, there appears to be heavy bias in favor of the company. Perhaps add criticism? I'll refrain from making a deletion recommendation, however. -SocratesJedi | Talk 22:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete All It is very obvious they all fail WP:CORP badly. No notibility is asserted in any article. Last 3 articles are non-notable products for the company, making them entirely spam.--Dacium 22:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Explanation I'm author of original articles. I'm just started with Wikipedia but my goal was not to write spam articles. I agree that content of article must be improved. But many of other successful articles on Wikipedia started with worst content. If you can help me with my work, I would be very glad. And also, the company and products are not oriented for mass-market. But I don't think that this argument cannot be applied as reason for deletion. Company and products can be world-wide significant. So I guess that non of the article meet the criteria for deletion according Wikipedia deletion policy. So please, remove deletion tag from articles and rather help me to improve articles. Palat 23:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. At the moment, there is no evidence of the following:
1. Non-trivial published works about the company/products, OR
2. Widespread use of the products.
Evidence of one of these must be found, or the assumption will be that the company is not yet notable enough for Wikipedia. For example, if newspapers, magazines, or websites have published articles on the company or its products, you need to bring this information to everyone's attention (by adding the info to the article or noting it here.) You state that the products are "world-wide significant" -- show us evidence of this, please. --N Shar 00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all per failure of WP:CORP; Ardaco per the corporation notability criteria, and the rest per the products or services criteria. Nowhere in the article could I find a mention of anything that would come close to meeting them. It might be possible that in their current form they are somewhat spammish, due to the lack of notability assertations, they do appear to be written from a NPOV. I don't immediately get the vibe that the product articles are saying 'buy me'. Still, in the current form, they must go. Kyra~(talk) 05:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Why not delete I will try to describe what should improve given articles to meet Wikipedia criteria.
    • Ardaco is company from Slovakia. List of Slovak companies is the list of Slovak company on Wikipedia. Ardaco is second IT company from Slovakia on Wikipedia. First is Eset and I think Ardaco has more useful article.
    • Ardaco is security oriented company, it cannot be world-wide widespread, but it's widespread in security and research oriented areas.
    • Ardaco is member of Nessi (European Technology Platform on Software and Services) - [5].
    • On December 2006 SecureCall was certified by NBU (Slovak National Security Agency). Here is scan of certificate.
    • There are many independent articled about SecureCall but most of them are in slovak language (one of them [6]).
    • Few weak ago at many internet IT magazines was published article about new technology from India (original article - [7]). It was world-wide widespread article. PDMark is based on same principles. It can store less than GB of data but it's real technology which is used in many countries (most distant can be Peru).

This and many other information I would like to add to articles but it takes me more time. So I hope you should be more patient and allows me or better help me to improve content of articles. It's really not fair from you because some of you never improve more articles on Wikipedia then me. And I admit that I'm novice on Wikipedia and need help or some more time.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Someone who speaks the language should examine source #3 and determine if it meets WP:RS. Other sources attest to the existence of the company and to the truth of the facts in the article, but these were not in doubt. The question is not merely "Does the company do what is claimed in the article?" but "Should a company that does what is claimed in the article be included in Wikipedia?" I will refrain from making a recommendation to delete at this time. --N Shar 01:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all The author was not able to provide reference as requested. My search for notability and verification did not lead to support the article. Jeepday 01:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
To address the comment above about "Should a company that does what is claimed in the article be included in Wikipedia?" Wikipedia and editors can not see the future of what should or should not be included in the future. Each article has to stand on its own. 01:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all - fails WP:CORP. Don't forget to delete the template as well. MER-C 04:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and do NOT delete. Rewrite however may be needed. LHOON 14:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per all aboveOo7565 18:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I'm always suspect of articles that read something like "leading technological company". it also seems like people who want this article to be kept believe that there is some inherint prejudice against slovak companies etc. I assure you that is not the case. --Tainter 19:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all as per nominator and Dacium above. Spam for a non-notable company. A Train take the 20:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Added information in SecureCall article:
    • information about SecureCallGov version
    • updated History chapter
    • added Criticism chapter

Now, I hope article meet the requirements for WP:CORP. Palat 11:56, 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 keep, but I think a rename may just be in order. - Mailer Diablo 04:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Beatles trivia

The Beatles trivia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
The Beatles trivia was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-16. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles trivia.
The Beatles trivia was nominated for deletion on 2006-09-27. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles trivia/2nd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uncle G (talk • contribs) 02:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Earlier discussion closed with no consensus. The article still contravenes the basic policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and since the previous discussion a similar article has been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steely Dan trivia). I am also listing Pink Floyd trivia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for the same reason. Worldtraveller 00:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

(See my second comment below) First discussion closed with no concensus, the last closed with keep! Please provide examples of how article has deteriorated or different manners which have not been previously discussed. LessHeard vanU 22:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Worldtraveller has nominated this article for deletion twice (in six months). andreasegde 13:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and in the spirit of WP:AVTRIV. MER-C 02:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge information and delete this article. I can see much of this information being relevant in the proper articles (ie merging the movie trivia into the main movie article), but there's no sense in amalgamating it into a giant bag of barely related trivia. --Wafulz 03:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per the arguments in the 2nd AfD. It does still require renaming, however. Resolute 04:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge (and abridge for some) the most interesting facts into the appropriate articles. Delete the boring entries and non-trivia (e.g., the legal battle between Apple Inc and Apple Corps isn't trivial at all). mikmt 05:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - The only problem with this is how to decide which material is non-trivial and which isn't. Unless each subject is split into its own article and discussed of itself, we could be heading for edit wars. Agree about the legal tussle, of course. Ac@osr 12:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Its good to have the short subjects under a single heading called trivia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename, as per Resolute. Situation hasn't changed since last nom. Grutness...wha? 06:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT /Blaxthos 08:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename - as I said in the last debate, it would be very unfair to describe much of this article as "trivia" - "miscellany" might be better as most of this is of genuine interest, some may even deserve their own article. Again, to repeat what I said last time,the comparison was with an article about Keane that included such glorious nuggets as "they love food" and this article is of a totally different nature. There isn't an obvious merge target for all of it and it makes sense to have it separate from the main Beatles article. Ac@osr 12:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename - keep for all the reasons per the previous AfD's; the major articles are already very large and info here may be difficult to insert within article context - That is not to say it isn't notable just difficult to find an appropriate place. My preferred choice for rename remains Miscellenae ! LessHeard vanU 13:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggest rename to The Beatles in popular culture under Category:Musicians in popular culture. The other Beatles article there, The Beatles' influence on popular culture, has a different topic. Pomte 16:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete because in the end it's trivial. This really belongs on a fansite somewhere. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Miscellany helps put broader issues in context. --Eastmain 16:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • How? And how does any article consisting of 'miscellany' square with WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information? Worldtraveller 17:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Important trivia. TonyTheTiger 17:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • This is an oxymoron. Worldtraveller 18:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The content passes all wikipedia policies. It is referenced and relates to the Beatles career and impact. There is nothing trivial about information - at the end of the day, this is an encyclopedia. The problem is that the Beatles' article is quite long. Hence, multiple articles are required. And no rename is required--JJay 18:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I can't honestly see how it is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and that is specifically proscribed by WP:NOT. Worldtraveller 18:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • WP: Not (indiscriminate collection of information) is specific not elastic. It does not encompass anything or everything that is difficult to categorize/poorly organized/I don't like/has trivia in the title/I don't understand/I think is pointless,useless,stupid etc. It specifically proscribes: (i)FAQs; (ii) travel guides; (iii) memorials; (iv) instruction manuals; (v) internet guides; (vi) textbooks; (vii) plot summaries; (viii) lyrics databases; (ix) things made up in school. It only proscribes these when the article in question is "simply" one of these nine categories- i.e. it does not go beyond the parameters of the archetype. This article does not fit into any of those catgeoriies and is in no way proscribed by the policy you cite. --JJay 18:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Delete though the beatles are amazing this list is quite -crufty and does seem indiscriminate. i know this vote won't help but oh well.--Tainter 19:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. This article gives direct links to many people, artists and places that The Beatles were connected with. It is a stepping stone to many other pages on Wikipedia. If the name (Trivia) offends editors that much, it should be changed. andreasegde 19:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. In complete agreement with all points made by Andreasedge. Vera, Chuck & Dave 20:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. For subject matter as widely known as the Beatles, even miscellany is notable as long as its sourced, verifiable, yadda yadda.. In addition, it has survived two previous AFDs in less than a year. I agree with Andreasegde that the article can always be renamed if it offends the anti-trivia bias shown by some editors. 23skidoo 21:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Not just bullet points of trivia, converted into Prose and includes many points that cannot be merged. RHB Talk - Edits 21:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It does seem to feature a lot of good information, but there is a lot of information collected here indiscrimininately. Sections like Business are fairly important and contain good information, for example. Cheers, Lankybugger 21:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Close Nomination. I have now noticed that the previous AfD concluded with a keep. The nominee has failed to provide examples in how this article has deteriorated from the last time, and has offered no new compelling reasons for the AfD. Therefore the nomination is pointless. LessHeard vanU 21:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC) ps. Is it also invalid, or can you just keep nominating articles you don't care for?
    • Pink Floyd trivia needs it's own deletion discussion, or at least to be included more notably in the current discussion Cheers, Lankybugger 21:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Some people above incorrectly assert that "trivia" is prohibited under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. In fact, words like "trivia" and "cruft" appear nowhere in that section of policy, and there is not even broad consensus on how to define trivia or when it should or shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia. Thus I discount the argument that refer to WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Moreover, it doesn't appear that the article or policy has changed since the previous afd discussions, so on that basis alone I would recommend keep for consistency. Dugwiki 22:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep again. Rename to get rid of the word "trivia" that seems to be the deletion magnet here. Carlossuarez46 03:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Apart from issues of labeling, I can't believe this unfocused pastiche of an article is on wikipedia and somehow managed to survive a previous AFD (and to the extent WP has formal deletion criteria, this article violates it and thus the fact it was previously up for deletion shouldn't matter). It has no subject but merely presents various bits of information that relate to the Beatles, with the loose theme of presenting "trivia" (or however you wish to say "random bits of information") about the Beatles. The loose format permits a lot of POV material to slide through. Why can't this material be merged into the main Beatles article, or articles about Billy Preston, James Taylor, etc.? Allon Fambrizzi 09:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
  • Merge. Some very useful data amongst the chaff. Agree that the non-trivial parts should be merged into their respective articles. Arakunem 17:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I must state that this article is definitely not "random bits of information". 1. Every section has a definite connection with The Beatles—every single section. 2. It would be impossible to merge the various pieces of information into The Beatles' articles without making them too confusing to read. 3. The Beatles' articles (and especially this one) are a stepping-stone to many other articles about artists/politicians/places, and institutions. 4. Have you ever tried to navigate your way around a city without a map? 5. Change the name of this article to something else, please... andreasegde 19:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Of course there's a connection to the Beatles - that's the only logic behind the article. Apart from that, there is simply no logic at all behind it. It's random, you could reassemble it in any way you like and it wouldn't make it any more or less coherent. And the point that you keep making about navigation makes no sense - we use categories to provide a navigation framework, not extra articles of random information. Finally, the problem with this article is not the title, it's the style and content. Whether you call it Beatles miscellany, Beatles stuff that no-one has bothered to edit properly, A stream of consciousness written by Beatles fans or whatever, the point is an encyclopaedia article does not just assemble random bits of information in a haphazard order. It's about synthesising the information, editing out extraneous details, describing the subject of an article in a logical way, informing the reader. This article does none of those things. Worldtraveller 19:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
      • 1. You say that the article is logical, but, "apart from that", you say that it is not logical at all. 2. It is not random—the sections are grouped under their respective headers (in alphabetical order, BTW.) 3. You say I keep making the same points, but you have nominated this article for deletion twice in six months. 4. Style and content is something that seems to fluctuate every month on Wikipedia, I'm sorry to say. 5. Editing: Look at the history page, and you will find there have been one or two changes made. 6. "A stream of consciousness" does not apply, and I find that wildly inaccurate. 7. "Haphazard"? (I refer you to point #2) 8. I find the article extremely logical, although it does refer to subjects that have no connection with each other (like Harold Wilson and Cher, for example) but they do have a connection with The Beatles. 9. This article definitely informs the reader, and that is why it is still here (hopefully...) 10. Last point (thankfully :) Would you object to an article detailing the "Seven highest mountains in the world" because they are on different continents? I wish you well. andreasegde 20:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
        • There is no logic to the article; its structure is completely haphazard. If you chopped the first section out and put it at the end, it would make no difference at all to the overall sense of it. You couldn't do that with The Beatles, because that's an encyclopaedia article. This one is just an indiscriminate collection of information about the Beatles.
        • However many times I've nominated this for deletion is not relevant to whether your argument about navigation makes sense. It doesn't, honestly. What do you think all the links in The Beatles are for, and all the categories? How is this article supposed to be of any use when only three other actual articles link to it?
        • What is in this article, if it is important to the story of the Beatles, should go in The Beatles. If it's important to the story of someone or something else, it should go in their article. If it's not important enough to be mentioned in either The Beatles or another proper encyclopaedia article, then it's not definitely not important enough to be mentioned in an article that's not about anything.
        • I've got no idea what you're on about with the mountains. Sorry. Worldtraveller 00:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge any useful and referenced information into the relevant articles, much like what happens when the content of trivia sections in articles is trimmed and merged into other sections. (See Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles.) Delete the real trivia as, well, trivia. In their current state these articles resemble (as any trivia section in an article would) "indiscriminate collections of information". Now, I'm not saying none of the information is useful - it's the format in which the information is currently presented that's the problem. The Beatles trivia page is essentially just a list of distantly related facts, some of which hardly have anything to do with the Beatles. For example, the mention that the video for Supergrass's "Alright" was filmed in Portmeirion - what is the relevance of this? I agree with the editor above who it an "unfocused pastiche of an article". There appears to be some serious original research problems with the Pink Floyd trivia article as well. I disagree with the notion implied by some of the above comments that anything Beatles-related is inherently notable. Extraordinary Machine 21:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • 'Supergrass' and the other bands have now been taken out. I thank you for spotting that, Extraordinary Machine. (P.S. Have you told him yet?) andreasegde 09:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Just bloody keep--Crestville 10:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: This article has absolutely nothing to do with Pink Floyd trivia. We are discussing one article here, and not two. andreasegde 13:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wow... this is a whole article that goes against WP:TRIV. WP:ILIKEIT, but seriously, anything that can't be worked into The Beatles doesn't need to be here.--Isotope23 15:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dinesh De Silva

Dinesh De Silva (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nom & vote...
Del on this (presumably self-promotional) n-n "business leader" w/ G-Test

20 of about 30 for "Dinesh De Silva" australia -cricket

of which my hits 2, 6, 10, 14, & 18 seem to show so-named employees of 4 companies in apparently 3 countries. Jerzy•t 01:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Couldn't find secondary sources for verification. Lots of vague grand claims are made- for example he is "internationally recognized", but doesn't say how. For all we know, he could have just gotten a diploma from an organization that happens to operate internationally. Very promotional in tone and a clear conflict of interest. --Wafulz 03:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - resume. MER-C 05:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless properly sourced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:33, 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. DS 22:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Box of chocolates

no reliable source, non-notable Wooyi 01:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NEO.--Wildnox(talk) 01:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable web neologism. MER-C 02:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - clearly violates WP:NEO. -Haemo 03:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Badly written & un-refed. If anything could be proven from the article, at most is could earn itself a mention in internet dating or another article of the like. The "fattie friend" sentence really tops the cake... ;) Spawn Man 03:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete a severe violation of WP:NEO. Ugh... 25% of new articles are WikiCrap -   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 04:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NEO. Terence Ong 12:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unsourced neologism.-- danntm T C 17:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per aboveOo7565 18:22, 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 keep. Personally suggest the article simply renamed as Tom ap Rhys Pryce. - Mailer Diablo 03:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce

Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article documents a horrible thing which was a tragedy for all involved, and I don't in any way seek to diminish that. But sadly, the fact is that there are two or three murder victims a week in this country, and only rarely do the circumstances of a murder generate the kind of long lasting impact on society that would demand an encyclopaedia entry. The Moors murders, Yorkshire Ripper, Harold Shipman and occurrences like that warrant an article, but I do not think an article on every murder victim is appropriate or desirable. WP:NOT states that subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered. Worldtraveller 01:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is the kind of article that tends to develop around a news event. Apparently, when this fellow got killed it was big news, and folks from the UK put up no fewer than 31 reference links to support their account. I would be hesitant to delete such an article, although maybe the biography is overblown. YechielMan 02:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Enough sources to show it was notable, don't see how the logic of 'just another murder' changes that.--Dacium 02:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. If Blair said something about it, then yeah, I think that's pretty notable. --Dennisthe2 03:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It needs a good copy edit - some quite badly structured sentences here. 2cents... SeanMack 10:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I'm a little torn on this one. I'm not convinced this is notable in the grand scheme of things and is only so at the moment because it was a particularly notable murder in London. Looking at the bigger picture, as wikipedia is not a memorial and murders are not an uncommon feature around the world I'm not sure that this one will stand out. MLA 11:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. This is a notable murder event in the UK. There is a need to cleanup the article. With many sources cited, this has more than enough assertion of notability. Terence Ong 12:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, this event has been publicized enough LHOON 14:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, very well know death and should stay on wiki.--Skully Collins Edits 14:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete In the U.S it is "missing white girl" stories which get the big disproportionate big news play, and apparently in Britain it is "murdered lawyer" which dominates the airwaves. He is still just one man, otherwise apparently non-notable, who was the victim of a street crime by extremely non-notable robbers. He got his 15 minutes (in this case 3 months) of fame, but in the long run this is still material for Wikinews, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is no the tabloid murder news, and is not a memorial. Large U.S. cities have 1000 such victims a year. Edison 14:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep i wrote most of this myself, so i suppose my opinion doesnt matter but here's some reasons why its obviously notible.
  1. This was one of the first known cases were Oyster card use was used as eveidence against someone.
  2. It raised the issue of station security and how private companies where failing to keep rail users safe, even having Tony Blair promise to look into it as a result.
  3. The trial was one of the first to have the families of the victim to speak in court.
  4. David Cameron wrote an article on the issue and spoke out agaiant the governments handling of crime as a result.
  5. A charity has been formed as a result.
  6. Sir Ian Blair highlighted this case as an example of Institutional racism in the media.
Well theres more but should be enough.--FabioTalk 16:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It was fairly big news in the UK for a while, and provoked a response on many issues. RHB Talk - Edits 17:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Multiple reliable citations indicate this was a notable event which received heavy coverage in the UK press, and received the attention of the leader of the country. As such, it's rather similar to Wikipedia's article on Public opinion and activism in the Terri Schiavo case. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Well referenced to multiple independent third-party sources. Completely verifiable, and covered well enough to be notable. Geuiwogbil 21:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep An article with over 30 news articles included for reference is clearly fairly well sourced and meets notability guidelines for verification in multiple (ie more than one) major publications). Dugwiki 22:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If we delete an article that so clearly passes our WP:N and WP:V criteria, then how can we ever justify referencing those same guidlelines as reasons to delete truely non-notable and unverifiable content? -- Antepenultimate 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - people seem to be thinking that because something is verifiable it must be encyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not Wikinews and just because something has made news headlines does not make it encyclopaedic. Also, people seem to be overestimating the impact this had in the UK. Tony Blair talks about a lot of things and his word does not bestow notability on something. There are many comparable incidents which do not have articles and which rightly should not have articles. The cases of Margaret Muller, Jonathan Zito, Mohammed Parvaiz and Michael Menson spring to mind. And to better judge the overall impact of this event you may wish to look at this BBC news search result: [8]. The BBC News website alone has had more than 500 articles about numerous murders since this one was last mentioned on 13 December. Worldtraveller 00:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Was Tom ap Rhys Pryce himself notable? Would he have merited an article if this terrible thing hadn't happened? Think forward a year - will the 700 or so murders that will have happened in the UK in that time have spawned 700 murder victim articles? Does someone automatically become notable if someone else kills them? How about the 15,000 US murder victims? 25,000 victims in Baghdad? 17,000 Colombians? All the references in the article cite news sources. To me that strongly indicates that this is a suitable subject for a news website but not for an encyclopaedia. Likewise with the other cases I mentioned, where if you read what I said you'll say I certainly didn't say I thought they deserved articles. Worldtraveller 11:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Yeah, I misread that one line, apologies. Anyway, as per the question "Was Tom apRhys Pryce himself notable?" - That is a completely moot point - The article is named Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce. You're making a lot of "I don't like it" sounding arguments, and I still don't see a single guideline referenced in your arguments. Until a separate Wikipedia:Notability (news) is established with multiple editors bringing consensus (and that really isn't a bad idea, as Zunaid makes some good points below), I feel we should stick by the quidelines we actually have. -- Antepenultimate 15:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Whilst not perhaps meeting criteria of notability if it had occurred in the US, this was a significant event in the UK and led to questions in the House of Commons and House of Lords regarding increased serious & violent crime in the UK, particularly in areas of London previously considered 'safe'. It also meets all WP:N criteria with regard non-trivial coverage from a number of media sources, where the commentary was based not just on the event, but its social & political implications. '15 -minutes' point covered by 'permanence of notability' of WP:N. No-brainer, in my opinion. Also, consider comments like those of Edison unhelpful, ad hominem, and ill-informed. Scandrett 14:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Seeing the notability criterion used this way makes me sad. Hesperian 12:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Metacomment: At the moment there is no Wikipedia:Notability (news) guideline, and in the absence of this there will undoubtedly be many AfD's of this nature where deletion arguments can only be based on assertions of WP:NOT Wikinews or some sort of hand-waving notability or WP:BIO argument. The inherent problem with newsworthy topics is that they are de facto the subject of "multiple non-trivial 3rd-party reliable sources". Even items of merely provincial/state-wide importance (which is not the case here) fall under this description. Also, there are MANY issues which politicians or prominent figures comment on every day, if only for the sake of making a statement to the press and/or to the public. Following the letter of the guidelines then, EVERY news item covered by multiple newspapers in EVERY country EVERY day should by rights have an article in the 'pedia, which I'm sure all but the most vehement inclusionists will agree is inappropriate. At its heart, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service, and in the absence of a news notability guideline, common sense somehow has to prevail. That said, user:Fabrib's points no. 1 and 3 (but IMHO not the others) prima facie indicate why this particular murder case is notable from a legal perspective and is encyclopedia-worthy. All the other points just add to its newsworthiness, which is irrelevant to the discussion. Delete unless rewritten to focus more on the encyclopedia-worthy legal aspects of the case/trial, which IMHO are the only things encyclopedically notable about this event. The problem with this article is that it is majority focused on the news aspects such as: 1. the life details of the victim and murderers (remember: none of whom were notable in and of themselves), 2. the murder itself (this could be summarised, it is presented in FAR too much step-by-step detail), 3. politicians' quotes and 4. memorial funds and such-like. None of these things are out of the ordinary for slightly-above-average murder cases (heck, its not out-of-the-ordinary for "lesser" newsworthy events than murder) and do not contribute to raising this article from news to encyclopedia material. Zunaid©® 14:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. OK, you've come up with two latin legal terms, but still no guidelines that actually exist. That said, it probably is high time a Wikipedia:Notability (news) is created - you make some excellent points (although, in reality, I don't believe it very likely that anyone is apt to waste the time to make articles for "every news item" as you said, and such topics that are actually covered by multiple sources probably have merger potential for an existing article). Now, as for your delete vote - I still don't see any actual deletion criteria being applied here, as even you admit that this subject is encyclopedic in its way, and that the encyclopedic elements are present, although diluted. If you feel the article should be cleaned up, then tag it as such, discuss the issue on the talk page, and/or take a try at reworking the article yourself. Deletion of this article, at this point, would be little more than laziness. -- Antepenultimate 15:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that there are currently no deletion criteria to apply to newsworthy topics. In the absence thereof I (and I'm sure many other editors) have to resort to long-winded arguments such as the above to explain our rationale. Remember the guideline are prescriptive, not descriptive and exceptions are allowed. This swings both ways: articles may be kept despite failing guidelines, and so too may articles be deleted without obviously failing any guidelines. My point about "every news item getting an article" isn't that editors will spend time creating them, it is that once created there is no possibility, via the current guidelines, for deleting them. As for your cleanup suggestion, my personal POV is to never !vote "keep and rewrite" on AfD's as far too many articles end up being kept without getting the subsequent rewrite done to them (there was some discussion about what to do about "keep and rewrite" on the Village Pump quite recently which touched on this very problem). Zunaid©® 09:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment The conflation and confusion of news notability with encyclopedic notability is a major issue. I agree with Zunaid - almost all articles or reports in news channels are covered by multiple sources so even the most trivial or sensationalist human interest story can get a technical pass of current weak general notability guidelines. On another level we also need guidelines (I'm skeptical about leaving anything to "common sense") to start distinguishing between serious news items that are only of news notability and those that are also encyclopedically notable. These are not the same thing. News organizations have different functions and rationales from encyclopedias. Every murder or other major crime is serious and a "notable" event for police, the victims, the crime reporters - yes may even be asked in parliament or raised by some politician but that is a routine function of political systems (especially democratic ones) and not automatically an indication of encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a news report archive or a police report archive Bwithh 05:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. It's becoming clear to me that the real problem isn't neccessarily this article, but the lack of applicable guidelines for this type of article. Something should be done about that. In terms of this article, however - comparing this with a trivial or sensationalist "human interest" story isn't really fair, and I say that because this doesn't clear the "multiple independent source" requirement by having only two references - it has upwards of thirty, and there's no reason to assume that the list is exhaustive. Yeah, I know this could fall under "sensationalist" except for some items written above (and if sensationalism is a problem then we're going to have to start cocking our eyebrows at a lot of content within celebrity articles) that Zunaid admitted could have value. Now, as per the no Keep and Rewrite policy Zunaid has adopted, that is fine and it is his right to do so. I haven't had time to peruse the discussion at the Village Pump, but my opinion on this matter is that if less people simply stopped at giving instructions and more tried to follow through themselves - rather than expecting someone else to step up to the plate and do the dirty work - this would be less of a problem. If you feel strongly that something should be changed, I see no reason why you can't Be Bold and work on it yourself. Anyway, if someone would like to start up a discussion pertaining to getting a Wikipedia:Notability (news) policy put together, I would be happy to chime in. Some good discussion (IMO) has already taken place here, and if Zunaid can find other instances of similar AfDs, we may already have some precedents. Perhaps we can save everyone from having to resort to these long-winded explanations in the future. -- Antepenultimate 16:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment great exposition of the situation Zunaid. Though the list presented by Fabrib isn't designed to be exhaustive, I don't think point 3 is actually correct so that would only leave point 1 which isn't itself an indicator of the notability of this case. MLA 21:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Per the above comments by several editors, I have created a proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (news) where these ides of distinguishing what is newsworth from what is encyclopedic, can be continued. I have borrowed some of the ideas expressed in this debate in creating the first draft of the guideline. Please comment further on the talk page for thatproposed guideline. Edison 21:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I repeat my earlier preference for Keep; however it might be more appropriate to move the article to [[Tom ap Rhys Pryce]]. LHOON 16:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wendy Eitan

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

Nom & vote...
Del on this n-n figure's bio; only defenses against A7 & ProD were

(Notability claimed but is weak enough to warrant a prod)

and

(rm { {prod - Google shows few links for "Wendy Eitan". This may be biased, as we should search with hebrew alphabet.)}}

--Jerzy•t 01:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. The only assertion of notability is that she works for a national postal authority - sorry, that's not enough in my opinion. All the other biographical stuff, the "See also" and the links, are totally irrelevant. Basically, take out all the junk, and there's no article left. On a personal note: Jerzy, please try to write in complete sentences, like I'm doing, so that other people can understand you better. YechielMan 02:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable enough. Just works at Israeli Postal Authority, no significant external sources about her specifically, but rather just her position.--Dacium 02:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 06:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per MER-C. NawlinWiki 19:25, 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. — CharlotteWebb 04:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complex conjugate root theorem

  • I withdraw this nomination (not that it matters). See comments below. --N Shar 00:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what to do with this article. It was created at Conmplex Conjugate root Theorem, so I moved it to its current location. I also cleaned it up. The only problem is that the Google test totally fails, and the theorem is in any case a corollary of the fundamental theorem of algebra as stated in the article and in Polynomial. So we have a few options:

I abstain, because I can't decide. N Shar 01:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge and Redirect to Fundamental theorem of algebra looks like a stub that would best work there (but I might be wrong not a math major). If it grows it can have its own page back. Jeepday 02:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Change Vote to Keep the article is no longer a stub and the nomination for AfD has been withdrawn. Jeepday 03:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per above - ∅ (∅), 02:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Keep as per Michael Hardy's comment below - ∅ (∅), 10:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect - the above article has a section for corollaries. Why does this need its own article, given that it's a highly straight-forward adaptation? --Haemo 03:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Since when do corollaries merit articles on their own? --Wafulz 03:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I've said this elsewhere, but lest the above comment mislead anyone I'm saying it here as well:
(1) The proposition in NOT a corollary of the fundamental theorem of algebra.
(2) Even if it, were, the fact that it is such a corollary would be far from the most important fact about it, perhaps harly even worth mentioning in this article.
(3) "Since when do corollaries merit articles on their own?" is colossally silly. Silly, silly, silly, silly. Whether a topic warrants an article has nothing to do with whether it is or is not a corollary of something else. Can anyone cite ANY article that got deleted because it's a corollary of something else? Michael Hardy 17:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep (maybe to change to "strong keep" later?) This proposition is much weaker than the fundamental theorem of algebra. You don't need the fundamental theorem of algebra to prove it. So even if it is a corollary to that theorem, it silly to regard that as being an important fact about it. To say "Since when do corollaries merit articles on there own?" is also silly; that depends very much on context. Fundamental theorem of algebra is not the right place to merge it into if it is to be merged. Really, the comments above are silly, silly, silly, silly. If you believe, just because this article says so, that the main thing to be said about it is that it's a corollary of a theorem not needed to prove this much simpler theorem, then you are gullible and I can offer you a really great deal on some real estate in Florida. Michael Hardy 23:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I've deleted the silly comment that this theorem is a corollary of the fundamental theorem of algebra. The fact that the proof given in the article does not rely on the fundamental theorem of algebra makes that comment even sillier. But would any of the above commentators explain to me how this simple can be regarded as a corollary of the fundamental theorem of algebra? Michael Hardy 23:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into complex conjugate. Hmm, on further thought just redirect, as complex conjugate already does tell what needs to be told in as many words as it needs. Michael Hardy is right that this cannot reasonably be described as a corollary of the fundamental theorem (I would strengthen that to denying that the fundamental theorem of algebra even implies it any more than the quadratic reciprocity theorem implies 2+2=4, namely in the trivial sense that any two true statements imply each other). However, I'm unconvinced that this theorem merits an article in itself. Is there anything encyclopedic to say about it other than to state it? I wouldn't consider proving it encyclopedic. Henning Makholm 00:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment If the proof is deleted, there's still something to include beyond the bare statement: some simple corollaries of it and some examples of its use. I'll look at it again. Michael Hardy 02:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This page may be small, but it states a frequently used fact that deserves to stand on its own. The fundamental theorem of algebra asserts that every polynomial in C[x] has a root in C. The theorem under discussion does not assert the existence of a root, but merely the fact that any complex root of a real polynomial, if it exists, is accompanied by its complex conjugate as (another) root. As a corollary, it asserts that a real polynomial of odd degree has a real root, perhaps because the complex roots occur in pairs. Without checking the reference I do not know how it is proved there, but it is common to use the fundamental theorem of algebra to show that a polynomial of degree n has n roots; still, that dependency may be non-essential. It is true that the brief complex conjugate article devotes one sentence to this theorem, but if I were to cite this theorem I predict my readers would find a devoted article more helpful. --KSmrqT 02:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    Comment. I've been looking at a lot of random articles lately, and I find that most are brief mentions of topics verging on trivia. On reflection, I see no problem with that. This mathematics article covers an extremely important practical fact, far more worthy of attention than most of the random topics. Maybe I'm becoming a Wikipedia "inclusionist". :-) --KSmrqT 02:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as procedural, as no valid reason for deletion is given. If a valid reason is proposed, please relist —siroχo 08:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Now that the misleading stament about it being a simple corrollary has been clarified, it is a decent small article that may be helpful, is well referenced and linked to form and to others. Tikiwont 09:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, possible rename The page expands a lot more on the theorem than complex conjugate does. What we really need is a source to find out what the theorem is called (if anything). (Looking for a source, I found [9], which demonstrates that the theorem is real, but doesn't give it a name; I suspect most maths textbooks (all obvious sources for this) will do the same.) --ais523 11:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge as a section into complex conjugate. This result is an important aspect of algebra and is probably taught in every basic course on complex numbers. However, I've not seen a textbook give it a name, probably because the result is almost always proven (in basic complex number courses at least) as a corollary of the Fundamental theorem (and corollaries are rarely named). Inasmuch as there no name to give to this thing, but nonetheless the information must be preserved, complex conjugate seems the best place to put it. Zunaid©® 14:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Here the claim that this result is a corollary of the fundamental theorem of algebra surfaces again. How on earth would you even use the fundamental theorem of algebra to prove this? Note that the result as stated in the article say that the roots pair up as counted with with multiplicity, simply that the set of roots is symmetric around the real axis. Henning Makholm 15:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. In the future, this page could maybe be renamed into Properties of polynomial roots. (This would solve the google test and the somewhat clumsy name. See above comment by ais523.) In addition to the complex conjugate property, such a page could also disucss: 1) how roots depend continuously but not differentiably on the coefficients, 2) bounds on the roots in terms of the coefficients. There are probably many other properties of polynomials that merit a discussion. Haseldon 18:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The "google test" DOES NOT FAIL!. Try it and see. Either with the whole phrase in quotes or without the quotes. Even without the quotes, the first pages of google results are on the same topic. It is unreasonable to do the google test with the quotes anyway, since this is not a case where verbatim identity of names is to be expected. Michael Hardy 19:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Whoa there! No need to shout. - ∅ (∅), 00:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • No problem. I deserve it, really. --N Shar 00:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Withdraw nom. Michael Hardy is right, this is not a corollary of the FTA. I was frankly a bit surprised to see the assertion that it was, and I was a bit too willing to trust that assertion. The problem is that I'm not a good enough mathematician to be able to say that just because I can't see how it's a corollary, it isn't. Also, I grabbed the nearest algebra text (which was a high-school level text) and checked, and found this theorem listed, unnamed, as a corollary of the FTA, but without a satisfactory proof. These are the factors that influenced that statement, but clearly calling it a "corollary" is silly. The article has, in any case, been much improved by Michael Hardy and others, and sources have been provided which (presumably) verify that the name is in widespread use, which was what I was getting at with the Google hits test. --N Shar 00:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Well written article on an important concept. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:29, 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 04:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rezayat compound

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

Is a housing complex notable? Fails WP:RS and WP:N RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete No, it's not, or at least the article presents no reason why it is. This may be a possible speedy delete, since the article never asserts importance or notability. --Wildnox(talk) 01:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - unremarkable building. MER-C 02:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, negligible number of non-mirror google hits. Mr Stephen 12:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No indication of notability. Shimeru 10:00, 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 19:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeqq

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

Contested speedy; procedural nom. Jeqq does not seem to pass WP:WEB -- delete from me. --Czj 01:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete No reason to think this passes WP:WEB. Just being a Digg clone doesn't do anything to impress me either. --Wildnox(talk) 01:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Sorry, but there is no assertion of notability. There are also no sources, so it fails WP:N and WP:V. I laughed when I noticed that the text was directly copied from Reddit. --N Shar 01:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB no notibility shown. Not verifiable outside of itself.--Dacium 02:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as unremarkable webcontent. So tagged. MER-C 02:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per original nom. Links to similar sites does not notability make. --Ghewgill 02:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete search for Jeqq on Google News bring no hits, fails WP:N It may become notable in the future but it is not now. Jeepday 02:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB, unverifiable. Terence Ong 12:50, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 14:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Funday PawPet Show

Funday PawPet Show (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  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}}

No sources provided to indicate notability or any sources that show that is passes the web material guideline. This was previously nominated. brenneman 01:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete No shown notibility as per WP:N. Not verifiable outside of itself. Has had 2 years to show media attention/notibility and hasn't.--Dacium 02:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 05:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: For one thing, (since brenneman brings up WP:WEB) WP:WEB says "Any content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content." Since Funpaw Pawpet Show perform at conventions I'd say FPS isn't distributed solely via the net. --EarthFurst 07:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep! the dedication for keeping going for so long, with 100s of fans, They just as noteable as any tv/internet show! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.202.9.7 (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
  • KEEP THIS This show has been around for a while and with hundreds watching at time of broadcast and even more logging in to watch the replays of that weeks broadcast they are definately notable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.188.166.77 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Terence Ong 12:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: This is one of the best-known recurring productions in the furry community, and it's a fixture at several conventions as well as on the web. I'll ask my friends in that community to see if we can't come up with some sources for notability. Jay Maynard 13:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete "hundreds of people watching" is not notable. Many television shows have thousands of viewers as a regular audience, and yet are not considered notable. --TommyOliver 18:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


  • Strong Keep - Independent documentation of this program has been featured in the Orlando Sentinel on Sunday, October 8, 2000. A scanned copy of this article can be found on FPS's own web site at: http://pawpet.tv/index.php?press and can be obtained independently by request at www.orlandosentinel.com It has also been recognized in the "Folkmanis Puppets in TV and Video" section of the Folkmanis manufacturing web site. Additionally, the program's self described 4 hour format coupled with its recent 320th show (1.28.2007) translates into a remarkable 1280+ hours of recorded program time. The cast has indicated on air that the bulk of this material has been archived and still exists. This would make FPS a program with more original air broadcast hours than the full run of most network television programs. Coupled with its interactive net-based chat function with its audience, and its documented licensing to legally use ASCAP/BMI/SESAC licensed music (in itself a rarity among net-based broadcasts), I would strongly suggest retaining this article. --JC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.188.190.35 (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Re-write per 72.188.190.35 above. If there is a citeable newspaper article about the show, isn't this enough for notability? However, the article should be rewritten to be more encyclopedic. Right now, it's just a laundry list of characters and subjects, no? -sthomson06 (Talk) 21:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, has an extremely low Alexa rank of 1,590,648. I would suggest that a single mention in a local newspaper six years ago is insufficient to demonstrate notability.--Nydas(Talk) 22:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Re-write RE: Nydas' comment... Alexa rankings lower than 100,000 tend to be unreliable.[10] The clientele the show caters to tends to use browsers (Firefox and Safari especially) which do not support Alexa, further making the test questionable. The subject does pass a basic Google and USENET (particularly in alt.fan.furry) test, even with separated keywords. Article definitely needs cleanup of lists. Opened list discussion on Talk page. 70.168.242.19 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
1,360 Google hits [11] , of which 330 are unique, does not strike me as passing a Google test for Web content.--Nydas(Talk) 15:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite Right now this article is only a collection of lists. It should be rewritten to be more encyclopedic. --Evilboy 14:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Following the spirit of WP:N, the topic does have valid external citations, and is clearly not a vanity article. It should be tagged for cleanup as suggested by others, but having externally verifiable citations should satisfy the requirements of WP:N. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arakunem (talk • contribs) 14:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
Oops, forgot to sign, sorry. However, I would also like to respectfully point out that the nominator's recent activity in WP:AFD suggests (and only suggests, mind) an overarching mindset against the so-called "Furry Fandom", to which this article could be considered a part of. Such a mindset is, by explicit description, not a valid reason to delete. I apologise to the nominator if this is not the case, but your contrib history this week certainly raises that as a valid concern. Arakunem 17:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite If this is a verifiable fact, then maintaining consistent production for over 6 years does seem to point to a level of notability. As was pointed out, it's not a level of popularity that is in question (so number of viewers isn't really an issue), but whether the article concerns something that would be considered notable. The above citations and information seem to point to notability. --ChaseT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.154.59.250 (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep Needs cleanup, but 72.188.190.35's sources sufficiently address verifiability and notability. Shimeru 09:59, 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jinen Ryu

Jinen Ryu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • delete Non-notable school (not to be confused with Shindo Jinen Ryu - a totally unrelated school Peter Rehse 01:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • delete No notibility as per WP:N shown. No sources so no verifiability as per WP:V. Page has had plenty of time to develop sources.--Dacium 02:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 06:10, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giulliana Weston

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

Non-notable model. The claim that she has been photographed for multiple magazines is probably correct, but there are only a handful of non-Wikipedia Google-hits of her. I'm open to anyone who can provide evidence of notability from outside the Internet. YechielMan 02:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - fails WP:V. MER-C 06:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete ran a quick search on LexisNexis and Newsbank, but nothing came up. -SpuriousQ 12:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless properly sourced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep she's very, very hot --TommyOliver 18:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Tommy, that's not a valid reason to keep her on Wikipedia. YechielMan 22:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • My friend, I'd keep her at my house if I could :P --TommyOliver 22:20, 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 04:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zurich International Club

Zurich International Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:ORG. Promotional. Nv8200p talk 02:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails WP:ORG. No notibility shown as per WP:N requirements. Has had 6 months to give sources/notibility.--Dacium 02:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:ORG. MER-C 06:00, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cambridge Seventy

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

This "Cambridge Seventy" movement seems to utterly fail notability. Its best claim seems to be that a poster was hung in a residence dormitory. Google Search (after removing mirrors) seems to reveal nothing whatsoever that is relevant. If someone can actually find some sources proving that this even existed, that'd be nice, though I suspect it would still be non-notable. Cyde Weys 02:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails WP:N and WP:V. Been around long enough to have been correctly sourced to verify and show notibility, but hasn't.--Dacium 02:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:ORG. MER-C 05:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:V and, even it if didn't, would fail WP:N. janejellyroll 10:35, 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 04:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afterhours fm

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

I originally tagged this with {{db-spam}} because it was entirely an advertisement, but it's been removed and rewritten a bit. Regardless, the article is not verifiable by reliable secondary sources. I couldn't find any via Google. --Wafulz 02:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate article:

  • Delete Completely unverifiable and NN. --Wildnox(talk) 02:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No sources to assertain notibility as per WP:N. Not verifiable by reliable sournces as per WP:V.--Dacium 02:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Will add sources now —The preceding unsigned comment was added by H4ns9l (talk • contribs).
  • Delete - fails WP:WEB. Alexa ranking 209,289: [12]. Too low. MER-C 05:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand Alexa rankings are based on sites accessed by IE. The AH community is made up of mainly computer savey users who use other browsers. --68.144.1.36 04:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - New to Wikipedia. Didnt know all these rules. I would like to add this radio station to wikipedia under "afterhours" because 1. it is called Afterhours and 2. it represents the types of music played and heard in the afterhour club scenes around the world. Please tell me if possible. What would need to be done? --H4ns9l 07:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per three above. --Mark (Talk | Contribs | Email) 09:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep this seems to be legit sure lets keep itOo7565 18:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • This does not address any of the problems that have been brought up by myself or other users. --Wafulz 19:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I added some links for reference. Are they not good enough? Im still learning, trying to figure out how to make it look more professional. I dont see much difference between this and a site like Digitally imported whos only references link back to their own site. Please explain the problem better so i can make the necessary changes --H4ns9l 22:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

These aren't really "idependent sources" about the subject. Have a read through WP:WEB. If Digitally Imported doesn't get sources, I'll probably end up nominating it for deletion as well. Also, sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). --Wafulz 21:14, 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 04:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional expletives

List of fictional expletives (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate, unencyclopedic list, with potential to grow forever. - ∅ (∅), 02:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as per WP:NOT and nom. Not verifiable in as to what is and isn't included.--Dacium 02:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 02:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and as indiscriminate list without any context for its entries. Otto4711 04:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unmaintainable OR fanlistcruft. Wikipedia ain't one of them new fangled shiny books of words y'all. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the fracking article, indiscriminate cruftmikmt 05:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note, article has been linked from Signpost twice, and leads this poll as the "weirdest, funniest, craziest, and most bizarre entries that the people's encyclopedia has to offer." It's also linked from a few AFDs as a convenient place to merge entries. Hate to see it go. Tanj. Gorram socialators. If only we could scope it somehow? --Dhartung | Talk 07:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This list may have the potential to grow forever, but so too does a list of Canadian Summer Olympics gold medalists. Having the potential to grow indefinitely is not the same as being excessively broad in scope. Has the subject of innovative expletives in fiction been studied outside of Wikipedia? Yes, it has. But the sources are weak. Do lists like this exist outside of Wikipedia? Yes, they do. The main problem with this article is that it is, basically, a dictionary of words that have no relationship to one another because they originate in unrelated works of fiction. There is no encyclopaedic analysis of the concept of protologistic expletives from works of fiction, and to what extent they have escaped the various works that they originated in, to hang such a list from. A simple list of aviation jokes does not make an encyclopaedia article on aviation jokes (cf. Aviation joke (AfD discussion) and elephant joke (AFD discussion)), and a simple list of innovative expletives from works of fiction does not make an encyclopaedia article on such expletives. Uncle G 10:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT, listcruft. Terence Ong 13:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete ... put this sad thing out of its misery please --TommyOliver 18:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, but not really because I don't think the list doesn't "belong" here. Get rid of it because it's unsourced, most of it is non-notable, and because nearly everything that -could- be used as an expletive is on here, fictional or not. If this list were pared down about 95% and only included the real notable ones that aren't just variations of "ass" or "fuck" then I'd feel differently. --UsaSatsui 20:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless better referencing/pruning provided As above, I'm discounting arguments based on WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE (that policy is frequently cited against articles for which it doesn't apply). However, as UsaSatsui points out, this list is virtually unreferenced, with little to no assertion of actual published notability. So unless/until the entries on the list can be properly referenced, and non-notable examples pruned to keep the list to a reasonable size, I'm recommending deletion. Dugwiki 22:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This list rocks--don't delete it! 31 Jan 07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.103.6.254 (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete : impossible to maintain or verify the difference between vandlism and valid article additions. Dstanfor 16:19, 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 04:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 WSX television ratings

2007 WSX television ratings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

very crufty page for an upstart wrestling promotion. Had prod attached, but was removed. I can understand somewhat why TNA/WWE/WCW may have ratings pages (although maybe those should also be considered for deletion), but this promotion just started, and it just isn't needed. TV shows in general don't always have pages just for their ratings (not including those episode guides that have ratings intertwined. This page just isn't needed. Booshakla 02:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. MER-C 02:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - bordering on Speedy, per above.   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 04:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Also: Category:Wrestling Society X television ratings should probably be put in CFD. RobJ1981 08:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, possibly Merge with Wrestling Society X Seems to me this doesn't need to be in a seperate article. There is also an issue with maintaining week-by-week ratings information for television shows in general. That information is only useful if it can be kept current, and most of the ratings information isn't at all notable. When something requires week-by-week updates that is a negative factor, in my opinion. Moreover, even assuming you keep the ratings up to date, you can easily include that information within the television show's main article. Why have a huge subarticle just for ratings information? Dugwiki 23:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above. Govvy 10:23, 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 04:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tallgeese

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

Non-notable fancruft and/or original research. Doesn't have a connection to reality as required by WP:NOT. Contested prod. MER-C 02:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Not OR/Fancruft. See Gundam Wing. Just H 03:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - definitely not either of the above. I don't watch anime and I've heard of this. --Haemo 03:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • None of you have provided comprehensive evidence that the subject has any real world significance whatsoever, as required by WP:NOT#IINFO. Not to mention the lack of sources. This is merely a plot summary. MER-C 05:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:INN. MER-C 07:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I was merely answering Blaxthos' question, and wasn't using the articles I mentioned to support any view. Shrumster 21:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep well known and documented --TommyOliver 18:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • How so? There's still no assertion of real world significance or notability in the article. And how about rebutting the points in the nomination? MER-C 07:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 03:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Surprising that as soon as it comes to Gundam Wing, people shout keep all the way, while UC is no response.George Leung 04:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • While I hate Gundam Wing with a passion, I'm going to have to vote keep and rewrite. One of the primary antagonists of the series. Appears in several non-Gundam Wing games. Has several model kits, die cast figures and other commercial merchandise. Article needs to reflect these, but it's definitely notable. Shrumster 21:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It needs a bit of work, maybe it should go on a diet - the infoboxes looked awful when I visited the page just now. dreddnott 21:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, possible merge. I'm a Gundam fan, but I don't think we need a separate article on every single suit. Personally, I don't know of any real-world significance outside of possibly the model series, so I'd prefer to merge it into a list of AC Mobile Suits, but if said real-world notability can be added, then keep. Tiakalla 06:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's one of the main suits across multiple series. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 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 delete some, keep others. There seem to be consensus to delete Unity Area Ambulance, and Harley Street Ambulance Service. Mersey Ambulance Service, Staffordshire Ambulance Service and Surrey Ambulance Service are keeps. Schaefer Ambulance Service was not commented on much, so that is no consensus. Majorly (o rly?) 18:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unity Area Ambulance

Unity Area Ambulance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local and regional ambulance companies Dicklyon 02:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following articles that all have the same non-notability problem:

Harley Street Ambulance Service
Mersey Ambulance Service
Staffordshire Ambulance Service
Schaefer Ambulance Service
Surrey Ambulance Service
  • Delete all 6; before nominating these for deletion, I discussed Unity Area Ambulance with its author at User talk:Eric outdoors#Unity Area Ambulance and tried to get him to provide evidence of notability. He suggested that the rest of these are equally non-notable, and I looked and agreed. Dicklyon 04:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Harley Street Ambulance Service and Unity Area Ambulance; failure of WP:ORG. The rest need to be unbundled and considered separately. MER-C 02:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you say what you'd be looking at in the others? I can't see where any of them make any claim to notability; the only links are their own sites. Dicklyon 04:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I did a Google search on all of them and not all of them are open and shut non-notable. MER-C 05:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Mersey, Staffordshire and Surrey. County ambulance services are as notable as county police forces or education departments. Abstain on the American ones as I don't know enough about their scope. - fchd 17:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you volunteering to add the evidence of notability? Or are you saying we should be deleting non-notable police and education departments as well? Dicklyon 18:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I think that the applicable guideline here is WP:CORP. These companies certainly don't meet either of major criteria found therein. A Train take the 20:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • After examining the recent changes to some of these articles, I'm quite sure that we've got apples and oranges together here. This is the problem with buffet-style AfDs like this. I would suggest to the nom that this AfD be withdrawn and new AfDs be initiated for the individual articles that s/he still feels are problematic. A Train take the 17:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Harley Street Ambulance Service - this is a non-notable private company that fails WP:CORP. Keep - the pages on the Mersey, Staffordshire and Surrey county ambulance services as they are referring to notable regional publicly funded organisations in the UK and do meet WP:ORG. Although they are not national they are large regional bodies and there will be lots of 3rd party sources available in local, regional and national newspapers. So they should be kept and developed as per all the pages that link from List of ambulance services in the United Kingdom - although some pages will need to be merged/redirected etc. as the ambulance service has recently been reorganised. Can't comment on Schaefer Ambulance Service or Unity Area Ambulance as these are out of my area of expertise. Madmedea 22:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added references to Staffordshire Ambulance Service to show the kind of coverage these organisations get in the UK - in national and local media. This were just a few I found from the 31,000 google hits. Other UK services may have less because they've only been in existence in their current form since last July - but that doesn't make them less notable. Madmedea 22:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Please, please, please can we unbundle the UK NHS ones from this AfD. If someone wants to nominate them separately then that's fine because I can provide plenty of non-trival 3rd party references for all of them in a discussion if it comes to that. But they should not be considered alongside services of a very different nature. Madmedea 10:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I propose to keep the article on Unity Area Ambulance as Unity Area Ambulance is a very notable place. The proposer of this deletion suggested that the author could not provide reasons for notablilty. That was a 100% lie! Note the Author's Discussion Page for reasons why the article is notable. Eric 01:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Eric, I already linked our discussion in my comments above, so that people would know what you were able to find as evidence of notability. Please don't resort to personal attacks (calling my statement a lie is a personal attack). Dicklyon 02:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
If you are proposing to delete these Ambulance articles then you better delete the other hundreds on Wikipedia:

Eric 01:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We should probably see what we decide with the present list before expanding the scope of the AfD. Dicklyon 02:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
And then when you get done destroying the hundreds of articles on Ambulance services, then you should go and propose deletion for all the police departments, and then schools, and pretty soon we will have all of Wikipedia tore down. Eric 03:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Eric, I realize you haven't been at wikipedia for long, but you have a strange idea of how it works. I know you have put a lot of effort into removing spam links, and that's part of what it takes to keep wikipedia on an improvement trajectory. Removing unsuitable articles is another part. I have no intention of dedicating a lot of effort to it, but if I did, I might follow up your suggestion, since I agree that most such departments and organizations are in fact not notable according to wikipedia criteria. But the large number of articles presently escaping scrutiny should not in any way influence the action on these that are currently nominated AfD. Dicklyon 03:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all then submit as seperate debates where needed. Combining Unity (3 vehicles and 3 employees) and Mersey (vehicles in the hundreds, employees in the thousands) into one debate is unworkable. Nuttah68 13:35, 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 04:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gharrio

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

Self described neologism Goodnightmush 03:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete even if it was notable it would be a transwiki. Jeepday 03:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn neologism, 6 ghits. MER-C 03:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete — Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 03:59, 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 04:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrance Williams

A congressional page who also started a group in Michigan. nn. Just H 03:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • 'Delete'. Yes, nn/vanity. Sdedeo (tips) 03:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep or delete with Michigan Federation of Teenage Republicans pass or fail together, he is the chairman of it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeepday (talk • contribs) 03:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete non-notable person, merely occupying an office in a political group does not make a person notable. Wooyi 03:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 05:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete both, insufficiently notable. NawlinWiki 19:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:BIO.-- danntm T C 20:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, being a leader of some school club doesn't mean you're entitled to a shiny Wikipedia entry. Krimpet 02:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Neither he nor his organization show any notability.Improbcat 15:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • do not delete I am an officer of this organization and I can assure you that the information is valid for both pages and that it allows teens from around michigan to learn more about the Michigan Federation of Teenage republicans and its chairmanmigop12345 16:35, 31 January 2007 UTC
  • Delete vanispamicruftisement. JChap2007 04:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete [User:Migop12345|Migop12345]] 16:16 UTC, 1 February 2007
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 19:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scatha (band)

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

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 03:05, 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 04:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michigan Federation of Teenage Republicans

Get 'em while they're young? nn. Just H 03:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Google News "Your search - "Michigan Federation of Teenage Republicans" - did not match any documents. " Fails WP:N Jeepday 03:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There are plenty of political affiliates of GOP in this nation, possibly hundreds if you count municiple and state GOP organizations. One entry for Republican Party (United States) is enough. Wooyi 03:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -- insufficient notability (needs some kind of non-trivial news coverage, something....) Sdedeo (tips) 03:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:ORG. MER-C 05:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete a teenage party organization for one state fails WP:ORG.-- danntm T C 20:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Because of a lack of reliable sources. Also, because (to paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke) "teenage Republican" is an oxymoron. JChap2007 05:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NFT. Krimpet 02:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No notability. Improbcat 15:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • do not delete it's notable and I am an officer of the Michigan Federation of Teenage republicans, which is not an oxymoron you idiot and I can verify to you the information on this page is true. migop12345 16:30, 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 07:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Belton

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

Please see the prior AfD; an overwhelming majority voted for delete but the discussion was ignored for procedural reasons. Sdedeo (tips) 03:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Further comment the nominator of the prior AfD was User:Aqua Nation who is currently a banned sock of User:JB196. Signed Jeepday 03:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Vote Delete searches on BBC news and Google News come up empty. The single reference on his site may or may not bea Primary source (not my field), and does support the claims to titles given. I would change my vote with more references and proof of notability. Jeepday 03:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think that prior AfD should have been a case to invoke WP:IAR. --Wafulz 04:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO for sportspeople due to lack of reliable sources. MER-C 05:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per all above —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oo7565 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 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?) 17:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daily Planet (band)

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

Band's main claim to notability is the theme song for a barely notable television show. When I Googled the band (a process complicated by the common nature of the name), I found one media mention which is mirrored on some other sites. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC, but there could be more info about there. janejellyroll 03:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. They are lesser known now, as I believe they are less active. That may be why it was hard for you to find much info on Google. Tim Long 03:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, the theme song isn't their only significance. Check the links. If they weren't well-known at the time of their activity, I don't think Christianity Today and The Christian Post would have covered them. Tim Long 03:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, Reunion Records is a major label with well-known artists. Tim Long 03:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
That's notability for Reunion Records, not for the band. janejellyroll 03:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if both albums were released on Reunion and it is a major indie label, then the band passes WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 10:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Only their second album was on Reunion. Their debut came out on SPV. Caknuck 17:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to TruthQuest: California. Mention that the theme song was by the band. --Wafulz 03:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC criteria. Tim Long's arguments above fail to take into account that not everything newspapers publish, especially niche publications like the ones he mentions, is encyclopedically notable; if you don't believe me, grab your paper and flip to the wedding announcements. Also, not every artist signed to a major label meets WP:MUSIC. A Train take the 20:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per A Train. --Candy-Panda 10:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, a record on a major label plus a minor television theme, and some news coverage all add up to notability. —siroχo 09:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Billboard, none of their albums or songs have ever charted. Caknuck 17:57, 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 07:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kelly Lind

Delete. 980 Ghits, of the results that relate to this Kelly Lind, most are from his own sites, MySpace, or the sites of his subjects. None show publication in mainstream magazines, gallery shows or anything notable consistant with WP:Notability. Ckessler

  • Delete even if he had done all those unverfied things he would not pass WP:BIO. Jeepday 03:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 05:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Really, has to have references and sources. WP:BIO —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.46.6.70 (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete - Even if the unverified claims were true, subject has done nothing that is notable consistant with WP:Notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.241.15.131 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King Edward VI Five Ways school song

King Edward VI Five Ways school song (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article gives the lyrics of the school song for the British school King Edward VI Five Ways. I first thought of merging but the school article is already pretty long and should not be burdened with this. I believe WP:NOT pretty much discourages such lyrics articles in any case. Pascal.Tesson 04:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - almost certain copyvio. So tagged. MER-C 05:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Given the school's fairly long history, I doubt that there is still any copyright on this song, if there ever was. Pascal.Tesson 05:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I was leaning towards merge, but delete per nom-DESU 05:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable song. Even if it was and in public domain, Wikipedia is not a lyrics database. mikmt 05:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT. Terence Ong 09:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as textbook WP:NFT.-- danntm T C 02:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not Delete - As a pupil of the school, I can confirm there is no copyright on the song. Why would a school song be copyrighted? Many schools have the same song anyway, such as King Edward VI Aston. It is an important part of the school, and is as important as the House System, and nobody thinks that that should be deleted. Perhaps a merge is a better option? Alex Holowczak 18:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - If deletion is carried through, leave a note on my talk page, and give me a day to either squeeze it into the Five Ways page, or at the very least copy the lyrics onto my computer. Alex Holowczak 19:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Assuming it is in the public domain, why not Wikisource it? Tiakalla 07:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Because I didn't know that existed. If I add the category to the page will it avoid the page being deleted? Alex Holowczak 21:26, 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 07:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Young Conservatives of California

Young Conservatives of California (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The founder of Young Conservatives of California created a page for his organization as well as one for himself, as far as I can tell no reliable source exist on this topic and they do not meet WP:NOTE not to mention blatant WP:COI violation Daniel J. Leivick 04:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Also nominating the creators page.
Brendan Steinhauser (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Gogo Dodo 06:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Shearman

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

massively non-notable and/or vanity frymaster 04:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as nonsense (G1). Frymaster, if you see an article like that, you can label it for WP:CSD yourself. If you don't know how, ask me on my user talk page. YechielMan 05:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - typical teenage vanity. Nobody cares. So tagged. MER-C 05:39, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 18:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network (2nd nomination)

ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Previously deleted through a mass-nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batang Kaharian, but this one was much fuller than the others, so listing separately. No vote. Chick Bowen 05:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. I'll let someone else do the search engine test on these folks. I applaud the nominator's good judgment in separating this article because of its length. In the final result, though, the article is totally unsourced, and serves the purpose of its religious cult, not of the information-seeking Wikipedia community. YechielMan 05:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi. I'm still not sure whether I'm for keeping this, but there are actual sources in the "References" section, so calling it "totally unsourced" is a little strong. Perhaps you missed them the first time? William Pietri 19:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Good call. What I should have said was that the article content, as relates to the individual shows (not the network as a whole), reads like an advertisement. YechielMan 20:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Fixed. Note that bad content is not grounds for deletion. If you don't like the content, change it or add a warning notice at the top of the article. Deletion should be limited to articles that should never be or are completely unsalvageable. William Pietri 03:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Google hits can be viewed here, I don't see any reliable sources among the first few hits, mainly Wikipedia sites, its mirrors, advertisements of the broadcasting network and the website. I don't see any reason why article should be kept. Its just a non-notable channel by a church. As far as I know, there is no assertion of notability about this company. Terence Ong 09:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment; here is a link to the first nom: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network. Tizio 16:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. As the guy who saved this from the dumpster the first time, I'm concerned that things like the Google test and the "I haven't heard of it" test are prone to systemic bias for regional items in countries where English isn't the primary language. Although I have an admitted bias against both cults and spam, I think articles on spammy or culty topics shouldn't have to meet a higher bar than other topics. My take is that they have press coverage, transmitters in two major Phillipine cities, and a presence on dozens of Phillipine city cable systems. Were this, say, a Texas religious broadcaster, I think we'd cover them, so this one should stay, too. Further, I don't think they have become less notable than the last AfD, which was a keep. William Pietri 19:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep firstly, it is sourced. Considering it is in the Phillipines, it certainly passes a Google test (which is a guideline at best). Just look past the wikipedia mirrors. Also "reading like an advertisement" is not cause for deletion. —siroχo 08:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. Consensus is that radio/TV broadcasters and channels are notable. There are sources provided that confirm these channels exist so what's needed is the turning of the current article into something encyclopaedic. Nuttah68 13:44, 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 12:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claremont College Rugby Football Club

Claremont College Rugby Football Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable. frymaster 05:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - 6 ghits, zero notability and verifiability. MER-C 05:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:N, WP:V. Terence Ong 09:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - no proof of notability found --Euzebia Zuk 13:25, 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?) 18:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RMS-099 Rick Dias

RMS-099 Rick Dias (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Completely unsourced and non-notable fancruft and/or original research. Merely a plot summary, with no connection to the real world whatsoever asserted. Contested prod. MER-C 05:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete: no assertion of notability even within the fictional universe. While minor characters can be merged into a list, trivial characters should just be deleted per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Pak21 08:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, original research, unverifiable. Terence Ong 09:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to a list of mecha from Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam or something like that. Within the series, it's a major supporting character, appearing for more than half of the 50+ episodes of the series. Shrumster 16:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. It's not unverifiable; I think most of the information either comes from the series itself, Gundamofficial.com or MAHQ. Tiakalla 07:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless reliable third party sources are included. Addhoc 15:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 12:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MSN-04 Sazabi

MSN-04 Sazabi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Completely unsourced and non-notable fancruft and/or original research. Merely a plot summary, with no connection to the real world whatsoever asserted. Deprodded to add sources, but that was at least two weeks ago with no edits since then. MER-C 05:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete: no assertion of notability even within the fictional universe. While minor characters can be merged into a list, trivial characters should just be deleted per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Pak21 08:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, original research, unverifiable. Terence Ong 09:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge to list of mecha from Mobile Suit Gundam: Char's Counterattack. The article definitely needs a rewrite to pass WP:WAF, but the subject itself is notable. It's essentially the antagonist in the movie Char's Counterattack. Also appears in other, unrelated media such as the Super Robot Wars series of games by Banpresto, and it has a lot of model kits/toys based on it. Also appears in another book or two set in the Universal Century Gundam universe. Shrumster 17:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Shrumster. I have a life outside of Wikipedia, sorry I can't dedicate my life to "improving" articles. Translating from Japanese takes a while, as well. Kyaa the Catlord 03:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep One of the most notable mecha within the Mobile Suit Gundam series. The history of the construction of the mecha is an important political back story as well. Definitely not a trivial or even minor character within Gundam. --Polaron | Talk 15:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs a rewrite, but it's one the most notable mobile suits. A thing like this in a series this notable is very relevant to Japanese culture. Voretus 20:30, 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 Speedy deleted by another admin. -- Gogo Dodo 06:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1/0 (literal translation)

1/0 (literal translation) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I prod'd this article before I noticed that it had already been prod'd and deprod'd. Surely there's some speedy criterion that applies, but I'm not really sure which one. Clearly unencyclopedic in any case. Trovatore 05:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. This qualifies for speedy under G1: patent nonsense. CMummert · talk 05:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - nonsense. So tagged. MER-C 05:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment It was already speedied, more than an hour ago, and re-created. --Trovatore 05:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
So? Delete it again. MER-C 05:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Perhaps it would be wise, sir, to let the AFD play out? That way we have precedent for beating it down. --Dennisthe2 06:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and salt. CMummert · talk 05:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Nonsense. Maxamegalon2000 06:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, salt, etc-DESU 06:06, 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 12:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1HOPE4U

1HOPE4U (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable music group, search returns only 264 Ghits [15], article resembles advertising.Candy-Panda 05:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 05:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom, WP:MUSIC mikmt 05:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no assertion of notability, such an assertion probably impossible with google results like these. — coelacan talk — 06:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Terence Ong 09:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable and reads like a promo piece. NawlinWiki 19:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete a article with link to the band's website, absent any other verification of notability, is not enough to pass WP:MUSIC.-- danntm T C 02:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The only thing that could help the article pass WP:BAND is "getting airplay on various Christian Radio programs", but the statement is unsourced and shows no signs of being verifiable. ShadowHalo 05:16, 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 12:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boyz in the Sink

Boyz in the Sink (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional music group. Candy-Panda 05:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete the article. Maybe mention it in the Veggie Tales article if it's important enough in the Veggie Tales universe.. mikmt 05:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Veggie Tales. The editors there can decide whether to delete the content or incorporate it into that article. — coelacan talk — 06:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 07:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Terence Ong 09:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --Euzebia Zuk 13:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Kukini 08:00, 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 12:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aidan J. David

Aidan J. David (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

reason non notable actor no statement why he is important enough to have own article Oo7565 05:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomOo7565 05:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable actor. IMDB indicates that he he has only in a few TV shows as non-recurring character. mikmt 06:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Fixed spelling in nom. Please use full sentences and correct spelling on Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 07:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable actor. Terence Ong 10:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I created the article. Although I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other, I do think it should be pointed out he played a recurring role in Grange Hill, a major TV series for young people in the UK. Whether being in a notable TV series brings him notablilty per se is your call.... Jcuk 11:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless properly sourced and referenced (non-trivial neutral) by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete or merge into Grange Hill under cast or new 'recurring characters' section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scandrett (talk • contribs) 00:52, 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 as having met WP:MUSIC. - Mailer Diablo 12:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deitiphobia

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

Non-notable music group. Candy-Panda 06:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep - The group is mentioned on discogs and allmusic. Based on the article's description, it seems notable enough per WP:MUSIC mikmt 06:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Releasing a number (more than 2) albums on an included record label makes them meet WP:MUSIC for me RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep meets wiki criteria for a notable band --Euzebia Zuk 13:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep band is notable, I agree that it meets the criteria --igjimh 16:15, 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 Keep but source with WP:RS. No bais agianst re-nomination if sources are not found.. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All Star United

All Star United (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Non-notable music group, no sources besides the official website. Candy-Panda 06:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong keep - According to allmusic[16], they were nominated for a Grammy and have had four songs topping the charts. mikmt 06:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Terence Ong 10:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If Sourced Right now the whole thing could be viewed as a potential hoax. Assuming it's true, there's got to be a great deal of sources out there to back up the information givin, and expand the context of the article. Google comes up with a great deal of hits, I'm sure there's some good sources there. Ganfon 05:11, 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 12:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of crisis hotlines by country

List of crisis hotlines by country (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is obviously a collection of information, and the information by itself is not encyclopedic - plain and simple. I suggest deleting this article, and possibly merging the information somehow or throwing it all away. Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 06:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a directory, which even specifically mentions phone book entries. Prolog 06:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom & Prolog. This also seems rife for abuse, and will frequently be out of date regardless. --Dhartung | Talk 07:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not the white pages. MER-C 07:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Like I said last time: This is simply a list of entries which would be in a phonebook, and not an encyclopedia article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT a directory. Rather, Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages alternative. Terence Ong 10:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - as I am the nominator. Really the only case that can be made for this is WP:IAR and I don't think that qualifies here. It obviously violates the aforementioned Directory rule as stated by Prolog.--Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 16:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Finally, a proper application of Wikipedia is not a directory! I thought I'd never see the day. --- RockMFR 22:11, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ellaz Systems

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

Insufficient assertion of notability, and does not appear to be actually sufficiently notable. Delete. -Nlu (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep, program won the Loebner Prize in 2001, the most important prize in artificial intelligence. The article is jargony and short of context.--Dhartung | Talk 06:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dhartung mikmt 14:03, 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 Keep, multiple releases per WP:MUSIC. Article tone and sourcing addressed during AFD. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 04:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Altar Boys (2nd nomination)

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

Non-notable music group, unsourced claims such as "The Altar Boys helped pioneer Christian rock music" Candy-Panda 06:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, no assertion of notability. — coelacan talk — 06:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - "The Altar Boys helped pioneer Christian rock music" is a clear assertion of notability mikmt 13:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Quite a few Ghits and an entire allmusic page devoted to them, as well as album reviews. Maybe nothing recent about thme notable because they broke up in the 80s? Rockstar915 06:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Claiming that a group "helped pioneer Christian rock music" is an attempt to assert notability. However, "John Doe saved the world four times" is as well - such a claim needs to be substantiated. The article doesn't give any reason to believe the claim, and the Allmusic page doesn't help either. (Google hits are completely meaningless, especially as the phrase "altar boys" appears in all sorts of unrelated contexts.) Zetawoof(ζ) 07:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per the discography - notable per WP:MUSIC; what was I thinking? The claim of having "helped pioneer Christian rock music" still needs support, though. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable band. Allmusic.com and Google does not mean everything. Terence Ong 10:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, as five releases on Alarma/Frontline clearly meets criteria #5. See also first AFD. Dan, the CowMan 01:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Here is some support for the claim, found by Google Book Search, in the book Apostles of Rock: The Splintered World of Contemporary Christian Music, page 53. My local library has this book, And I will be checking it and other references tomorrow. Dan, the CowMan 05:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The book has a picture of the group, and indicates that they are an example of how CCM began "to shed its obvious visual signatures". The book is very broad, however, and does not go into individual bands much. Dan, the CowMan 03:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Re: "helped pioneer Christian rock music." Maybe there should be a tag put on the article for music experts (esp. Christian music experts) to verify this claim. Rockstar915 03:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • As it currently reads, the second paragraph is supported by Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music, as cited in the article. Dan, the CowMan 03:49, 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 delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 19:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Go Fish (Christian band)

Go Fish (Christian band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Candy-Panda 06:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete per nom. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. — coelacan talk — 06:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 07:34, 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 12:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US Marshalls (Skating)

US Marshalls (Skating) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable figure skating competition. Marshalls Winter Event is what is commonly (and disparagingly) known to figure skating fans as a "cheesefest". It is a non-qualifying competition that does not matter except for TV ratings and so the skaters can make some money. It's a popularity contest, pure and simple, and its format, if you can call it one, depends entirely on what the TV executives want. It is not judges or scored by ISU rules and it is not a figure skating competition. It is a figure skating tv show, like Brian Boitano's Skating Spectular or Kurt Browning's Gotta Skate. The only difference is that this one has eligible skaters and pretends to be a competition. It should be noted that the spring event sponsored by Marshalls has given up the pretext of being a competition and has been just a showcase for the past two seasons. Awartha 06:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Unverifiable / OR /Blaxthos 08:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:N. Terence Ong 10:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 12:05, 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 Relist all. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Agian give me some time to do the relisting. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acar

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Articles fail to establish any encyclopedic notability. CyberAnth 06:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Taco salad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Ambrosia (fruit salad) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Piyaz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs):
Bonjan Salad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Karedok (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Fattoush (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Raheb (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Delete Taco salad, Karedok and Fattoush for being merely recipes. Wikipedia is not a recipe book. As for the rest, no opinion. MER-C 08:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all except Acar. Acar or Achar is a very popular dish in Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia. Everyone in this region eats this pickle dish. It needs some citing of sources and a bit of expansion and it should be fine. Terence Ong 10:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all, including Acar, unless non-trivial references from reliable sources as to the notability of the dishes are found and added to the article/s by the end of the AFD. --Charlene 15:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Relist seperately, articles vary in notablitlity and potential encycopedic value. Artw 18:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Failing that Keep on Piyaz, Acar and Ambrosia, delete on the rest. I have a feeling that Taco Salad is actually an American fast food invention, if that's the case then exploring that angle could be a reason for keeping it. Artw 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Some information on taco salad here: [17] Sounds like that cookbook could be used as one source and there are probably others. Not sure it would be enough for notability or not so I have no vote Plymouths 23:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup and expand. There is nothing wrong with the topics, and nothing wrong with stubs. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information lists 9 reasons to delete, this doesn't meet any of the 9. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep on each article for several reasons. Firstly, I've checked through them all on various online places. Each seems notable in English, online, let alone in their native language and offline. I have provided verifiable sources (foodnetwork, newspapers..) for a few, but I don't have the time to provide one for each. Secondly, a point on "recipes". None of these article is a recipe, the fact is that any salad has a few basic ingredients. These will be mentioned in the article, so its a good place to start the stub. Thirdly, each article is different. They are not simply all Salads out of a cookbook, they are foods from varying cultures, that exist in the English-language-cookbook-canon to varying degrees. Therefore they should each be relisted separately before deletion is even considered. Lastly, note people's different votes on which to keep, and which to delete. This is an example of differing sets of knowledge not overlapping enough leading to systemic bias in Wikipedia. We must be very careful before deleting any of these for that reason. Based on this, and considering other reasons for keep, I believe the "burden of proof" falls on those who advocate deleting to provide explicit reasons for each article on why to delete. Thanks for reading my treatise. —siroχo 09:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Agree that they should be relisted separately. Much easier for people to work on improving them by adding references if they are working on one at a time as well. I'm personally feeling overwhelmed by the size of the list. Plymouths 09:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Each article has a different degree of notability. Better to split these up into different noms. --- RockMFR 07:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep Each of these except Taco salad. The others have cultural significance, taco salad is self-explanatory. If anything, a reference to that dish should be made on the "Taco" page. -MojoXN
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mindows

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

Neologism; the article says it's a term used to describe a minimal version of Microsoft Windows, but most references I can find to it seem to be misspellings of Windows, an intentional turning-upside-down of the W to make an M, or a portmanteaus coined by individuals (a Mac with Windows, e.g.). -/- Warren 07:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - unless Mindows has been the subject of multiple articles in reliable sources. CyberAnth 08:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - this subject has been listed on the offical Microsoft website [18] and relates to the court case against Microsoft where it was proved that windows could run without internet explorer. See: Removal of Internet Explorer and United States v. Microsoft Think outside the box 09:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment the term is used on a forums (being hosted on the Microsoft site doesn't make it "special") and is used by a person with 2 posts. I don't think that qualifies as an "endorsement" of the term by Microsoft. mikmt 06:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NEO. Terence Ong 10:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Dubious origin. No widespread and consistent use of the term. Saligron 11:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable and oxymoronic neologism. MER-C 12:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable neologism mikmt 06:05, 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 12:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Faithmouse

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

Non-notable, unreferenced, unverifiable article that is full of original research. /Blaxthos 08:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Candy-Panda 09:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:N, WP:OR. Terence Ong 10:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - alexa = 1 661 556: [19]. MER-C 12:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep it is noteabelOo7565 18:43, 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 12:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Gayme

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

First, Google turned up no results for the authors "Henrique Schadenfreude and Tony Kalifo PsyD." Second, the supposed series has not yet even been published, so even if this is real, I don't see how it passes WP:N. Third, the entire article is unsourced. Fourth, the "theory" section. Just read it. Come on now. janejellyroll 08:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, hoaxes are not eligible for speedy deletion. janejellyroll 09:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a crystal ball gazing hoax. Completely made up - Peripitus (Talk) 09:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:HOAX. Terence Ong 10:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 12:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as utter nonsense, using my "innate jurisprudence" SkierRMH,19:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete absolute stupidity. JuJube 01:42, 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 12:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Star Circle Quest Alumni

List of Star Circle Quest Alumni (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
Star Magic Artists List (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Star Circle Batch 11 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) added on 05:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

This is unencyclopedic list; no references, no explanations, no context, whatsoever. Wikipedia isn't a directory and a indiscriminate collection of information. PROD was contested. --Howard the Duck 09:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Also added: Star Magic Artists List. A notice has been added at Philippine noticeboard. 09:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • delete 95% unimportant information, none of it new: of the names there that have articles of their own, the information contained in this article is found there. SGGH 09:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • delete Indiscriminate collection of information. Saligron 10:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT. Terence Ong 10:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 12:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. per above. Might even pass for a Speedy? Also, similar attention should be given to Star Circle Batch 11. I really can't see the point of these articles. I mean, even if they were as famous as say, the American Idol people, we don't have sheer lists here of American Idol "batches". Tempted to describe this as pinoyshowbizcruft. Shrumster 15:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Can those be appended to the nomination? --Howard the Duck 05:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC) I'll append this to the nomination. --Howard the Duck 05:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps in their own context they are. Personally I have never seen an episode of American Idol and wouldn't know a contestant from it if they came and slapped me round the head with a fish whilst shouting "I was a contestant on American Idol!" Jcuk 21:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most of the names here are barely notable. I would be fine with this list if 99% of the names are well-known, but in this case it's the reverse. Barely encyclopedic. --- Tito Pao 19:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete With no reference even to what "Star Circle Quest" is (Filipino reality TV Show?) it's totally no-context; in addition to being an indiscriminate collection of info. SkierRMH,20:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete See nom--Jude 03:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Even if it has references it does not mean that it could stand as an article. ---Lenticel 01:04, 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 12:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dicefreaks

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

The site has been nominated for one award at a regional gaming conference. I'm not sure if WP:WEB has been met because I am not sure how notable the actual award is. I had a dialogue on the talk page about WP:N and the only thing that can be pointed to is this single nomination, so I'm bringing it here for debate. janejellyroll 10:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify that an ENnie is not a merely regional gaming award - it's the most important web-based roleplaying game award around. Note how Green Ronin also mentions it in its article. Also note how Dicefreaks has been mentioned on the Hag Countess article for a while, now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DDSaeger (talk • contribs) 12:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete - alexa = 1 472 755: [20]. MER-C 12:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB criteria. Terence Ong 13:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nomination for an award isn't sufficient to establish notability Percy Snoodle 13:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment-Alexa truncated the web address. The address is http://dicefreaks.com/phpBB2/index.php until the shopping section of the site can be built. Going by Alexa, my web-site would be considered notable with Alexa's truncation of the address. http://www.xecu.net/fantasy/index.shmtl is truncated to http://www.xecu.net my internet provider's web site. Two different sites lumped together by Alexa.
    Also, the ENnies are awarded to companies such as Wizards of the Coast and Green Ronin along with web sites. The award is given at Gen Con in Indianapolis which is not a regional convention, it is just one of two Gen Con conventions held each year as far as I know, there may be more. - LA @ 13:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete — Fails WP:WEB Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 03:57, 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 07:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Waugh

A page on an individual of questionable notability - he might pass the test, but others need a look. Also, the author of the article is one User:Awaugh. You can do the math. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Alexander Waugh features on this [BBC Webpage]. Appears he is notable enough for inclusion, although the article does need a lot of cleanup. Wikipeterproject 11:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep something there but unless all that red link (or should I say red ink?) disappears and the sources and cites are worked on we will have this discussion again within a month Alf photoman 15:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I reckon he's notable enough, and even the auto-bio (although bad) shouldn't be terminal as all the information should be able to be verified. Madmedea 22:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Pretty well known journalist in UK (beyond his parentage), and bibliography definitely notable enough for inclusion. Needs a rewrite, though. And a bit of shame about the author: At least Ildan Mehmet Murat Ildan pretends it's someone else...Scandrett00:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep The notability is obvious from the article's listing of positions and writings. Its reasonable nonCOI for an autobio--we've seen much worse. DGG 03:28, 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 keep. Majorly (o rly?) 14:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vorarephilia

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

Yet another paraphilia. Under a thousand Google hits, Google Scholar gives one passing mention (a single sentence in a single paper which alludes to it), Google News has nothing, Factive has nothing, the links at the bottom are not to reliable sources (only to forums and other cruft). So: a neologism, a fantasy fetish, and one which has little if any documentation in the relevant academic community. Sounds like sexcruft you say? You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment First of all, Vore was not just a passing mention in one single sentence in that paper Guy found, in addition. There have been several books published by Willing Levy about this matter. Further more. "Vorarephile" is a much more popular word phase to search, which returns over ten thousands results on Google. It is evident that effort have not been made to properly verifies this entry before called for a deletion. EkaMei 22:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}
  • Delete unless article transforms during the course of this debate. Regards, Navou banter 14:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I was going to nom this myself a few months ago but after searching around I found a reliable source for the subject and instead removed anything that could not reasonably qualify for inclusion under verifiability rules. The paraphilia obviously exists as is evident by its large online community and amateur artwork. Anyone interested can refer to the article's discussion page for a more in depth breakdown of the clean-up process (done mainly by myself). Bottom line is this is a real paraphilia that can, and is, verified through reliable sources and has enough material to warrant a stub. NeoFreak 19:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I feel quite foolish as I had just finished reviewing the macrophilia article when I came over here to this AfD. The ref I was referring to was in fact on that page. Although the rest rings true here for this article that doesn't mean the article escapes the criteria for deletion. While the paraphilia no doubt exists it is too fringe (or maybe just to young) to create reliable sources in order to provide the mandatory level of verifiability for any article on wikipeida. This means that until reliable sources can be found this article cannot support itself here. Of course many people are registering accounts here to "vote" on this AfD (no doubt after being recruited to do so at vore community sites) this AfD is not a vote and "I'm real and I'm into this stuff" is not a valid reason to retain this article. This article fails to meet policy requirements and should be deleted as failing WP:RS, WP:V and very possibly WP:NPOV since no objective coverage is available as all the knowledge of the subject is coming from people intimate with or involved in the subject material's "community". I ask the closing admin considers the policy question and the single purpose nature of the participants of this AfD as well as "community consensus".NeoFreak 21:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Making and or responding in wikipedia to threads like this [21] where statements such as "I have created a profile to simply leave my two cents. I suggest others do so." by editors like diablodevil2 is against wikipedia policy as is clearly stated by the warning template above. You can be blocked for such behavior. NeoFreak 22:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons stated above. SAMAS 20:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It DOES exist. Believe me I know... MJN SEIFER
  • Delete unless RELIABLE sources are produced. --- RockMFR 22:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The community, while academically undocumented, certainly exists. I suspect that the more common term vore might end up giving significantly more Google hits (although the signal:noise ratio of that terms is rather low). -- Kirby1024 23:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Academically undocumented = unsourced, in this case. What do we use as reliable sources? Guy (Help!) 11:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I've been given all the rule books and it still makes no sense, what could be more a reliable than an actual voraphile talking to you right now? MJN SEIFER
  • Keep - I created a profile on the spot to join this discussion, so please forgive me if my etiquette is off. As Kirby1024 states, using the term "vore" will open up the community to the initiated. Whether it's art, writings, animations or movies, the evidence is plentiful. It's not hard to find. Google and Deviant Art will both do nicely in finding such things. Personally, the idea of deleting this article is offensive to me, being a voreaphile. In fact, it's the most offensive thing I've seen strike so close to home. Again, I apologize if my etiquette is off, but this quickly became a very personal issue to me. diablodevil2 — diablodevil2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep for reliable evident, please refer to the book "Vore - The Consuming Passion" published by Willian Levy at 2005. (There are more in related issue published by various other artists) Also, unlike the original debater of this issue. Type "Vore" in Google will list my site as the 3rd in the line, which, have a collection of about three hundreds artists and authors with album on the site that are dedicated to vore. If you think something does not exist, please at least spent some time and talk to those few hundreds contributors before making rush decision. Also, for statistic info, please feel free to contact me at my site if you need evident of regular visitors at count of thousands. EkaMei 18:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC) — EkaMei (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. Reasons stated above - but I do have a personal comment to add for Seifer. In the first case, though it's quite obvious vore exists, Seif, it's much harder to prove whether or not it belongs in Wikipedia. Online stuff is tricky - for example, there are games on Newgrounds with upwards of eight million hits. That's way more members than Eka's Portal or any other vore message board out there has got - though I'd not judge on how many 'hits' the main pages have received. However, such games do not fall into the category for inclusion into Wikipedia - because, in the first case, they aren't that notable. True, eight million hits have been archived - but that just means someone's clicked on a button eight million times. There are message boards and letter-groups about it, you say? True, but I don't think there are eight million people on those message boards or letter groups.
    Wikipedia exists in order to help educate people about subjects - it is an online encyclopedia. True, there are a lot of things that aren't notable enough for a real encyclopedia here, but there has to be some cut-off. There hasn't ever been, to my knowledge, a scientific study conducted about vore. Yes, it exists - but where's the reliable information to put in an article? The worst source for an article is the person or people being talked about. That's why the Neo-Nazis don't get to put their version of the Holocaust into that article, that's why the politicians aren't allowed to edit their own articles - it's because information that comes from someone about that someone is inherently unreliable. We can't use the vore community itself for documentation ABOUT the vore community - because we'd be getting a biased, unscientific view.
    All that said, I still vote for 'keep'. Wikipedia is intended to educate people - and there's certainly enough information present to merit a stub article for vore. As long as the page doesn't cause an edit war about what should or shouldn't be in there, I really don't see a reason that it should stop existing - True, there's a rule on Wikipedia about 'no independent research', but surely there's a NPOV way to include this article. The fetish it alludes to isn't going to simply go away, after all. This kind of thing is certainly not a Wiktionary article, but it's certainly good enough for a 'pedia that uses three counts of "Pelican eats pidgeon" as references for another article. On a rather amusing note, I never expected my Wikipedia profile to be used to comment on something like this... --KaoruNagisaThe Angel 01:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC) — KaoruNagisa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. Those who are pushing for the deletion of this article claim that the community which I find myself a member of, even if a non-contributing one, does not exist. This issue has actually propelled me to it's defense. While I personally believe the request to delete this page is simply the product of someone unhappy with the existence of such a thing and is attempting to "cleanse" their world of what they view as an undesirable aspect, I have no proof of such and therefore cannot make the claim/accusation. What I will say, is that all science and writing is based on some sort of observation. We know what we do about the Pygmy tribes from watching them, and then writing about them. Just because at first before they were well-known there were no books or articles on the Pygmies did not mean they did not exist. I say keep this article, and let it be managed by those who know the subject best: voraphiles themselves. As a matter of fact, I'm going to go digging for articles and information right now to add to the article and try to make it better fit the (voluntary, I must point out) standards which these people claim to be "enforcing". Phreakout 03:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC) — Phreakout (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. This page claims the total results of the term "Vorarephilia" to be under 1,000. However, the term is sometimes spelled without the "re" in the middle. The word "Voraphilia" has over 1,000 results. (Note: I'm not sure how to sign this, I'm not a registered member. I have in the past made a few contributions to other articles that have had nothing to do with this, so don't label this as a Single Purpose Account).
  • I have seen the term voraphilia also being used to mean having a love for words. -- Jreferee 19:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's disgusting, the links section is fancrufty, and it's kinda questionable that people are signing up just to vote Keep here, but it's at least notable enough that I've seen it mentioned in the mainstream news before. In particular, reading this I remembered an article of the Straight Dope I read a few years ago. Krimpet 02:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. If Steve Eley, one of the writers of the manifesto of the Invisible Pink Unicorns, can edit the IPU article, and if anime fans can create and maintain (let’s be honest) fancruft articles about their respective anime of choice, then I submit that vorarephiles should be allowed to maintain this article. The problems claimed in this article, including original research, exist in other Wikipedia articles which have never been up for deletion. Besides, I’d love to hear the rationale for keeping so many, many articles devoted to anime, characters, concepts, and even objects and individual episodes—most of them are almost completely original research, derived from watching said anime. —Frungi 05:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You are missing the point. There are no credible references for the term, it's a neolgism. We have deleted all sorts of articles on combinations of random latin words with -philia or -phobia attached, for exactly the same reasons. Where are the academic references which establish this topic? I found one paper, which had one paragraph that mentioned it with no real detail. Leaving aside the puppet parade above, where are the multiple non-trivial reliable sources? Guy (Help!) 11:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there another term for the concept? The fetish does exist, as has been established here, and this seems to be the best word to describe it. If the problem is that it’s a neologism, just redirect the article to a suitable pre-existing term. The fact is, the term exists on the Internet, and if someone comes across it, he’ll want to look it up. And again, where are the academic references for all the anime fancruft? Why shouldn’t the same rationale used for them be used here? —Frungi 13:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. You will have to forgive me if I am editing this page improperly. My input into Wikipedia thus far has been limited to the comments sections. As such, I may be seen as a "single purpose poster", merely because I usually prefer to watch than comment. I also do not yet know the proper coding to "tab" the other paragraphs below to line up properly, my apologies.
    That said, thus far I believe the "standards" at Wikipedia are not being held as rigorously as some may claim. This article, not it's existence, but rather the threat of removal, is proof of that. For a web site that can dedicate massive articles are such topics as "Lightsaber Combat", giving extremely in-depth accounts of something that appears in a series of movies, created for no reason other than "it looks good", but at the same time will go out of their way to whittle down articles such as this astounds me. Look at the History of this particular article, and you can see how it went from discussion of a relatively new "field" in fetishes to being stripped of nearly all content, and only then, cited for deletion. It is if somebody wants this subject to simply go away. And given the number of other, highly questionable articles on Wikipedia, especially those that have no relevance to anything except the small fictional worlds in which they exist, it is obvious that Wikipedia truly is nothing more than a massive popularity contest.
    Does this fetish exist? Without a doubt. It is quite obvious to anyone who spends more than 30 seconds punching a word they don't even know how to spell into Google that there is indeed information of this fetish out there. It has been defined, various sub-branches have been identified and defined, there even is discussion on the psychological reasons for it (Fight or Flight reactions, dominance/submissiveness, etc.) The fact that it hasn't moved into the "main stream" yet is largely in part because the "main stream" is always a few decades behind, at least. And it is a case of "I don't want to see it, therefore it doesn't exist."
    Does this article deserve deletion? In it's current state, probably. However, it would be far more appropriate for this article to be edited, to be put back into a state of completion, discussion and information about the subject and about the branches within the subject, by those who know what the subject is, and what they are talking about. The "experts" in this field currently are those involved in the community. Another thing that needs to happen is for people who DON'T know what the subject matter is to leave it largely alone, unless they are willing to spend the time to truly look it up for themselves first. 75.167.30.149 18:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per Wikipedia:Notability, a topic is notable 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 such that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. Reasoning: I searched for Wikipedia qualifying published works about (i) vorarephilia, (ii) phagophillia, (iii) vore (fetish), and (iv) vore (paraphilia), but could not find any. While the external links listed in the article might have some use in the article, the text of the article makes no reference use of these links. Since there is not enough Wikipedia qualified source material that would permit editors to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic, the topic does not meet Wikipedia:Notability requirements. Thus, although this appears to be an important subject, I believe that the article should be deleted per Wikipedia notability requirements. Comment - If this article survives the present Article for Deletion (AfD), then the comments, promises, mentions of source material, etc. made in this AfD should be used to further evaluate the article in the event the article is proposed for a second AfD. -- Jreferee 18:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Evidence of it is easy to find and at least warrents a stub. A search for vorarephilia comes up with about 981 results, but a search for vore(which it is often called) comes up with about 15,100,000 results(though many of these may not actually pertain to vorarephilia I though it worth mentioning). I do agree that this article needs heavy editing. To clarify, I am not a part of the vore community but have seen more than enough evidence of it.-- LinaCrow 18:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Just happened across this article by accident while following wiki-links, so gave the discussion a read. Voraraphilia, or voraphilia as it is sometimes termed has an extremely active community of the internet. Wikipedia is full of articles about things like internet communites and pop-culture memes that have little to no acedemic coverage and hard sourcing. This topic is no different. Just because there is not a lot of academic sources of information about this topic, it does not mean that it doesn't exist or that a sizable and active community does not exist. If we're willing to write about and not bat an eye at keeping "All your base are belong to us," or the "Star Wars Kid" or all the stuff related to the #chans which are all sources of internet memes and lack a lot of "academic" coverage, why not this, which is at least as significant to a large number of people and generates a great deal of art and writing that is easily accessable and found? The article needs to be rewritten, yes, but to delete it would be an unfair application of wikipedia's policy given all the other stuff on Wikpedia that no-one bats an eye at and is similair in scope. --Lendorien 20:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'll start off by admitting that I am a vorarephile myself. I have been for over 30 years, when I first found myself becoming aroused at scenes in stories or movies, where someone was being eaten alive. The term itself, is what I have known this fetish by for the past 10 years, when I first came online and found others like myself. I have found no other psychiatric term that could define this fetish for me. Just because I am not aroused by other fetishes, does not mean that this one does not exist. The reason there is a lack of scientific research on vorarephilia, is because of one: the apparant small percentage of the population who has it; and two: for all intent and purposes, it is a harmless fetish that has no real-world interaction. Researchers have no desire to spend time and money on a condition that threatens nobody. Though it is often classified as a fantasy fetish, because people don't go around swallowing others or getting swallowed themselves, that has nothing to do with the physical reaction of an arousal that occurs. Yes, the entry should make it clear that this fetish has not been scrutinized by psychiatrists yet, and the term itself should be considered as 'slang' because of this fact; but to ignore something that has existed as the common terminolgy for over a decade is putting blinders on. Instead of asking where the scientific evidence is, ask instead where the facts of this article can be proven as wrong, before deleting it. -- A university lecture document that discusses similar fetishes, making only a reference to 'vorarephilia' in its online resources listing, can be found here: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/428/428lect13.htm Amberax 22:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. You are, mostly, correct in your understanding of the term vorarephilia and it's controversy here. This is called a neologism. Wikipedia has rules and guildlines for dealing with neologisms. The guidline in a nutshell as covered at the top of the page and states: New terms don't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources about the term. If you follow the rabbit hole a little deeper you will also find the definition of what wikipedia considers to be a reliable source. I would recommend you read the entire guildline which can be found in the links I've provided to get a better understanding of why this articel fails to meet the standards of a wikipedia article. NeoFreak 01:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up. Given the definition of neologism (I particularly like: 'A meaningless word used by a psychotic.') and Wikipedia's guidelines towards their usage, I must unfortunately recant my previous keep request and agree with the delete option. While I personally believe that a decade of usage should be more than long enough to raise a term from being considered as 'new' to accepted, I could find no definitive rule to follow as to when a word would no longer be considered a neologism (despite a websearch of various online dictionaries). Therefore, it is up to the individual to make that decision and Wikipedia has the right to decide that for themselves. I am always quick to use Wikipedia as my initial reference source for information, often forgetting the encyclopedic nature of these services. For now, terms such as vorarephilia would probably be best left for dictionaries, despite my wishes for it to appear as an entry here. My only question would be on the validity of having entries for all of the other 'fetishes' listed at the bottom of the entry on Vorarephilia, where most of those have no scientific validation either. Amberax 02:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep The Straight Dope (which I believe is a valid published source) appears to have acknowledged it as a term in a 2002 column. Google gives almost 15,000 hits for vorarephile, although fewer for vorarephilia itself. The more commonly used shortened form "vore" appears to have even more, though it is hard to distinguish from the Swedish name. It passed requests for verification on Wiktionary, though there wasn't much discussion. I also find the last part of the nomination rather patronizing. AfD is not intended as a tool for individual editors to exclude things that they personally feel are beneath Wikipedia. GreenReaper 18:56, 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 12:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sigma Omega Sigma

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

The subject organisation is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia Wikipeterproject 11:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Does not meet the notability requirements of WP:ORG. Reference to the group might be appropriate in Carthage College. Wikipeterproject 11:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. According to WP:ORG, "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found." I don't see those sources here, or indeed any any real assertion of notability beyond the existence of the sorority. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:ORG. MER-C 12:25, 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 12:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hayden gerson

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

Little to no support for the claims of notability made in this article. Gerson has founded a MySpace group with 17,000 members - what do people think of this? The group's name, "People Helping People," is pretty generic and therefore hard to search for, but Google searching for "People Helping People" Hayden or "People Helping People" myspace doesn't turn up anything to show that the group has made an impact outside MySpace. Beyond this, the unsourced claims that this 23-year-old [22] real estate agent/mortgage broker is an "industry leader" and "an opinion leader in the field of finance" seem a bit exaggerated. Note: PROD tag removed by article creator, who supplied a couple of external links that are unfortunately not reliable external sources. FreplySpang 11:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete I mean, the America One homepage, his supposed employer, is listed under external links, I don't know what else we could possibly need to meet WP:V. Seriously . . . Fails WP:BIO. janejellyroll 11:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Googling reveals his real estate business and a couple of complaints, but no evidence of real notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 12:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, fails WP:BIO. NawlinWiki 19:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - outside of the myspace community doesn't appear to be any legitimate 3rd party coverage, ergo WP:V as well as the above. SkierRMH,19:43, 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 per CSD:A7. There was no claim of notability in the article.--Isotope23 17:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Rickard

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

Obvious speedy deletion tag removed by an IP editor . . . so I'm sending it here. janejellyroll 11:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Yup. Retagged. Pan Dan 11:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete for obvious reasons Alf photoman 15:44, 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 12:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] XBOY

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

Unverified rumor first propagated in '04 (debunked here), recently resurrected as an offshoot of Zune hype[23]. Unconfirmed rumor then, obvious hoax now. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing those up. Coincidentally, Xbox (handheld) was posted again; a couple of these titles need some serious salt'n. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 01:38, 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. - Daniel.Bryant 22:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spit roast (sex)

Spit roast (sex) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced stub concerning a neologism used to describe a sex position. The only outside source mentioned is a humorous digression in Kevin Smith's Chasing Amy, and in that instance the position is referred to by a different (though equally ridiculous) term. A charming rendition of the act, likely done up in MS Paint, does little to establish credibility. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, WP:NEO. Terence Ong 13:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, then Redirect to List of sex positions. WP:NOT a slang dictionary. Mangojuicetalk 13:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect per Mango. I should note, though, that Terence Ong is wrong to refer to this as a neologism: the term's been around for many years, though only in the gay community. I'd never heard of it in reference to heterosexuality until I read this article. Maybe Terence and I need to get out more ! WMMartin 14:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Zero reliable sources. Scrawled illustration. No reason for this dubious term to be in Wikipedia.Edison 15:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Mongo. Well-known phrase in the UK, often associated with sports stars and fair haired young women. MLA 16:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable and stupid drawing --TommyOliver 18:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete while I don't agree that the stupid picture means an article is grounds for deletion this is merely slang and meant for sites such as the urban dictionary rather than an encyclopaedia such as wikipedia. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 20:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Mangojuice. A search of the archives of most major UK newspapers will yield usages in the non-cookery sense, but its unlikely an article on the subject could be any more than a dicdef. Oldelpaso 21:47, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mp-nuts

Mp-nuts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 12:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, WP:MUSIC. Terence Ong 13:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete reads like a personal page. I was hoping the article would be funnier per the title. --Tainter 14:41, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 12:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Everyday Sunday

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

No assertion of notability. Candy-Panda 12:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, WP:BAND. Terence Ong 13:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No clear evidence of notability. WMMartin 14:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep At least 3 releases on major/major-indie labels. Provides clear evidence of notability in this way. —siroχo 09:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep — per Siroxo. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 03:59, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 18:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JC Lamkin

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

Subject of article does not meet notabiity guidelines of WP:BIO. Local radio personality with no significant media coverage other then blogs and a small mention in a national publication. Nv8200p talk 13:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Request to Retain Entry This entry is a Peabody award candidate, civil rights activist and publisher of the social change website, WhatThePeopleREALLYThink.com at which she has covered stories such as "Katrina Survivors: An Update", Lybon Mabasa the President of Socialist Party of Azania, and Dick Gregory. Additionally, she has interviewed astronauts and CEO's. In summary, she has the most significant media coverage than any other entry on wikipedia.

Respectfully submitted,

Ken—Preceding unsigned comment added by KenHouston (talk • contribs)

  • "the most significant media coverage than any other entry on wikipedia". Wow <cringe>! Ohconfucius 03:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the understanding of why I placed emphasis on the word "significant" has been lost, so may I clarify...in over the millions of entry that wikipedia has, you may find less than 5 figures who have done more to serve their country, community and the arts than JC has, i.e. "significant"

KenHouston 03:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Ha! Ironically, you were only able to name four figures (I specifically said"you may find less than 5 figures"...all of whom are dead. Furthermore, there is nothing subjective about my statements nor the article itself....everything I wrote was pure fact. She is an undeniable force in activism, media, and business. No person, dead or alive can say that. It's just the facts, Sir.

KenHouston 01:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


  • Weak Delete - well, really, anybody who is in broadcasting is technically a Peabody award candidate, all you really need is $150 for the entrance fee. There's no announcement of finalists for the awards, so unless she wins, we have no indication of how she ranked among all the other entrants that year. I looked at the sources, and of the ones that are reliable, she is only briefly mentioned - in fact, from what I can tell, she has just as many direct quotes printed in USA Today as I do, and I can tell you unequivocally, I'm not notable. She is certainly on the cusp of notablity, so don't be afraid to re-create the article when she gets a bit more media coverage under her belt (or of she does happen to win the Peabody, since thats instantly notable). - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 22:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Weak DeleteCosmicPenguin No offense but if ^that^ is your criteria then I am afraid that you are going to have to delete several entries for radio personalities from wikipedia because there are personalities listed here who, unlike JC Lamkin, have never had any notable interviews nor awards. They are much less noteworthy, have zero articles written regarding their work (via blog, newspapers, magazines or other). Nor do they cross professional, activist and artistic lines; yet they have been approved and warmly received on wikipedia. Let me know if you would like me to list their entries so that you may lobby to have them deleted, also. Kind regards, Ken—Preceding unsigned comment added by KenHouston (talk • contribs)

Comment To inundate wikipedia with entries in order to obtain a "keep" on any particular article would be a blatant offense under WP:POINT.Ohconfucius 03:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I don't think that I understand. The JC Lamkin article is the only entry that I've made to wikipedia.KenHouston 04:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood. However, each article is a stand-alone, so just because other crap exists, an article which does not meet WP criteria should not be spared. We do it all the time, so please feel free to nominate any candidates you judge "unworthy" stating your reasons, and they will be considered on their merits and on your arguments. Ohconfucius 01:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, she is an independent filmmaker. I thought that I pointed that out earlier, but this info must have slipped through the e-cracks because clearly there is an overabundance of information that proves that JC Lamkin is wikipedia-able (yes, I just made up a new word, but it fits right :-).

But, seriously...her most recent film "The Struggle for Safer Streets" is an entry in the Blacklily Film and Music Festival in the category of social change documentary. Here is a link to the Blacklily site for fyi purposes: http://www.blacklilyfilm.org

I probably should have mentioned that earlier, too; but frankly, she has so many achievements that I am an not quite certain which achievements I should list and which achievement will just piss off the editors (btw, she is a candidate for the Peabody in two categories, Public Service and Documentary ;-)

Kind regards,

Ken

Also.... Also, she has been nominated as one of Pennsylvania's outstanding technology individuals, again in TWO categories. More info: http://www.tccp.org/html/1,1128,gala_nominees,00.html

-Ken, again—Preceding unsigned comment added by KenHouston (talk • contribs)

The article is well written, but:

  • In the interests of transparency, Ken should declare his interest in the subject matter. KenHouston's only contributions are to the article in question, and to this debate; The photo in the article is listed as public domain and attributed to Ken Houston.
  • Gypsy Lane Technologies scores 164 Ghits, and the results show that it is a micro-enterprise which sells graphic design and computer training services, and which is engaged in community action (admittedly it won a $1000 prize from the Micro-enterprise boost program allowing it to purchase a video camera).
  • Women In Ministries scores 115 Ghits, most are for the generic use. The http://www.womeninministries.com site is down at the time of writing.
  • The Women's Opportunities Resource Center appears to be a cooperative local to the Philadelphia engaged in micro-finance, scoring 78 Ghits.
  • The Anita T. Connor Award does not appear to be a significant award. It scores 1 relevant Ghit
  • WhatThePeopleREALLYThink.com is unranked by Alexa
  • I find no articles on "Lamkin" on Bizwomen.com, whether for 2004, 2005, or 2006
  • the Bluetooth.org link is a personal blog of someone who was interviewed on "Technically speaking"
  • the USAToday article is a trivial mention per WP:N
  • nominations for awards don't count for much, only winning major awards do.

Conclusion: Delete, not a cat's chance in hell does the subject pass WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 03:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - 2.3 This number is big
"A commonly seen argument at AfD is "Subject has x number of y, that's notable". In fact, editors are fooling themselves if they think they know how many subscribers makes a notable journal on calligraphy, how much revenue makes a notable cardboard box producer, and how many pandas make a notable zoo. Not to mention the other 97 different 'big numbers' that could be used to justify arguing 'keep' in an AfD every day." and 4.2 Google test "Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, these arguments should never be the only criterion for a deletion."
also, the as you call it "personal blog of someone who was interviewed on "Technically speaking" is actually the executive director of the Bluetooth special interest group...whose membership holds over 6000 major corps. Thanks. KenHouston 04:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC) KenHouston 04:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: the link was not omitted - it gave a404 error message, so I performed new searches. Ohconfucius 01:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep "RE: WhatThePeopleREALLYThink.com unranked by alexa", I for one certainly hope that you are kidding by even mentioning the alexa ranking since WhatThePeopleREALLYThink.com is the ONLY internet resource available that captures exclusive and otherwise unavailable culture and social change initiatives and leaders...actually, come to think of it, the website itself should be a wikipedia entry, too.
KenHouston 03:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep

As an independent filmmaker whose film is appearing in a film festival, this entry meets the criteria KenHouston 03:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


KenHouston 04:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Commment Ken, you are obviously enthusiastic about this article, and I hope you keep that enthusiasm as you embark on your wiki-career. You are correct that the number of google hits is not a strict indicator of how notable somebody is, but in this case it is making it difficult for us to verify the information in the article. I took a few minutes to look over the sources again, and unfortunately, I have to stand my my !vote - there was an awards lunchon put on by a group who's home page featured a story about Anita T. Conner, but the website lists no further information nor does it mention the name of the award, and nowhere is Lamkin's name associated with the award, so unfortunately, that bit of info is completely unsourced. The film festival info is also unverifable, as the link you posted doesn't list the name of the movies participating, and Google provided us with no reliable verification that the movie "The Struggle for Safer Streets" was produced by Ms. Lamkin. I did find a story in this local/regional newspaper [24] about Ms. Lamkin (page 8), and besides noting that the 4th paragraph of the wiki article was a borderline copyvio of the story, it did not appear to me that this is a reliable source, nor could I find any other mentions of Ms. Lamkin winning those awards. It is quite obvious hat Ms. Lamkin is a powerful force within her community, but there are many, many people that are powerful forces in their communities around the world - and while thats admirable, if others aren't writing about their accomplishments, then we cannot verify them, and if we can't verify them, then they can't be here. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
she is listed as the producer and director in the closing credits. Regarding the other items in question, they are verifiable, if not metatagged by google then via email, phone, etc. At any rate, I'm going to stick with my original position ...."Keep" KenHouston 04:50, 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 Keep – PeaceNT 11:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One Bad Pig

One Bad Pig (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable music group. Candy-Panda 13:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, WP:MUSIC. Terence Ong 13:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. NN by what standard? I see this group as meeting Criteria #5 (Multiple Releases on Myrrh/Word Records). In their time they were covered by HM Magazine and the like, though those exact references have been lost to me now. Dan, the CowMan 00:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • This article is now referenced. Dan, the CowMan 21:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Clearly meet #5 (Multiple release on major label) While not explict criteria on notablility (Criteria are guidelines only anyway) I think the info on some of there covers with original artist and international availablity (I purchased their CD's here in Australia) must be somewhat noteable. - Waza 03:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, per Dan the Cow Man. One of the most popular bands in the history of Christian punk; and they were signed to Myrrh Records, which has had several very well-known Christian artists, including Petra and Amy Grant. OBP's article also said that Johnny Cash himself appeared in one of their songs, which is available on the I Scream Sunday album, iTunes, and several other OBP releases. For what it's worth, OBP was also one of the bands that the anti-Christian rock movement (active mainly in the 80s and 90s) focused on the most; Dial-the-Truth gives them their own paragraph in their widely distributed "Christian Rock: Blessing or Blasphemy?" tract. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have little interest in and pay even less attention to Christian music and even I've heard of them - notable among other things for their collaboration with Johnny Cash. Dragomiloff 02:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. as per the criteria cited above. CDaniel 15:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 05:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Very Notable, Phil Keaggy, Johny Cash and Larry Norman have been guest members, they have released 7 albums, why this band is even considered debatable is beyond me.--E tac 04:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. -MrFizyx 00:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted Gnangarra 19:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music Towers

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

Does not seems to satisfy WP:WEB Alex Bakharev 13:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as spam and so tagged. Ohconfucius 03:09, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 14:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A True Church

A True Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I previously deleted this article as a hoax. The original creator insists that it is not a hoax, so I have undeleted it and am bringing it here for discussion. The "pastor" of this "church" is "Darwin Fish", which is the first clue that it is a parody church (like Landover Baptist Church), not a real church. At any rate, the church's website gets 249 g-hits [25] and "A True Church" along with "Darwin Fish" gets 103 g-hits, mostly self-generated [26]. So whether the church is real or a parody, it does not seem notable. BigDT 13:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Terence Ong 13:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Pseudochurch does not satisfy WP:CONG, or more generally WP:RS or WP:N. Lacks sources to show it is not a hoax. Edison 15:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • False. It has several external publications[27][28][29][30][31][32], and it very well fits one (or more) of the notability guidelines from WP:CONG: "The church's teachings or theology is considered unique or notably controversial. The teachings should be of the individual church, not its denomination." --qrc 16:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep because it is notable and not a hoax. You have judged it by its appearance rather than actually checking out the sources:
    • His name is, indeed, Darwin Fish. He writes: "The name Darwin is not evil, as you erroneously state. An evil man had this name (it was his last name, not his first name), but the name itself is not evil. I also reject what the man taught. [...] I will not dishonor my parents by changing my name, as you wickedly want me to do." He also writes: "Yes, Darwin Fish is my real name. It is the name my parents gave me when I was born in 1961. At the time, to my knowledge, there was no "DarwinFish" symbol made up at that time. My father's last name is "Fish," and my mother liked the name Darwin. So, this is my name. Some have suggested that I should change it, but I don't believe that would be honoring my father and mother (Exodus 20:12)."
    • There were several external publications proving its notability and its validity. [33][34][35][36][37][38]
    • Therefore, it should stay. --qrc 15:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Interesting ... the Post article about Graham that mentions this guy still doesn't give me any confidence there is actually a church there. It looks like he was out there holding up a sign and a reporter said, "ok, I'll bite, what are you up to". Searching for "A True Church" in Lake Hughes, CA comes up empty at switchboard.com - [39] - so if they are real, they aren't in the phone book. --BigDT 15:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
        • How ever much confidence you have in the church's existence does not really constitute that the article ought to be deleted. If it is indeed real, you are playing a cruel game by trying to delete the article just because Darwin Fish's parents gave him a name that nowadays would be considered ridiculous. I have spoken to Albert Soto, the guy who made the website for Darwin, and I've watched their documentaries. You associate this church with the Landover Baptist Church, but if you go to the A True Church website, you won't find anything vaguely satirical as you will on Landover's. The Westboro Baptist Church has a less credible website than A True Church, but is just as notable for the controversies it has stirred up. As a matter of fact, they once both protested at the same Billy Graham crusade, and people were confused by who was who because the signs they held up were equally offensive. (The Westboro Baptists and ATCers hate each other, by the way. [40][41]) --qrc 16:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
        • P.S. If you're still not sure whether or not it's real, call the 800 number and have Darwin Fish preach to you in a recorded message. 1-800-HOW-TRUE. He reads you a similar message to what is written on the 800-HOW-TRUE site. --qrc 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Qrc, it is not a question of what certain editors - whether BigDT or you - believe. It is a question of what can be verified using reliable sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pastordavid (talk • contribs) 17:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
            • Indeed, Pastor David, it's not a question of what we believe. The sources, if you check them, do verify the validity of the article. However, that's not to discredit the value in merely trying convince someone so that I'd have someone else on my side, which is what I was doing. --qrc 17:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
              • I don't question that the website really exists. I don't question that there is really some buy out there who is calling himself "Darwin Fish", be that a given name or a pseudonym. But is there any actual evidence that there is any real church building I can drive up to and that this whole thing isn't just a single guy's creation? --BigDT 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
              • As an aside, switchboard.com says there is an individual named "Fish, Darwin" in Temecula, CA, but that's 134 miles from Lake Hughes, CA, which is the alleged location of this "church". --BigDT 17:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
                • I guess when he changed the name from God's Word Fellowship to a true church, he moved as well. Also, on the usage of the word "church": Biblically, the location of a church is the pastor's house. That's building you'd be driving up to. A "church" actually means a group of believers; it is not a building. --qrc 18:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - although it looks like a hoax, there are some references, and I think we have to assume good faith in relation to the author's intentions. I've made the mistake in the past of labelling articles as hoaxes when they turn out to be bona-fide; I don't want to repeat the same mistake here. Walton monarchist89 17:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, come to think of it, I'm not convinced it's notable enough - individual religious congregations don't usually get their own articles, unless they have demonstrable importance outside of the local area. Walton monarchist89 17:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The WP:CONG proposed guideline on this matter lists the following as a qualification for notability: "The church's teachings or theology is considered unique or notably controversial. The teachings should be of the individual church, not its denomination." As long as the congregation has accompanying external publications, which this one does, it appears it meets the notability requirements, since these external publications show the uniqueness of the congregation and the controversy that it stirs up. The Reformed Evangelist wrote: "If you live in the California area or have attended a Christian conference in CA there is no doubt that you have run into the “Fishites”, these Stormtroopers in sunglasses with huge signs reading – “God Kills”, Billy Graham Leads To Hell”, etc." So indeed, it does appear that this congregation has influence outside of its local area, assuming you believe the state of California to be a suitably wide influence. --qrc 17:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
        • OK, I'd concede that to be adequate evidence of notability, so I vote Keep. But more sources are still needed. Walton monarchist89 17:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
          • The article intro itself would seem to assert a lack of notability. "A True Church (previously God's Word Fellowship) is a small Christian home fellowship based in Lake Hughes, California headed by pastor Darwin Fish." --BigDT 17:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • One possible compromise - I thought I would throw this out there. From the sources that qrc has provided, it's obvious that there is a person out there calling himself Darwin Fish and about whom there are at least some non-trivial media mentions. So even though the existence of this church is questionable and if it does exist, it isn't very notable, Darwin Fish might be a worthwhile article. If the decision here is to keep, we could move the article to Darwin Fish and change it to be more about him and less of a copy/paste of his doctrinal beliefs. --BigDT 18:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't hink it is a hoax -- there is a listing for God's Word Fellowship about ten miles from the website's PO box. However, I also don't think it is notable. The only newstories are protests of the Billy Graham crusades -- Graham is notable, and his association with the group is the only reason they get attention -- nothing about the church in itself is notable. The best place for info about this group is -- perhaps -- in a footnote on the Billy Graham page. Pastordavid 18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The primary assertions of notability in the article do not qualify as reliable sources -- WP:RS. -- Pastordavid 18:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't see anything in WP:RS indicating that publications like the Washington Post are unreliable. --qrc 18:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
        • But the Washington Post doesn't tell anything about the Church. It's a human interest story along the lines of "look at this funny guy who is protesting Billy Graham". It doesn't confirm the existence of the church or provide any useful information about it. --BigDT 18:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
          • True, but it proves that he exists, and this existence is expanded upon in greater depth in other, albeit less reliable, sources. But I still really don't understand why you question the church's existence just because there are no big publications to prove it -- the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources should not act as guides for your own mind. They have produced video documentaries which show the church's members, and people outside the church have taken pictures of the protesters (yes there are more than one). --qrc 18:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
            • There are plenty of churches/ministries/organizations/whatever on the internet that are really just the thoughts/teachings/rantings of one person. I keep a lot of Christian eschatology-related pages watchlisted and they are constantly getting spammed with links to websites that use the word "church" or "ministry", but are really just some guy's website. That's my concern with this one - if it has no physical address or evidence that it exists, is it just some guy's website? --BigDT 19:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
              • It has an address (a true church, PO Box 797, Lake Hughes, CA 93532) and physical evidence (video documentaries that cannot possibly be produced by the one guy who wrote the website, church member's website). So what's the issue? --qrc 19:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
            • You state that Mr. Fish actually exists, but this is not enough for the article to be kept. Notability is a central guideline -- mere existence is not enough. I exist, for example, but I am not the subject of an article. This is as it should be, despite the fact that you could find documentation proving my existence. --N Shar 19:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
              • The reliable source proves he exists, and the allegedly unreliable sources show that it's not just him, but a whole controversial group of believers. That's how it is, and there's nothing more can possibly I show in defense in the article. --qrc 19:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
                • Your comment suggests that you have not read my comment. I stated that notability is the central criterion in the case of this article. WP:N states: "All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia." You may be able to attest to the truth of the information in the article, as you have repeatedly stated, but the debate is not about whether that information is correct, but whether the organization is notable. "A whole controversial group of believers" may be notable, or not, depending on the extent to which multiple non-trivial, reliable sources document them. You have provided one non-trivial, reliable source independent of the subject. WP:N requires "multiple" sources, and states that "The 'multiple' qualification is not specific as to number, and can vary depending on the reliability of the sources and the other factors of notability. " In this case, definitely at least two and probably more reliable sources are required. --N Shar 20:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • Although the other sources are clearly not reliable, doesn't at least the Kentucky Post qualify as a reliable source in addition to the Washington Post? --qrc 23:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
                    • Though the source is indeed reliable (at least I think it is), the subject is really Mr. Graham, not Mr. Fish. Fish is quoted in the article as a commentator on the subject -- he is not himself the subject. --N Shar 00:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
                      • WP:N does not seem to exclude reliable published works on the mere basis of who the subject of the article is. It talks about non-triviality, but in that arena it only excludes mere directory listings. Two articles quoting Darwin Fish and/or his church-goers as commentators on the Billy Graham crusade is more than a mere directory listing, and for this reason I think it checks out as mildly notable. Plus, the San Diego CityBEAT article addresses A True Church directly, and even quotes one of its members rather than just Darwin Fish. However, I am unsure of San Diego CityBEAT's reliability and could use help determining it. --qrc 00:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
                        • With all due respect, please note that lawyering is not going to change our minds. My suggestion is to find other reliable sources that talk specifically about Mr. Fish, not talk specifically about somebody and Mr. Fish is simply being quoted about it. Like I pointed out in my !vote below, making a lot of noise isn't notable unto itself - it's just making a lot of noise. --Dennisthe2 04:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You don't think that A True Church's staunch opposition to Billy Graham through protest is an accurate representation of the church in itself, and its beliefs? They are practically founded on exposing other people they believe to be false teachers. The Billy Graham protests are the best testimonies to the church itself. It's what they do. --qrc 18:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Perhaps not a hoax, but we have only one reliable source -- the Washington Post article -- and WP:N requires multiple sources. The question of whether that article is really a source at all is important, but unless another source is found it doesn't actually matter. I'm also concerned about WP:V owing to the lack of reliable sources; remember, the criterion is verifiability, not truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by N Shar (talk • contribs) 19:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Weak delete The references prove nothing. The WashPost article proves the reporter bumped into a man calling himself Darwin Fish who claimed to be affiliated with "something called A True Church". There's no verifiable evidence of notability. If Fish and A True Church exist, has anyone noted it? I was once interviewed before voting in 2000, and got my name in the paper, just because I was standing line at the polling place. It doesn't prove I exist and certainly doesn't make me notable. If a reporter asked me to meet with him to talk about my great idea and the editor put that story in a notable periodical, THEN there's some evidence of notability. Has any reporter gone to A True Church to talk about what happens at the church? If so, cite it. --JJLatWiki 00:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The San Diego CityBEAT talks about it. [42] --qrc 00:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Another reporter who bumped into a stranger in the parking lot at a Billy Graham event. The reporter also bumped into Yediydyah of The 12 Tribes of the Commonwealth of Israel. That doesn't make either church or person notable. They happened to be at the same place at the same time. --JJLatWiki 17:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I disagree. Reporters bump into strangers every day, but they only write about the ones that matter. Darwin Fish and/or A True Church were considered notable enough for the Washington Times, Kentucky Post, and San Diego CityBEAT. And again on notability: A True Church is clearly not notable enough for WP:N, but it is still notable enough to fit the standards described in WP:CONG. --qrc 21:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
          • I disagree. Reporters often mention the name of a single protester they bump into while covering a large protest, that doesn't mean that person is notable. The question is, would any of the papers picked up the stories if not for the Billy Graham context? I doubt it. Can you find a story in a notable publication that is ABOUT only A True Church? --JJLatWiki 03:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow. Very unorthodox. But the only problem I seem to have is that the only notability they have is in that they are pretty much all about making a lot of noise. In reviewing the links, I find little more than that - and hey, I can make a lot of noise too, so that can't be all that notable. Delete. --Dennisthe2 00:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The newspaper articles come close, but each, when read in full, is primarily about either a Billy Graham crusade or protesting at a Billy Graham crusade, and this group/guy just happens to be a current example. In the Washington Post article, only paragraphs 2 and 3 of 23 discuss it - this is a passing mention. Similarly in the Kentucky Post article, three of 23 paragraphs mention this group - again a passing mention. San Diego City Beat, relatively in the groups backyard, comes the closest to focusing on the group, but again is more focused on the issue of protesting. OnDoctrine.com is a single person's self published website, so not a reliable source by our standards - see their about us page. The FactNet link is a forum, not a reliable source by our standards. A Voice in the Wilderness is also a single person's website, self published, so not a reliable source for our standards. No non-trivial, reliable, independent, published sources primarily about the group have been demonstrated. GRBerry 02:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - note for those spotting the address - Lake Hughes, CA is one of those areas with no carrier service if I remember right, so a post office box only will be perfectly normal. Granted, this doesn't make it notable. Just sayin'. --Dennisthe2 04:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable LazyDaisy 13:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable; it doesn't even occur in its hometown's phonebook, and that's bad. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:08, 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 sources in line with WP:N/WP:BIO would have helped here. W.marsh 16:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stuart R. Ross

Stuart R. Ross (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

US businessman with weak notability against WP:BIO. He is credited with importing Smurfs to the US market IMDb "Trivia"; and with starting a TV channel. But he's not "a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works". The article was created by User:Intoon which is the name of one of his companies, so there's probably conflict of interest. Mereda 13:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Very weak keep - the article does credit him with importing Smurfs to the US, which would make him notable, but I think a citation/reliable source is needed to prove this. Other than that, he doesn't seem to be notable, so if the Smurf claim turns out to be spurious I will vote delete. Walton monarchist89 17:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Imnporting films and comics does not seem notable enough to me, even if it can be verified. Tikiwont 17:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Week Keep. I think the individual accomplishments add up to notability. --Eastmain 18:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. The Smurfs connection seems to be the closest to establishing notability, but that's really just worth a brief mention in the Smurfs article. It's already mentioned there, so no merge is necessary. I find the COI aspect troubling too.--Kubigula (talk) 04:36, 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 12:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FIFA 07 English cup

FIFA 07 English cup (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Spurious vanity article - exactly zero Google hits Ian Cairns 13:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete No external links, therefore it can't be vertified (sp?).--Skully Collins Edits 13:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 14:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a hoax - this is just some kid recounting a particularly exciting football simulation he played on the Xbox/Playstation/whatever it is that all the kids have these days..... ChrisTheDude 14:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article history shows two contributing users total. The subject is clearly a non-notable invention, or WP:NFT. YechielMan 02:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete WP is not for things made up playing FIFA 07 one day. Qwghlm 21:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete There is no room on Wikipedia for silly articles about someone's game on FIFA! Asics talk 23:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Conveys an Emotion

Eric Conveys an Emotion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Some humor web site. It had been around since 1998 and is defunct since 2004. Was tagged with a speedy deletion tag, but I figured since there were lots of editors and the article has existed for almost a year (and, 1998 is moderately old for a website) I should move this to AfD because with a wider audience, someone may be able to clarify. Mangojuicetalk 13:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep, it's a pretty notable website. --Candy-Panda 13:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I had a feeling. But could you tell us why? And back it up with a source? Mangojuicetalk 14:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete a "notable" website that hasn't been updated since 2004 with no refrences or sources. --Tainter 14:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD. As for not updated... once notable always notable so if it was notable in 04 it still is now. Alf photoman 15:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and work in those quotes Alf photoman 12:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: some possible sources. No vote — Kaustuv CHAUDHURI 16:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, okay, there we go. This was nominated for a Webby award in 2003 in the Humor category. There were 5 nominees; the others were Theonion.com (winner), Get Your War On, Odd Todd, and Whitehouse.org. This is probably the most obscure of the 5, but that's a pretty impressive group. There are loads of categories of Webby awards, but the humor one has got to be one of the most competitive, so I think this getting a nomination is impressive. And I verified it: look in the humor section. Will add to article. Keep. Mangojuicetalk 16:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't get. I see you changed your vote based on a nomination, but since when did nominations count for anything?? Ohconfucius 03:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The fellow nominees in this case are quite remarkable. To be counted among them is significant, much more so than nominations for other kinds of awards. In my opinion, anyway. Mangojuicetalk 17:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • If you were the original nominator and you've changed your mind can't you just post that you withdraw the nomination and this will all be over? Plymouths 17:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Technically, no, since there has been at least one delete vote that hasn't been retracted. Mangojuicetalk 19:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • If all of those sources are real (most of them seem to be too old for the links to work so I can't verify) then it seems to me like it would definitely count as notable. So I vote keep. Plymouths 23:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per sourcing. JuJube 01:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is ridiculous. I petitioned to have this undeleted less than a month ago, and used that exact page of awards as my justification. I then added the {{sources}} template and referenced it in the edit summary. Didn't you check the history, or at least look around the site a bit, before running this AfD? --90.240.34.177 03:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • No need to get agitated. The speedy deletion was reversed, and the article may yet be rescued from here. AfD is a healthy process. The article would be greatly improved by citing sources. The awards page is well and good, but the sources have to be mentioned in the article itself, and preferably verified by someone who has full-text access to the various periodicals. — Kaustuv CHAUDHURI 04:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Webby, this alone suggests a keep —siroχo 09:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Webby. The article talk page should list previous deletion discussions so this doesn't come up time and again. Xiner (talk, email) 16:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As stated above, the Webby merits a keep RememberMe? 17:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baytown Bert

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

Non-notable bio, self-promotion. Article created and only edited by the subject except for a {{wiki}} tag. Jay Maynard 13:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable local/web personality, OR, vanity page. --Tainter 14:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nomination says it all. --Dennisthe2 00:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable LazyDaisy 13:10, 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 transwiki to Wikibooks. Majorly (o rly?) 18:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sample chess game

Sample chess game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I found this page while going through the old Refreshing Briliant Prose pages. THis page is full of orignal resarch and has no citations. The few claims not based on the chess board are unverified. In additon, this looks more like a guide how to teech somone how to play chess. I believe that this falls under What Wikipedia is Not, as this is an example of a game of chess which tries to shoe people the basics of the game. The Placebo Effect 13:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to Wikibooks and update all internal links to point there. I like it, and wouldn't want to see it nuked altogether, but I can certainly see the argument for it being original research. ~Matticus TC 14:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. nice article and well put together though. if there is anywhere else to put it (wikibooks doesn't seem right) then I would strongly support putting it there --Tainter 14:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It could be added as a chapter or subsection of Wikibooks:Chess, which is a really a beginners how-to book in itself. ~Matticus TC 17:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per Matticus. The chapter/subsection concept is valid. This AfD could probably be closed early with this as a pragmatic outcome. Fiddle Faddle 18:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per Matticus. --- RockMFR 22:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. Consider replacing with a notable chess game that is not an original work. - Chardish 23:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. It's funny, I came across this article several months ago because I like reading about chess, and I thought it was fine. That being said, the rules are the rules, and it can't stay. (One significant problem is that it's a made-up game from textbook analysis, and wasn't actually played between two masters.) It could fit in Wikibooks in the context of chess. There are some real master games that are in Wikipedia and should stay there: for example, the Game of the Century and the Immortal game. However, this one need not stay. YechielMan 02:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. WP is not a game guide. There are a couple of existing master games in WP, as noted above, and that seems appropriate. This made-up game does not belong. EdJohnston 18:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep because
  • It is surely not WP:OR nor "made-up game" - most of it (perhaps except few last moves) is one of the oldest chess analyzes in existence, done by Pedro Damiano already 500 years ago and since then cited without substantial changes. The whole game is probably taken from a chess book and looks like a standard introductory text without newly researched pieces of information. In fact it is not a "game" from the today's point of view, but rather a well known trap, already repeated thousand times against unexperienced players. I personally played the first moves for White at least three times, and the result was always similar.
  • This article is not a self-containig article, of course, but an important supplement to other articles. Let me allow to cite from its talk page: Some paper encyclopedias have full pages which are not mostly text: maps, or diagrams of the legislative process, or little picture galleries with examples of eight different kinds of lace, or whatever. In the more vertical (and more nonlinear) format of a web browser it makes sense to put things like this on their own pages, rather than break up the main text column with them (and they won't necessarily fit to the side of it). So not every Wikipedia page has to be exactly an "article". The page Sample chess game does not belong on Wikibooks because it is not a textbook or part of a textbook. Rather, it is a supplementary document for the encyclopedia articles Chess and Rules of chess. Such supplementary documents should probably never be given featured article status, since they are not encyclopedia articles per se (thus I oppose this nomination), but there is no good reason to delete them, or to transwiki them to other Wiki projects whose stated criteria they are equally unsuitable for, either. (If anyone wants to get gung-ho about every Wikipedia page being an article per se, rather than some pages serving subsidiary functions, they will have to delete or transwiki all "List of" and "Timeline of" pages, to begin with.) DanielCristofani 09:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding YechielMan's idea to replace the game with a well known master game: In my opinion it is better not to overload the excellent master games with comments for beginners. I think that this old trap, repeated thousand times against unexperienced Black players, is well chosen for the purpose.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • My opposition to keeping it rests with the original research problem. Providing reliable sources would remove that problem. If the article were trimmed down and sourced, it could be saved. Here are two sources: 1, and 2. YechielMan 19:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • A few article have links to wikibooks. I don't see how moving it their would be a problem. The only problem I have with this page is that it is not sourced and doesn't seem like something that should belong in any encyclopedia. The Placebo Effect 21:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is just as much an example of what you can and should to do IF someone plays the opening. I feel that the source is stated, it's not going to be found at master level because it is known not to play that. It isn't in many books because the same can be said. Just because it doesn't fit like most articles/example on chess is because black has very limited amount of possiblities. It is still a very accurate and detailed example of how white must play to effectively get a checkmate without black balancing out. I vote to keep this article. I am teaching chess to children and beginners and there just isn't other sources out there that have this information. It is not a sample of any chess game that I'd want to play as black. It is obvious to even a beginner chess player that it isn't inaccurate. I vote to keep this article (not delete it completely) and allow it to be edited as needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.18.144.101 (talk) 31 Jan 2006.

  • Transwiki per Matticus. Jacroe | Talk 15:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. My 'Transwiki' vote is already entered above. Those who are wondering if Wikibooks is really a good place to go for chess information should look at [43]. That page has nothing yet for the Damiano Gambit. Any links to the present article could be converted into links to the transwikied version at Wikibooks. One enhancement I would suggest is to explain that the Black moves in the present article are a terrible choice. Since the Damiano Gambit is a strategy for Black, he should at least play his best moves. I'm sure the article could be enhanced to point this out. EdJohnston 23:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I think this could serve as a good example for (real use of) several chess terms. --Kompik 15:37, 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, no consensus to redirect. Further redirecting can be discussed on the article's talk page etc. - Daniel.Bryant 22:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gwinnett ARES

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

disputed PROD for local radio club delete Cornell Rockey 13:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Redirect to ARES: not every local organization is notable, and this one certainly isn't. (de K5ZC) -- Jay Maynard 14:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC) ... Okkay, I'm persuaded a redirect is a Good Thing. Any useful text can be merged. -- Jay Maynard 13:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP Strong Keep This organization maintains an active radio station with international transmit capabilities. It has developed notability which has been written up several times in a national publication. Anonym1ty 20:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    Which national publication? If it's not one outside ham radio, it doesn't count. -- Jay Maynard 23:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep or merge into Amateur Radio Emergency Services. ARES organizations are more than some high-school club. The content should be kept if not the article itself. StuffOfInterest 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    I wouldn't object to merging into ARES, but why is a county-level ARES organization notable? -- Jay Maynard 23:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    --Because of what they do! The same reason anything is notable. Did you read the articles in the publications? This group is notable in its own right. Anonym1ty 00:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    Only one of the cited links was to a non-ham publication, and that one was a local circular. Lots of local ham clubs (which, in the final analysis, is all that this is) do public service and get quoted in their local paper. Wikipedia's standard is that a local club needs more notability than that. -- Jay Maynard 01:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    I read WP:N and I think your adding more to it than whats there. Also, Every radio station has an article in Wikipedia, Why is this different? They maintain a radio station, and unlike your local FM radio station, this one can be heard internationally. As for notability, that right there should cover it. WP:N doesn't say it can't be a ham radio publication, besides it is a national publication. and there is also a non-ham publication mentioned I say EXPAND Anonym1ty 15:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    Is the radio station they maintain a broadcast radio station, or a ham station? It takes something the class of W1AW to be notable by Wikipedia standards. My HF station can be heard internationally, but it's not notable. -- Jay Maynard 16:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    Also, merely having an HF station is not sufficient to establish activity at a national or international level, as required by WP:N. I'm not running down Gwinett ARES; it's just that a local organization (which this one is, by its very nature) is not notable by Wikipedia standards unless it's achieved recognition on a wider stage, which this one hasn't. -- Jay Maynard 16:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    I disagree completely. Anonym1ty 22:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article should be expanded or merged into ARES at the very least, but preferrably should be kept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kc9eow (talk • contribs) 23:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Redirect to ARES. Possible merge. One local ARES group may not be more notable than another. --Dennisthe2 00:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    That is an incorrect statement right there, one ARES organization may very well be more notable than another. That's a made-up lazy answer. Anonym1ty 15:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to ARES and possible merge LazyDaisy 13:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Expansion of this article would definitely be of benefit. Any subgroup has the potential of being notable on it's own. Also, recognition in subject-oriented publications does, indeed, contribute to notability. thistlechick 16:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Possible redirect and/or merge to ARES This one fails the notability requirements of WP:N (specifically the primary notability criterion) and as such needs to go(IMHO) until its notability changes. Oh yes, I have international transmit capability and have been included in several logs of HamOps worldwide, and been written about on 3 different occasions in reliable sources but that does not make me "notable". I have a compromise idea: Why not get the trustee and several members of the org. to make a user page and redirect to it from GC ARES? Or is that a violation of policy? Easy biters, I'm still new at this...(de AI4FU)Radiooperator 11:20, 1 February 2007

(UTC)

  • Keep And expand, i think maybe there is more to Gwinnett ARES and many of the other ARES and even RACES. I think the scope of this delete is unfounded. I think we should be asking why delete rather than why keep. There seems to me to be plenty of documentation attached to this article of "national" even "international" interest. Is the goal of wikkipedia to be complete Not necessarily. Is the goal of wikkipedia to be as short and succinct as possible, maybe, but without loss of generality. I think by leaving this and other such groups out it devalues the hobby, by not allowing the recognition to be seen. ARRL is a national organizaion, to say not to use because it's articles are by hams (often about hams) is ludicrous. I dont think wikkipedia's intention is to dissallow all publications by hams in reference articles about ham radio. The scope of that is rediculous. Its like saying all articles about science cannot be written by scientists. I think i'd need to see some more convincing reasons to delete or merge. c8h10n4o2 17:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was qualified keep. Unlike its counterpart List of amateur radio emergency service groups, this article is not entirely made up of external links. However it is clear from the discussion that it is expected that external links should replaced by external links - the format should be along the lines of List of amateur radio organizations/Internal link version but without external links alongside each entry. Where possible a short stub detailing why the organization is notable should be created. WP:NOT#LINK is policy and cannot be overriden simply because editors find it incovenient. A stubs and lists with many redlinks are fine (Wikipedia is a work in progress), but link farms are not. WjBscribe 00:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of amateur radio organizations

List of amateur radio organizations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This has survived a previous AFD; See (previous AFD). Needless to say, consensus back then cannot overule core wikipedia policies on external links and what wikipedia is all about. The subject of the current article runs contrary to WP:NOT#LINK and WP:NOT#DIR. Plus, this page will not be complete. Instead of maintaining this page, create articles on notable amateur radio organizations and categorize them. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  • STRONG delete. The most blatant violation of WP:NOT#LINK I have ever seen (and I've seen a lot). How did this ever survive afd last time?! Crazysuit 20:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As someone who was around the last time this article came under AfD consideration, I remember how bad it was trying to continually revert edits to the "External links" sections of all radio related articles. At the time, creating this list and ensuring editors could find their club on this list or add it resulted in the actual articles being avoided. Although I feel it is against Wikipedia policy, I suggest that we KEEP this article or move it to another wikimedia space that is better suited for this sort of list.Andrewjuren(talk) 23:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    I don't get you. Why would you want to keep a list of external links? What if there is a notable amateur radio organization without a home page? How would you list it then? This list I'm afraid, is not finite and categories serve us better. And why would you want editors to find their club on the list, what do you mean by that? And to sum it, – see how I improved this club page [44] =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; Just a directory of external links, this doesn't belong anywhere in the Wikipedia space. At least the above editor is honest in admitting this violates policy, but really, creating a list to divert spam from other articles isn't the way to do it. Try adding a hidden comment in the external links section of the relevant articles, you can find one at Wikipedia:Spam#Tagging articles prone to spam. Masaruemoto 05:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - nominator is mistaken that "consensus ... cannot overule core wikipedia policies" - that is why the phrase 'ignore the rules' is around and for just this type of information, as explained by user:Andrewjuren. And if they were all turned into Articles, as nom suggests, how long would it be till all thoes 3 sentences stubs got AfD'd and we would loose the information compleatly? The current method is the best method to handle this Article. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 08:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    I disagree with what you have to say. WP:IAR says: "If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it." I can't see any reason why deleting a set of external links does any harm to wikipedia. We are an encyclopaedia, with information to read, not a web directory. Secondly, the point I'm trying to make here is not notability, but rather the encyclopaedic usefulness of external links, which is certainly not comprehensive. Thirdly, there is no clause in Wikipedia that says that a stub has to be AFDd. If there is, please prove me wrong. See how I improved this club page [45] Fourthly, this is not an article, it is a list, without references. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
And I commend you for your good work for that club... but what your suggesting would cause each sentence in the current article to become its own Article, how long till each of thoes Article were removed for lack of content? Simply put, what we have for now is the best solution. I have no objection for individual club members making articles such as you did and changing the link at that time. I dont believe removing this current list would be doing anyone a favour, esp. someone looking for a club near them. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 23:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
We don't have an AFD policy that cites an article should be deleted just because it is a stub. If it is a stub, it gives authors (and club members) the chance to improve it. As long as the club is notable, and has independent third party reliable sources, any attempt to AFD it will meet with failure. The list is NOT the best solution. It would have been different if it were a list of wikipedia articles, but a list of external links are a strict no no. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Stubs are in fact encouraged as one of the good ways of building articles. DGG (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Clearly these organizations are notable as a group and many may be notable on their own. Their service in periods of disasters makes them as notable as any of the paid services that that work in conjunction with, such as police or fire services. In some areas, members are actually considered first responders. If anything, the list shows that we need to work on creating articles here. Did I miss it or are groups like REACT specifically missing from these lists? Vegaswikian 21:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    We're not contesting the notability of the organizations. What is being contested is that the page is a collection of links that is against wikipedia policy. "If anything, the list shows that we need to work on creating articles here" -- by all means please do so, but do not vote keep because of sentiment. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Same as the discussion held last time this came up in January. These are not video game characters or school drama clubs, these are chartered organizations affiliated with national or international counterparts. Also, whoever decided to rename the old AfD discussion rather than creating a new one needs to fix the link on the article talk page and AfD history pages as you managed to point all old references to your new AfD. That link, referring to the AfD held in January, points to this discussion now. --StuffOfInterest 12:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    I am not contesting the notability. The policy on external links does not discriminate between video game characters or amateur radio organizations. We have a uniform policy. Secondly, please do not confuse notability with a non-useful link farm. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    We do not have a uniform policy on external links. Each person provides their own thoughts based on common sense to each case, and we record what is commonly considered common sense into guidelines. John Vandenberg 17:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    We do have a policy, but the addition of links in the ==External links== sections is subjective. But we have no sanctioned policy for a page devoted exclusively to external links. =Nichalp «Talk»= 01:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

To the closing admin: Voting may be influenced by posts to the relevant wikiprojects: [46] =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep and improve, a quick scan tells me this is a work in progress with some very notable organisations in there that do not have articles yet. John Vandenberg 17:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Discuss: I've created an alternate version of the List of amateur radio organizations list which has each entry pointing to a potential article about that club. External links have been moved to the end of each entry in the list as required to prove notability and verifiability. (Note: the page contains only up to and including "Brazil". It's just to get feedback as to whether us editors thing this would be a move in the right direction.) Please comment. Andrewjuren(talk) 17:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It's a lot of red, but I could live with it. In the early days I'm sure Wikipedia had more red than blue links in articles. --StuffOfInterest 17:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, this page is inline with wikipedia policies for list pages. If you can also add neutral references it would be more bulletproof. =Nichalp «Talk»= 01:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    I would support a move to this format and, if consensus agrees, suggest the associated AfD also move to the same format. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    Both lists could work this way. It preserves the content while pushing the focus towards existing and needing to be created articles. --StuffOfInterest 10:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There is not need to ignore any rules--lists such as this are perfectly in keeping with WP policies. The individual items in an article just have to be relevant and significant, and there is no rules against lists, nor are they even discouraged. Some articles are best that way.DGG (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 18:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meatspace

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

Appears to be a dictionary definition. Notability in question. Navou banter 13:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - it isn't a dicdef; the article is encyclopedic in style and describes the connotations and usage of the word. Appears in the Jargon File, so it's clearly a recognised piece of Internet slang. And, in fact, I've seen this word used within the Wikipedia community before - and looked up this very article to find out what it meant. Walton monarchist89 16:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with real life maybe?--Sonjaaa 17:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to real life. No information is lost if we do this. --N Shar 23:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep and cleanup It's a common term, used in numerous sources both casual and a few scholarly that come to mind off the top of my head, it's been talked about in Wired (in Bruce Sterling's columns if I beleive. If anything this needs expansion, perhaps with a disscussion of the dichotomy of 'virtual space' and 'meatspace' in science fiction and real life. It's also a common feature of fiction in the near-future genre as well, coined by William Gibson along with the term 'cyberspace' if I recall correctly, though it's use may predate him slightly. Wintermut3 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. A perusal of the books that this word is used, defined, and explained in proves proof of concept for notability. (From Neal Stephenson to Judith Butler to The Complete Idiot's Guide to.... Citations can follow, maybe from me, but not right now (: —siroχo 10:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wiktionary entry should suffice. Certainly notable term, but beyond the definition there's not too much to say on the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arakunem (talk • contribs) 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Merge and redirect for now, per above.--Planetary 04:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is more than just a dictionary definition - the concept is encyclopaedic. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 08:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Term has been in use for over a decade AFAIK. Caknuck 18:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. (I am the nominator and an admin, so I suppose I will speedy keep this.) Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Olsen (Football)

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

This has been speedy deleted twice for being a non-notable person. Please check User talk:Thomas.macmillan#Greg_Olsen for more information. I would like to come to a community consensus on this issue. Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - star player for major college football team. Basically everyone who gets drafted or is going to be drafted in the NFL draft will have an article. --BigDT 14:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As mentioned, he was one of the best tight ends in college football and highly probably 1st day draft pick. ↔NMajdan•talk 14:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per BigDT and NMajdan. --MECU≈talk 15:16, 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 12:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mctaggart

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

Autobiography of a musician. Google hits give mostly credits on albums - looks like he's a session musician mostly. Was de-prodded by another editor because the article lacks sources (?). - IceCreamAntisocial 14:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Ghits provided nothing but this page as relating to the specific person. fails WP:MUSIC. --Tainter 14:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete While I would consider an article for the Solaris quartet, this article is self-promotional and there are no reliable third-party sources on the content. I'm also copy/pasting below an anon's comment left on the talk page a half hour ago. Pascal.Tesson 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This article's tone is clearly one of self-adulation. The author of the article is the subject of the article, which probably is never a very good idea, as far as an encyclopedia is concerned. If someone else has content about this person, then that author needs to step in and rewrite the article. As it stands, it's essentially self-promotion and advertising, and does not meet Wikipedia's standards. -128.101.53.240 18:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or maybe userfy. Easy COI here. --Dennisthe2 00:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete LazyDaisy 13:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Verkhovensky 05:50, 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, advert. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kernun firewall

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

Originally started out as borderline db-spam material but has since been reworked. However, it still shows little evidence of notability; kernun firewall returns just 74 unique Ghits. All but one of the links provided in the article are to the makers' websites and sites only marginally related. Article creator User:Trustednetworksolutions was blocked shortly after creating the article due to a commercial username, but appears to have created a new account User:Pepino Vavra to continue editing, which brings up WP:COI issues. Contested prod. ~Matticus TC 14:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete nothing but a sneaky way to write an advertisment. full of weasel words. --Tainter 14:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Just another non-notable software package. -- Jay Maynard 14:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I created the Kernun page because I intended to link it from Firewall page. If someone is interested in the application proxy technology, he or she does not have many options: there are Firewall Toolkit, Gauntlet from TIS, Sidewinder from Secure Computing Corporation, load ballancer from F-5, Cisco ASA, Kernun and what else...? All of them but Kernun are mentioned at wikipedia, so IMHO it is worth existing. Maybe not and just external link from Firewall page is ok? Pepino Vavra 14:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is just another software package, but I still think it is notable. But if you measure by number of Ghits only it does loose. Shall it wait till the number of google hits rises? Pepino Vavra 11:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete — non-notable Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 04:02, 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 delete, CSD A7. -- Steel 15:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caliber for the Heroes

Caliber for the Heroes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability not found, google search found insignificant and insufficient data to provide rationale for article --Janarius 14:53, 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?) 15:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brian L. French

Brian L. French (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

lacks notability Mayumashu 15:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete - Very much a marginal case for inclusion. The article claims that he's written a book; if the book in question was published by a major company and/or had a wide circulation, then he's notable. If no sources can be found to demonstrate this, however, then I can't see that the rest of his career constitutes notable activity. Walton monarchist89 16:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - On the lower edge of wiki notability standards. low g hits. I removed most recent prod only because it had been contested before here. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Deltabeignet 22:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I can't find any sign of "Mojito". The International Development Research Council rang major bells for me, but it appears that the IDR Centre is the large Canadian government development agency that my friend works for, and his IDRC is something to do with real estate and has merged to form CoreSat Global or something. --Slp1 22:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Eastmain 22:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I think that the individual achievements add up to notability, particularly helping to get millions of dollars in compensation for hepatitis C victims from the Canadian federal government. --Eastmain 22:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. A7. Does not pass the search engine test all results come up as wikipedia or mirrors, or another individual with same name. Book not listed on Amazon dot com. Book not assigned an ISBN. Involvement with Basketball Canada was not significant enough to be on the Basketball Canada website (via site search), shouldn't be here either. Involvement with Hepatitis is good, but only if backed by multiple non-trivial sources, which the article does not provide. Jerry lavoie 22:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lots of notability is asserted, but no sources are provided. In fact, I can't find any sources at all. Thus, there is a major verifiability problem. The article may even be a hoax, since creating it was the original creator's only edit. --N Shar 23:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It reads more like a vanity article than a hoax. I don't really see anything there. The closest thing is that he was on the board of a group which, arguably, influenced a government decision. If we included him just for that, we'd have to include the whole board. Unless something else can be added, I'd delete. this one. --JGGardiner 23:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per Eastmain --Mista-X 00:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Turgidson (talk • contribs) 06:18, 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 12:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AOTurkey

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

Non-notable malware. References verify that it exists; beyond that the rest is mostly unverifiable. The article was speedily deleted a few times, contested prod. Weregerbil 15:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom; the references aren't sufficient to demonstrate notability. Walton monarchist89 16:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, I actually believe this has been speedy deleted more than once in the past and then recreated. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 03:38, 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 12:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FHM High Street Honeys I Touch Myself controversy

FHM High Street Honeys I Touch Myself controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is probably original research, it's unverifiable, and there are no reliable sources cited. It appears to be either an essay, or an article written as such. SunStar Nettalk 15:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • This appears to be astroturfing for a single, a cover version of I Touch Myself, that is scheduled to be released on 2007-02-05. There's no controversy. No-one has written anything about this single at all, apart from one obviously promotional piece in The Sun datelined 2007-01-09. I'm strongly tempted to speedily delete this for being advertising masquerading as an article. Delete. Uncle G 15:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. On top there are unsourced allegations. Tikiwont 17:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete given the absence of anything verifiable, or a controversy the first time the song came out, it sure reads like shameless advert. -- Pastordavid 23:12, 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 12:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WORKSsitebuilder

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

Notability has not been aserted and neutrality may not be given. Tikiwont 15:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Sourcing is adequate, but I'm not sure a product used by a few local government organisations is notable. Possibly merge to article on its parent company, if such an article exists. Walton monarchist89 16:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP The software is used by some major corporations including nokia, 32Red, lexis nexis butterworths, the largest uk student travel operator, lombard finance. Other than being fairly wide spread across multiple sectors it is used by a number of major online publishers who (amongst others) take advantage of the unique theme engine which provides manual, semi automated and automated semantic relationships between content meaning extrememly high search engine visibility for content out of the box which has had a dramatic ROI implications (300% increase for www.moneyweek.com in subscriptions year one) - is that functionality notable enough?
I deliberately didnt put in any sales patter as I didnt want this to be seen as an advert. However I am happy to extend the product details to have a list of features and functions in-line with some of the open source offerings if that makes more sense? mememan
  • Comment: I've nominated this article here and removed my original db-spam template for two reasons. By itself (1), it raises the question if the article could and would have been written by anyone without affiliation to the creator, but still it deserves a thorough review. Moreover, the outcome of such a debate should (2) shed light on the whole Category:Content management systems which I'd want to have reviewed. Tikiwont 09:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
With point (2) I actually wanted to say: shed light on the whole Category Content management systems, but unfotunatly did I mark this up in the text, so it wasn't visible. Tikiwont 14:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. —xyzzyn 15:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is a classic case of conflict of interest. A company insider comes with the purpose of featuring their product in the best light, which clashes with the experienced editors' goal of building a neutral encyclopedia, leaving everyone involved unhappy. To save this article, the insider needs to quickly provide reliable secondary sources as noted in WP:SOFTWARE. As it stands, none of the references establish the notability of the software. The biased nature of the writing are betrayed by phrases such as "features you would expect" and puffy wording such as "extremely relevant", "highly personalised", "extremely strong" and so on. Without those secondary sources, this is original research by the company's employees. ✤ JonHarder talk 03:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • comment it seems to me that this article is made by a company employee however it also seems they are attempting to enter the product with good intentions. I feel validation of claims need to be provided or at least reworded as the majority of the entry seems to be factual user: whowhatme
  • comment I have added a link to e-consultancys list of CMS vendors of repute, having reviewed WORKSsitebuilder they are currently writing an article which should provide you with your required secondary source. I am also asking clients to validate the search engine / semantics statements. Additionally Business Link (uk government sponsored org) should be putting us on their site after extensively reviewing our credentials and technology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.108.166.130 (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
    • Comment: It's good to see some effort being put into establishing the notability of WORKSsitebuilder. The e-consultancy site is not adequate in my opinion. The material there is basically similar to a press release and it appears that companies add their own information to that site. What is needed (and the time is running short) is something that is clearly produced by a disinterested third party. Has anyone written a critical review of this product? ✤ JonHarder talk 00:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • comment The supplier directory at e-consultancy is indeed supplied by the companies, it is however moderated by e-consultancy staff pre-publication and is subject to strict editorial guidelines. The content managment report 'Web Content Management: the complete guide' is reserached, compliled and edited internally by e-consultancy staff, much like the CMS watch report, which is a trusted impartial resource. E-consultancy is indeed a disinterested third party, they are the leading UK online publisher covering online marketing and services and are of significant repute . You will also note that WORKSsitebuilder is a featured content managment provider at the e-consultancy site, this is again an e-consultancy compiled list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.168.40.60 (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge if there's anything worth merging. I'll redirect the page to Serbian Radical Party, so any editor can add in stuff in. Majorly (o rly?) 18:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serb Montenegro

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

This article is solely about a single mention of one foreign to Montenegro political party that wins less than 1% of the votes in Montenegro itself. The whole article is about one sentence mentioned by members of an ultra-nationalist party in a foreign country in a single interview. This fictive "demand for autonomy" has never ever been mentioned outside of that interview. You may notice that the article's only source is a direct report to that single sentence. If we keep on going like this, then we should have an article for every thing invented in the South Park series. Truly. :) --PaxEquilibrium 20:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Preferably merge to Serbs of Montenegro; per nom. --PaxEquilibrium 15:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - according to latest news, the Serbian Radical Party won a plurality of votes in the recent Serbian parliamentary elections, so I'd say their views and demands are inherently notable. Alternatively, merge to Serbian Radical Party, preferably creating a new section. Walton monarchist89 16:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is traditional that the Serbian Radical Party wins plurality in the parliament (it had before, it has now and it will probably have in the future). However, I am familiar with the party itself, and a "Serb Montenegro" is not a part of their plan/program/anything. It's just a thing one man mentioned in an interview a long time ago. --PaxEquilibrium 19:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - fair enough, I'm not an expert on Balkan politics, and didn't realise that this wasn't an integral part of their policy programme. Weak Delete therefore (pending introduction of sources, if they exist, demonstrating that the phrase has been used by more than one politician). Walton monarchist89 20:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Serbs of Montenegro and Serbian Radical Party. --Crna Gora 20:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. --MaNeMeBasat 14:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The merge proposal is unnecessary, considering that the suggested articles already have that info in them. So, delete then. --PaxEquilibrium 17:25, 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 12:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nolej Studios

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

The previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nolej Studios) ended in no consensus with very little participation. The article is about a very minor company with no claims to notability and no WP:RS about it. It exists, but that's about it. Fails WP:CORP. Most of the about 300 Google hits[47] are bannerswaps, weblistings, directory entries, ... Fram 16:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - no evidence of external sources except the studio's own website. No proof of notability. Walton monarchist89 16:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:ISNOT a soapbox. NN, young firm with as of yet no biz in an encyclopedia and should be content with their quite nice website. And Eastmain, what good is a ref that requires a password? —MURGH disc. 17:44, 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 speedy delete as copyvio. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ananse International Film Festival of Ghana

Ananse International Film Festival of Ghana (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Reads like an advertisement - article creator's only other contributions insert mentions of this festival into other article. Google search on term brings up no returns, search on "Ananse International Film Festival" returns 13 unique on 28 total. Non-notable, Delete TheRealFennShysa 16:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak delete - no evidence of notability at the moment; need to find reliable third-party sources demonstrating that this festival is sufficiently prominent in the Ghanaian cinematic scene. Currently reads like advertising. Walton monarchist89 16:49, 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 12:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Troubled mind

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

First off, the article is almost unreferenced. It uses a MySpace page as its only reference. Second, the "notable work" Play takes you to the Wikipedia page describing what a play is. In the disambig page, I don't see anything that stands out as the "Play" that this article describes. I say Delete. Diez2 16:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and WP:MUSIC, or alternatively merge to Tan-Hauser Gate. Walton monarchist89 16:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Causesobad --> (Talk) 16:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge per Walton -- febtalk 10:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 10:52, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 16:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old House Woods

Old House Woods (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Earlier prod removed without comment by creator (whose only edits are this article). It had been tagged "WP:NOR, WP:V, Wikipedia is not for stories told around the campfire at summer camp." I agree. Mereda 17:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete wikipedia is not a collection of local ghost stories, or what have you.--Tainter 19:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless reliable third party sources are included. Addhoc 15:12, 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 keep. Majorly (o rly?) 18:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] $pread

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

This article serves no purpose other than self-promotion for $pread Magazine. I nominate for speedy deletion. It is nothing more than spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arturo2007 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 28 January 2007

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete though on the weak side. Ghits didn't turn up much. the only refrences are the single award. myspace (the ultimate reference), and the official homepage. --Tainter 19:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's silly to delete this article. I just found it while doing research on sex workers. There's not a lot on Wikipedia on the topic and most of it is "up for deletion" because people have political problems with one side of the issue or another. I imagine that's what is going on here. There are many magazines and for-profit entities that are listed in Wikipedia. Why not this one? It won the Utne award, so it must be relevant in the indy scene. It's noteworthy in and of itself that prostitutes are producing it.

  • Keep - nomination doesn't give any genuine policy reason for deletion. You could argue the Washington Post article was a violation of WP:SPAM using this nonsensical argument. The magazine has won an award, which is usually considered good enough. Regarding Tainter's good faith comments, I would comment that google doesn't handle searches involving $ characters particularly well. Addhoc 11:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The magazine won an award from The Village Voice last year. That, plus the Utne Award, should be enough to confer notability to a relatively new publication. Caknuck 18:12, 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 12:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Pie Presents: Fraternity Row

American Pie Presents: Fraternity Row (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I am proposing deletion of this articled because it is one sentence about a movie which may not even exist (I couldn't find an IMDB page). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no [ghits of any consequence. sounds haox-ish.--Tainter 19:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom Madmedea 22:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 01:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Concur -- SockpuppetSamuelson
  • Delete since the film obviously doesn't exist. Crashintome4196 04:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverifiable at best, hoax at worst. ShadowHalo 10:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catriona Grant

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

Strong keep I have recreated this article again, however it gets speedily deleted sometimes within minutes of creation. Catriona Grant is a well known political figure in Edinburgh and socialist politics. I have nominated this for deletion only to try to have a proper discussion about whether this should be kept or not.Ms medusa 15:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree this should be kept. You could help its chances by wikifying it (links to Scottish Socialist Party and other links would establish credibility). Then properly stubify at WP:STUBS. Then properly categorize to avoid an {{Uncategorized}} tag. Basically, poorly formatting the page is costing you time in AfD battles. TonyTheTiger 18:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and most certainly cleanup. take Tony's advise. --Tainter 18:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- non notable Astrotrain 20:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep co chair of one of Scotlands leading parties, needs more references however.
  • Weak keep - important person in a barely important party, but the abolition of warrant sales makes the party notable. Argyriou (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - Article implies she may no longer be an 'important person' in said party, but the libel trial connection is certainly of interest for now at least. The second ref goes nowhere. --Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Improvements have been made to the article, along with non-trivial published works. Was a founder and chairpersonof very high profile political party in Scotland. Might not have won alot of political seats, but neither did the Reform Party. --Oakshade 00:41, 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 and redirect. Majorly (o rly?) 18:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hold Me Down

Hold Me Down (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

no sources listed, no content with referances. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alankc (talk • contribs).

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect per ShadowHalo.--Phil500 (Talk / Contribs) 01:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. --MaNeMeBasat 18:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not even a pretence at being an encyclopedia article, just a vague sentence. Following deletion, no objection to redirect. Addhoc 12:33, 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 12:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indie911

Indie911 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is an ad, not an article. Funkbomb 19:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:CORP as well as sounding a lot like a spamvertisment. --Tainter 18:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:SPAM, no sources cited. Hut 8.5 21:21, 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 12:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Max

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

Only contestants who win a reality show, or who have a noteable media career afterwards and/or before, recieve their own articles Dalejenkins 18:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. His post-Apprentice achievements are a couple of apparently mundane radio-presenter gigs, only one of which permanent, AFAICT. Ohconfucius 03:36, 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 keep. Majorly (o rly?) 17:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Book of Mormon and the King James Bible

The Book of Mormon and the King James Bible (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

POV/forking, article content is covered in several other articles (already have too many LDS movement articles) gdavies 01:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Tentative KeepChanged opinion to Keep based on discussion with nominator below.
--Richard 17:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Nominator, please provide list of other articles which cover this content. Also, please explain the charge of POV forking (i.e. from what article is this a POV fork?). Lastly, I dispute that there are too many LDS articles. Would you argue that there are too many Catholic articles? --Richard 08:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Book of Mormon, Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, Standard Works, Criticism of Mormonism, and Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible are the main ones. The article is basically a "Criticism of the Book of Mormon with regard to the KJV" (with only one source and serious POV concerns). This could be considered a POV fork from Criticism of Mormonism, Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, or Book of Mormon. Unless we can get a whole lot more sources and bring it into conformance with NPOV, I think it definitely needs to be deleted. gdavies 21:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
No, sorry, I disagree. I've looked at the articles listed above and my general conclusion is that the article nominated for deletion is not a POV fork (i.e. it is not an article created to push a POV that is not included in another article). The POV (that there are similarities between the Book of Mormon and the KJV) is represented in all relevant articles and this article is a subsidiary article to Linguistics and the Book of Mormon. Thus, this is not a POV fork.
I don't particularly like the naming conventions used in the various titles and I suspect some restructuring of content between articles might be an improvement. However, I don't see these as arguments to delete the article nominated here. --Richard 17:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Alrighty, I'm fine if we keep it, I just wasn't sure if sufficient third party sources had written about it to justify its inclusion as a separate article. It's not so much a POV that there are similarities between the BofM and the KJV but what these similarities might mean/how they got there that is a little slippery in my mind... the article seems to exist merely to provide more detailed arguments against the historicity of the BofM based on these similarities... While I think the content could be covered more lucidly and in better conformance with NPOV in the body of Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, I wouldn't have a problem with a well-sourced and more detailed article (emphasis on the well-sourced). If sources can't be found for the body of this article, I think that it should be shortened substantially (to avoid the appearance of a usenet discussion with little more than unsourced arguments/counterarguments). gdavies 01:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - the article certainly needs clean-up, but that's not a reason to delete. Agree with Richard that these articles need to be better co-ordinated as far as content, but this article seems to be an expansion of detail from other articles, rather than a POV fork. Pastordavid 23:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
If that's the case, I have no problem with keeping it. The problem I see is that it's sort of a side issue that hasn't gotten a lot of attention (only a handful of edits since it split off) and by its nature is difficult to find sources. gdavies 19:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

if not now, later someone will make an article about the Linguistic Analysis of the two texts (or more specifically, about the first text and its sources in the second text). The subject matter discussed is valid, interesting, documented elsewhere, and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, i.m.o.

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research, being an "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". This article is more of a thesis, argument or essay than an encyclopedia article. Anything worth salvaging should be merged into Criticism of Mormonism. Agent 86 18:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs some cleanup, but valid as its own topic, and sufficient non-duplicated information is present.Arakunem 17:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. Merge into Criticism of Mormonism or possibly Linguistics and the Book of Mormon. Vassyana 12:58, 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 keep per consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Old-Time Gospel Hour

The Old-Time Gospel Hour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Non-notable program, has few links to it. Candy-Panda 12:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, this is the unfortunately notable Jerry Falwell's TV show. NawlinWiki 19:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - this is an extremely well-known program within the evangelical Christian community. --BigDT 00:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Very notable topic. Really, the present state of the article says more about how poor our coverage of religion is than it does about the significance of the topic. Oh well, there are only so many hours in the day. GRBerry 02:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Very encyclopedic topic - this was Jerry Falwell's main broadcast and one of his major claims to fame besides the Moral Majority. If anything I'm surprised this is just a stub. Dragomiloff 00:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - link or merge to Jerry Falwell. Goldenrowley 02:34, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Williams (Scunthorpe United Footballer)

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. -- Longhair\talk 01:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paper cup

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Wehwalt 18:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Please, just delete. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 20:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep More than jsut a dic-def - the article takes a stab at covering the history and impact of paper cups, as opposed to the nondisposable or foamed plastic kind, and could be a good article if expanded. Artw 20:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Of course. The topic is notable (1M Google hits), there are references and there is potential. Tikiwont 20:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Nomination withdrawn The article has been expanded from a dictionary definition and now seems worth keeping.--Wehwalt 20:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Uncle G'd. --- RockMFR 22:03, 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?) 15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vasko Tomanov

Speedied and then contested, I see no credible claim to WP:BIO here. As it was contested though I will give this the benefit of a community discussion.--Isotope23 18:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. On the whole, I'd say that he's as notable as the minor pop stars, reality-television "stars", et al. on whom we have thousands of articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete after the article I'm still not sure what exactly this guys does or why he is considered notable. Comment for Mel Ttitis: your argument falls under WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Tainter 18:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This article dosn't assert his notability, nor does it provide reputable verifiable sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pumeleon (talk • contribs) 18:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete as nn. We will clean up the minor pop "stars", too. --MaNeMeBasat 18:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable. Turgidson 04:25, 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 13:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John-Paul Wilkins

John-Paul Wilkins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local politician. Previously a local councillor, no longer since May 2006. Google returns very few matches, no significant media mentions. David Edgar 18:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. YechielMan 01:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as well. Radagast83 17:34, 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 13:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Internet Relay Chat clients

List of Internet Relay Chat clients (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is (almost) merely a list of external links. Wikipedia is not Yahoo – Ezeu 18:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Link farm (a lot of these lately). many of the wikilinks aren't even directed to the relevant subject. un-needed list.--Tainter 18:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Linkspam. Preferably speedy. There's already a category ([48]) that duplicates this, so categorization is not necessary. --N Shar 23:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It would be more reasonable to keep this list if every listed client had to have its own Wikipedia article. That is the rule followed over at List of search engines, and it succeeds in making the list maintainable. There is already a Comparison of IRC clients that seems quite useful and should be kept. This List doesn't seem to add any value, and it invites the usual criticism of WP:NOT a directory, to which it has no good answer. Particularly amusing that AIRC doesn't even go to the intended target. This list will be truly hard to maintain without the restriction to corresponding WP articles. EdJohnston 00:02, 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 Speedy delete a7, no version of this article asserted notability. NawlinWiki 19:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EPW

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

I originally prodded this, but the prod was removed by a different editor who replaced the text with what it is now. There used to be a lot more to this. In any case, it used to appear to be unsourced crystal ballism, now appears to be unsourced with no claim to notability. Despite the fact it is probably speediable in its current form, there are better articles in the history of the page. J Milburn 18:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per WP:SPEEDY criteria A1 or A7, or the previous version about the stick figures would probably be G11 or A7. Cheers, Lankybugger 19:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete per above. --Sable232 19:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete seems like someone just posted their idea about forming a wrestling group. nothing of substance. --Tainter 19:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as either a test page gone amok or no context (never was any context, just text boxes and incomplete sentences). SkierRMH,19:31, 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?) 15:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aullay

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

Non-notable fictional creature. Prod contested by author. Sable232 19:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Per nom. Not notable. Vassyana 12:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, although the poetry of Robert Southey mentions the Aullay, so a very brief mention would be possible. Addhoc 12:12, 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 13:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ask it why

Ask it why (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Speedy tag was removed by someone claiming the band was "most influential" but had nothing to back it up. Sable232 19:12, 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 delete. Majorly (o rly?) 15:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Monster Hunter Monsters

List of Monster Hunter Monsters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I used a ProD tag, but it was contested by a IP user. My reason for nominating this page is simple: It reads like a game guide and is a list of monsters from a minor series of video games, which Wikipedia is not. Lists like these have appeared on the game's articles before, and are always deleted for the same reasons, so why should an article be made for it? SuperDT 19:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 20:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT a game guide. It also is horridly written, lacks sources, and contains bits and pieces which appear to be original research. Cheers, Lankybugger 21:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Per nom and as above. Vassyana 12:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 12:43, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 16:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punzhu puzzles

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

Doesn't seem like there's a sufficient assertion of notability for this publishing company. Author correctly points out that Dell Magazines could use more sources, but that company is an offshoot of the well-known major US publisher Dell Publishing. No independent sources given for this one. NawlinWiki 19:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


"...a sufficient assertion of notability" might have been addressed in recent changes to article deletion notes. In short, no Internet search (using various terms/phrases) on either firsts mentioned in proposed article resulted in any company or entity other than Punzhu Puzzles. I agree that Dell Magazines is indeed a large and well known U.S. publisher, and through their Wikipedia article you may visit their site to purchase their magazines, but is producing a product for profit (their firsts) more notable than providing various puzzle magazines for free? Or more notable than providing a copyright grant to freely share/copy puzzle magazines with others? I don't know. --Nanaimobar 21:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete unless reliable third party sources are included. Addhoc 15:13, 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 13:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Edge

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

NN singer/songwriter per WP:MUSIC, no sources. Contested prod. Delete. Mangojuicetalk 19:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete google search of name and band name returns 5 hits [[49]]. Not remembered and remarkably not notable. Nuttah68 19:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. "Always+Loved+December" gave only 24 unique Ghits, all of which are either of no relevance (ie they refer to a disc or song called "December", or are blogs which are not relevant (sic). Ohconfucius 04:09, 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 keep. Majorly (o rly?) 17:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arkona (Russian band), Arkona (band)

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

No evidence that this band meets WP:MUSIC; no assertion that their three albums were released by anyone other than themselves. Was speedied and restored by another admin, so bringing here. NawlinWiki 19:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Alex Bakharev 20:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Please vote here as well - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkona (band) KNewman 20:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • one and the same band. I redirected it here. `'mikka 20:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom `'mikka 20:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP right, sorry I have no idea how this is supposed to work. I'm the author of the article, Poslanik. there's plenty of info on the band on their official website (it's listed on the article you're about to delete) it's just in Russian so I guess that's a problem. The label for their albums is Sound Age Production but I'm having trouble finding their website. However, I have found a page on an online music dealer site that lists a few of the albums released by Sound Age Productions (http://www.redstream.org/Sound+Age+Productions_Label.php)
    • If you have difficulties with finding the label, then the article is clearly out of here. It is not big deal to burn a box of CDs these days. Mukadderat 01:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • delete nonnotable. Mukadderat 01:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I just wanna mention that once this succeeds, the article Arkona will need to be changed back to a redirect from a disambig. Marm(t) 11:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Though I'm not convinced as to Sound Age being a particularly legitimate label, looking at last.fm it seems that this band has a popularity similar to those of other Russian bands that no one's deleted, such as Kipelov or Epidemia. I'm still going for delete but it seems WP has a lot of articles of Russian metal bands of similar (non)-notability. Marm(t) 09:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets WP:MUSIC. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable - Butterfly Temple. Consult The Metal Archives for the band's discography here. Sound Age Productions is a label. Albums that are self-released are always marked as such. I found 12 other bands with Sound Age listed as their label:
  1. Sorrowful God
  2. Voiceless Void
  3. Orcish Blood
  4. Arfael
  5. Ordalion
  6. Mor
  7. Black Obelisk
  8. Cerber
  9. Pagan Reign
  10. Kuwalda
  11. Serpens
  12. Umbral Presence

Note that the earliest release of the label was in 1999. I move to withdraw the deletion nomination. Óðinn 07:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and here are the "multiple non-trivial published works"

[edit] In English

  1. here
  2. here

[edit] In French

  1. here
  2. here
  3. here

The publications in Russian are so abundant that I won't even list it here. The point is: the band is known worldwide.Óðinn 08:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Changed to Keep per Óðinn Alex Bakharev 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Alex, don't be fooled by this Metal Archives Encyclopedia which User:Odinn refers to. It's like Wikipedia, registered users can add their own bands, if you read it carefully enough you'll notice :). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KNewman (talk • contribs) 06:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
      • Your point being? Yes, users add their own bands, so what? Their only criteria for inclusion is that the band in question is stylistically metal and that it has released its work. Now, the person who started this debate claimed that there is no evidence that Arkona's albums were not self-released. I provided such evidence in a clear and unequivocal fashion. The Metal Archives is a notable and reliable source as far as WP is concerned. Not only that, I also provided evidence of qualifying under two more criteria. Care to challenge them? Óðinn 06:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per research by Óðinn. Mallanox 02:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment or if it is possible keep Band is known in Poland and some other slavic countries. Users who know Polish can use article from pl.wiki to expand it. Regards :) Migatu 15:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was:Speedily deleted - vanity. - Mike Rosoft 17:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baumer ( M.F.J.B.)

This seems like a vanity page Definitely not notable. Postcard Cathy 19:24, 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 A7. - Daniel.Bryant 21:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James gatewood

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

I cannot find any confirmation for a famous rapper/ rock star/ adult film director with this name. I suspect this article to be a hoax. FisherQueen (Talk) 19:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy per CSD A7, general nonsense too. RHB Talk - Edits 20:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per RHB. This person clearly does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for international pimps. Seventypercent 20:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Forget about notability - no evidence that he exists at all! YechielMan 01:49, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 17:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royaldutchshellplc.com

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

The article poses all sorts of problems with WP:COI and WP:OR because it was written by the website owner. It is also an attack site. However, in my view the test is notability. The URL has some notability because Shell went to court to try to obtain it and lost, which was reported widely. Does this mean that the WEBSITE on the url gets automatic notability and inclusion? Problematic: on one hand it had to have some content to win the court case, on the other hand I cannot see much discussion of the website itself as opposed to the URL case. Opinions welcome: especially if we keep this article advice on whether it should discuss the site the URL or both! BozMo talk 20:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I am the co-owner of the website and author of the article which is the subject of this proceeding. The website, its owners, and the domain name have been mentioned or the subject of numerous news or feature reports by major news organisations and news publishers e.g. The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Times, MSN Money, Yahoo, Reuters, The Gulf Times etc, plus many other publications and major websites around the world operating in many languages. The site has also been recommended by Fortune Magazine/MSN Money as one of two websites for information about Royal Dutch Shell Plc: the other site being shell.com. I will supply links tomorrow. The reports and the content of the Royaldutchshellplc.com article provide information on which a judgement over notability can be made. A further extensive article about the website and its owners is due for publication in a global specialist magazine within days, hopefully in time to be taken into account. It appears that the site will receive over 2 million hits this month. I will provide the exact figure on Thursday and will be able to provide proof on request. The website is also involved in multiple High Court Injunctions brought collectively by eight Royal Dutch Shell companies against a Shell reserves whistleblower Dr John Huong in respect of articles published under his name on our website. The defamation and other proceedings are not against us. However, a High Court hearing is due on 8th February when an application will be heard for my war disabled father, Alfred Donovan, who will be 90 in April, to travel to Malaysia to be cross-examined. The hearing will also deal with an application by Shell for Dr Huong to be imprisoned for contempt. I am not sure if the court proceedings are relevant, but I thought it best to disclose this in view of the imminent hearing. The vast majority of articles about Shell posted on our website are from major news organisations. I will try to calculate a percentage figure but it is probably above 97% overall. We have a Live Chat box which is used frequently by site visitors. Some Live Chat postings are anti-Shell. Some are anti-Donovan. All remain on display. Shell has an open invitation to supply rebuttals to any articles authored by us which we have promised to publish unedited. The site is entirely non-profit with no adverts, no subscription or any other fees; no donations are sought. We have operated websites relating to Shell for many years and have never approached them to sell domain names or anything else. Even if much of this information is not directly relevant, it might be of some assistance in considering issues. User JohnaDonovan: 23.55, 29 January 2007.

  • Delete - Kudos to John for his persistance but only one news article I can find that is ABOUT rather than just mentioning the site (Rise of the gripe site Prospect Magazine, UK - 23 Jan 2007). Nothing except the domain battle ( of which there are a great many ) seems to have caused a great stir and that is more worth an entry in the Shell article than a separate one . Site allegedly created as the founder had a grudge against shell where he has accused them of stealing business ideas and appears to be using the site to carry on a vendetta. No one reliable seems to be talking about the site, and also given the conflict of interest issue, not an article for here. - Peripitus (Talk) 00:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your friendly way of dealing with this matter. I had returned just to mention for the record that we publish all news stories about Shell, positive and negative. However, I will briefly respond to some of the points you have made. I will later today provide links to other articles mentioning or focused on the website. With regards to alleged stealing of ideas, Shell settled our first three UK High Court actions against them for 260,000 UK pounds plus costs. We also received a letter of apology from a Shell Chairman, Dr Chris Fay, for the way we had been treated. I doubt if you want to know more, but I will happily supply further information on request regarding why we still feel aggrieved and continue to exercise our right to criticise Shell on our website. Unfortunately it is a long drawn out saga stretching over a decade. Shell is free to sue us for libel if anything we allege on our website is without foundation. User: JohnaDonovan: 00:40, 30 January 2007.

John, that would be good - If you can show that the site satisfies the WP:WEB requirements particularly with verifyable references from reliable sources I'm happy to revisit my opinion during the 5 days of this discussion - Peripitus (Talk) 03:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • weak keep. Subject appears notable, because it's an exception, and due to the outside mentions referred to in the article. However, the article is largely (but not exclusively) puffery, and needs serious editing by an uninvolved editor before it begins to meet standards. Argyriou (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep Agree with most of the comments of Argyriou, the subject does appear to be noteable, in terms of both content, and the actual domain name itself.--Cloveoil 03:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As the record on the article discussion page shows, I was up front from the outset in June 2006 in admitting bias and have on at least two occasions requested that someone else should redraft the article. There was mention at that time of it being deleted. I do not recall how far the process went. If it did go to a vote, that presumably is on the record somewhere. I said that I would accept a decision to delete without rancour and that remains my position. I will post the promised links later today. User: JohnaDonovan. 08.44, 30 January 2007.

Sure. I think it didn't go for a vote then: there was a mal-formed request for comment and I have hesistated a long time on an AfD.--BozMo talk 09:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The refererence to Mr Donovan's initiative with his royaldutchshellplc.com website on Wiki entry Royal Dutch Shell Environmental and reputational issues could perhaps be expanded a little. However I see no case for a separate entry which is clearly being used by Mr. Donovan primarily as a campaigning tool. Stephen Parnell 11:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an extract from the comments of "Stephen Parnell" on 27 January: "I am not a Wiki editor and am relatively inexperinced as a contributor so I will leave further comment and action to those who are. But I would hope and expect that those who run this excellent website would remove your trivial and prejudiced entry as soon as possible." It appears that he has decided - assuming he is a male - that it was not safe to leave it to more experienced contributors. Of course he is perfectly entitled to vote, but anyone who has read his less than diplomatic comments on the Royaldutchshellplc.com discussion page would have no doubt about how he would cast his vote, no more than they would about how I would vote. It is regrettable that he has still not had the good grace to apologise for his ill-tempered accusations against me which he now knows were completely untrue. I find it very disappointing in view of the universal good tempered, often constructive dialogue which I have previously found in encounters with all other Wikipedians. It seems fair to say that he and I do not get on. User: JohnaDonovan. 13.15, 30 January 2007.

Rather than clutter up this page with a list of links, I have compiled a list on a separate webpage. Apologies at the time taken to provide the links promised above, but other events intervened, coincidentally including a long interview with a journalist from a quality national newspaper. The contact results from the Prospect article. The intention is to publish a story about the website and the Sakhalin-2 connection this weekend. I have the emails confirming this development. However, on past experience the story could be spiked for any number of reasons, so both this and the other pending article mentioned above should obviously be entirely discounted from consideration at this time. I assume that if a collective decision to delete is made, then I could resurrect the article at a later date and provide evidence of further publication of major articles to support the claim of notability. If on Thursday the preparation of the weekend article is progressing and is likely to be published, I may ask for a delay in the decision process until Monday so that the article can be taken into account. User: JohnaDonovan. 22.00, 30 January 2007.

  • Weak delete, arguably {{db-spam}}. I largely agree with Argyriou above, that this is somewhat notable, but the article is so fraught with conflict of interest and non-neutral point of view problems I see no harm in deleting and starting over, for the same reason we don't insist on rewriting every intractable {{db-spam}} article, we just delete and start over. - Aagtbdfoua 01:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep It is notable, there are enough sources, but if people really want to start over, it can best be done by stubfying.DGG 03:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Promised website stats for January 2007: Traffic viewed: Pages: 1,211,211: Hits: 2,046.347. Articles about Shell and related matters from independent news sources published on website since its inception: 12,800 approx. Articles authored by the Donovan’s which could therefore be considered biased: 300 approx. I estimated that our articles accounted for 3% of all articles published on the site. That was about right. User: JohnaDonovan. 16.15, 1 February 2007.

  • keep It's notable, clean-up would be better than deletion. Hgebel 04:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - requires a rewrite and more sources. Addhoc 15:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 17:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gunther Eysenbach

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

Questionably notablility. This page seems to be a vanity article. Google pages on person seem to also be created by him. This biography was created by him -- Wikipedia strongly discourages Wikipedia:Autobiography Partex 20:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete and userfy. The WP:COI issue is serious, since the content of the article indeed comes from User:Eysen, who is also the subject of the article. However, the content is too well-organized to throw it away, and the user has helped Wikipedia in other ways. I think userfying (transferring the content to his user page) is the right compromise. YechielMan 01:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Eysen acknowledged reading WP:COI on talk page, Thanks for pointing out the conflict of interest policies - I agree and will in the future avoid edits in these fields as well as on my own bio., Jan 15th 2007. Eysen has not editted his own bio since. ∴ here…♠ 07:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree - keep: Regarding notability and the statement "Google pages on person seem to also be created by him." - a Google phrase search for "Gunther Eysenbach" [50] gives actually 41.000+ hits - quite impossible for him to create all these pages himself. In addition, his academic work seems to have been cited more than 1000 times in other scholarly papers [51]. Seems to meet several of the notability criteria for academics (Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)). Not sure about the COI issue, but I don't see anything in the current article which couldn't be verified. --East1234 18:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep GE is notable; some of his recent work is discussed in detail on the Open Access page & related pages & in all articles in the specialty. The article is a little excessive--as indeed are some of the mentions in the other articles, for which another editor than himself is responsible. I'm not a personal friend & I have not been editing this page, tho I have made small edits to some discussions of his work on other pages. However ill-advised it was to try to do it himself, the core content is there. :A great many of the ghits are from the many web /blog postings on major lists where his work is mentioned or discussed--some of those are mine. I have clarified things by removing the self-advertising COI part, where he discussers the significance of his own work. DGG 04:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • definite keep very well-known and influential researcher, even here in Europe --82.210.96.82 12:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per this search Addhoc 12:20, 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 Redirected to Fools and Heroes. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR as everything else is already done. Serpent's Choice 06:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summerfest (LARP)

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

If this article contained only notable information, it would never progress beyond a stub. This is better off as a paragraph in Fools and Heroes. Quentin Smith 20:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge - There was already a merge template. I made a rough attempt leaving behind only a redirect whih may or may not be deleted. Tikiwont 22:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect Percy Snoodle 10:18, 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 13:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Bastard's Day

Saint Bastard's Day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a non-notable. Three Ghits for "Saint Bastard's Day" and one for "St. Bastard's Day", and two of those four are this WP article. Seems to be a WP:NEO. Gimmetrow 21:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete either WP:N or WP:HOAX. Hut 8.5 21:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Clear hoax. There's no such holiday. --TommyOliver 22:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - unverifyable and clearly a complete hoax - Peripitus (Talk) 23:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete dumb. JuJube 01:23, 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. W.marsh 16:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Syndasound

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

Non-notable company. 403 hits on Google[52]. No incoming links. No references. Fails WP:CORP.—Ketil Trout 21:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Per nom and WP:CORP. Not notable. Vassyana 12:52, 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 13:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Firstborn (band)

Contested Speedy, I thought I've give it the benefit of a community review. This is a procedural nomination; on the face of it they don't appear to meet WP:MUSIC but I didn't dig down too deep.--Isotope23 21:25, 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 all to H engine. Majorly (o rly?) 17:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] H-block

H-block (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

fails WP:CRYSTAL. Redirect to H engine, the original target. — Swpb talk contribs 22:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

as redirects, recommend Delete for all 3. — Swpb talk contribs 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • bundle H block (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Revert to redirect to H engine. — Swpb talk contribs 23:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the redirect bundle. Even if H-block were kept as the periodic table meaning, we don't need a boat-load of DAB links that are less likely searches than the target page. DMacks 23:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. converted the header into a useful dis-ambiguation page. Georgia guy 18:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the prision. The engine article is completely unsourced. Addhoc 12:24, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 16:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicole Bloom

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

NN college student/climber. Main assertion of notability is that she died relatively young in a climbing accident. Fails WP:BIO and WP is not a memorial. Very few of the external links are about her, and only sources are death notices from local and college newspapers. "Nicole Bloom" michigan gets around 120 Ghits. Booshakla 22:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. I think the notability is just barely enough. The coverage by her student newspaper and local newspaper verifies that the accident happened, and the dedication by the Nature Conservancy shows that, three years later, somebody still cares. I took out the irrelevant links. YechielMan 01:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Look at WP:BIO more closely, does she meet any of it? Not even close. College students die all the time, and memorials are up for just about anyone. This is not even close to being notable. Booshakla 03:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Response. A couple of points need to be clarified. First, what consitutes a "non-trivial" publication? We articles from a student paper and an unaffiliated local paper. Also, what is a newsworthy event? A hiking accident may or may not be newsworthy, depending on factors such as where it occurred. Third, what is the relevance of the biographical material? You see it as a memorial, but maybe it's appropriate context for the accident and the Nature Conservancy memorial. To some extent, I'm playing Devil's Advocate, because by a strict reading of the rules it should be deleted. However, I'm leaning more toward a "no consensus" approach. YechielMan 05:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. as clearly not passing WP:BIO, as there are only two articles published by a (very local) independent source about her demise (which, incidentally, has been pulled). I would also cite WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Perhaps she would have gone far had she not met with the mishap, but WP:CRYSTAL would enter into play here. Ohconfucius 04:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think YechielMan makes a nontrivial argument regarding WP:BIO. However, this is too much of a memorial article, so I think the NOT MEMORIAL policy, cited by Ohconfucius should apply.--Kubigula (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - It's just too borderline when it comes to WP:BIO. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:57, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 16:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colossal (band)

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

Non notable band, entirely unreferenced RHB Talk - Edits 22:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete. Per WP:BAND. Not notable. Vassyana 12:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sourced. Addhoc 12:15, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 16:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curtis mp3 Player

Curtis mp3 Player (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not a large/popular make of mp3 player, no sources/external links Tom H 22:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Not notable. Saligron 00:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unsourced, non-notable, possibly self-promotion. 72.84.26.137 01:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 12:16, 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 13:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of software engineering

Criticism of software engineering (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Please! do I even have to give a reason here? WP:NOR, WP:NPOV not notable. Why not have a criticism of existence while we're at it? Article has had tags on it for months with no discernable improvement Rumpelstiltskin223 22:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per the Big Three: WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V. Not nearly enough sources provided. --N Shar 23:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Inherently biased. Non-encyclopedic content. Saligron 00:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm seriously tempted to say that there can't be anything to this article as there isn't really any such thing as software engineering, but more seriously, this article has several flaws. First, it's a Criticism of ... article: most such (maybe all such) ought to be merged with their parent. Secondly, it's written as an incomplete Thomistic dialog, which is a really poor style for an encyclopedia article: WP:NOT a textbook nor a host for debate. Thirdly, it's not well referenced. Argyriou (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:11, 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 13:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voter's Mind

Voter's Mind (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I've looked for reliable references but can't find anything that will satisfy WP:SOFTWARE or WP:WEB. In fact I can't any references at all; Google only points to the official page. Prod removed by Ktitus14 without comment. Marasmusine 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Nothing indicating it's notable and lack of third-party sources. Saligron 00:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is about a software that is related to current events 2008 election, so I suggest to keep it for now and see what goes on later. 72.84.26.137 01:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The relationship is tenuous; the simulation is set in a fictional country and the politics are 'roughly based on' US elections. Marasmusine 01:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Even if it were directly based on the 2008 elections, that alone wouldn't make it notable. A relationship must be two-way for it to confer notability. — brighterorange (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No indication of notability in third party sources, and checking the forums doesn't suggest it either. — brighterorange (talk)
  • Delete Can't find any third party sources plus game is already mentioned here
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WKWL

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

Does not seem to be notable, no reliable sources found. Only Myspace site and an angelfire page found on Google. Readro 22:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable. Saligron 00:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Western Kentucky Wrestling League is a completely notable wrestling promotion. I'm the owner, Dillon Scarbrough, AKA Michael Hickenbottom, and I'm working on completing this article myself. I will get the proper notations and cites in order. HBKidJr 19:27, 29 January 2007

  • Delete Verges on CSD G11, particularly as it appears that the alleged owner of the league seems to be using the page as self promotion or advertising and at best fails WP:CORP. The lack of verifiable reliable sources certainly indicates that this is more suitable for deletion than anything. Agent 86 01:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE How is it that WWE or TNA or any other wrestling promotion can have their own site discussing the history of it's business, but I can't? Yes I am the owner, but no, this isnt for self promotion. Please allow me the time to complete this article before it's deleted. After I'm done, if it's still not up to standards, remove it with my permission. If I wanted to self promote, I wouldn't choose Wikipedia to do it with. I wanted to show the history and passion of this independent wrestling promotion. I'm a new user, let me get familiar with the functions and it will be corrected.HBKidJr 19:39, 29 January 2007

  • Comment WP:COI? Saligron 01:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment WWE & TNA have WP pages because they're the premiere organizations of a huge industry. They have high-rated cable TV shows. They sell PPV buys in the six-figures. Other promotions, like Stampede Wrestling and Ohio Valley Wrestling are notable for their history and/or associations with big promotions. Show us something worth keeping and we'll consider it. All we have now is a few storylines from two years ago and absolutely no verification that your promo exists outside of your backyard. Demonstrate noteworthiness, then worry about the plot details and character bios afterwards. Caknuck 05:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

ReplyI'm the person that runs the league, yes, but if you read, you will notice that I haven't bashed any other promotions or been biased in any manner. I've edited this in a completely informative way. .HBKidJr 19:46, 29 January 2007

  • Comment It's a possible conflict of interest in that you might be trying to include an otherwise obscure organization that you're personally involved in. (I have no idea if WKWL is of widespread interest or not, but nothing in the article itself indicates it's notable. Fixing that should be your first priority.) Saligron 01:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Tornado DDeleTe Non-notable wrestling promotion (and that's assuming it exists at all). 18 months' worth of indy circuit news releases at prowrestling.com has no mention of this organization. No ghits for "Fat Krakker", even though he's supposedly a major character in the storylines. The whole thing smells like bunk to me. Caknuck 05:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Jeez, take a look at the pictures on the MySpace page (assuming you can find them). This is totally a case of two kids screwing around in their backyard and wasting our time here. Delete Michael Hickenbottom (WKWL), too. Caknuck 05:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply These WKWL pages hurt no one and are informative to the people in the Fulton County, KY area. They just don't happen to be important to anybody debating this on here, therefore they must be deleted. There's no article on Fat Krakker because I haven't had a chance to edit it yet. It WAS coming. If you notice, the article on Hickenbottom isn't finished yet, nor is the official article on the WKWL. Just because we don't sell out huge arenas doesn't mean we don't deserve a spot on this website. No, we're not listed under independent promotion lists because I don't have a promoter's license, however, I can still operate under conditions of law because I don't charge admission. I come from a small town, therefore the newspaper doesn't have an archive of news articles, but I have a feeling that even if it did, it wouldn't matter. I could post a link to a scan of the newspaper articles from the area, but it wouldn't really matter.HBKidJr 23:59, 29 January 2007
Added Link I added a link to the page that references us as a wrestling federation. It's been listed on the Backyard Wrestling Link since 2001. .HBKidJr 00:47, 30 January 2007

  • Delete: Non-notable. Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting some random fanboy's attempts to become well-known. -- Jay Maynard 13:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: Well whatever. I think it's rediculous that a bunch of dorks get their rocks off by telling someone else what's important and what isn't. Just let me say that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit...that needs to be changed. It's not anybody's encyclopedia. It's the people that need to feel special. The people that have nothing else important in their lives so they pretend they're someone on here and direct traffic. You're all nothing more than rent-a-cops. It's sad that it has to come down to the first grade equivalent to "tattle tail". HBKidJr (talk 17:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete. No externally verifiable info, and does seem to have WP:COI undertones. Nothing personal to the Author, but Wiki can't contain everything. See WP:N for criteria to meet to avoid controversy with the reviewers. Arakunem 18:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Vegaswikian 18:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Backyard wrestling promotion, fails WP:CORP. One Night In Hackney 18:32, 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. Nomination withdrawn, no delete vote – PeaceNT 07:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Argument from free will

Argument from free will (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is completely unreferenced and is really OR. It should be properly sourced or deleted.NBeale 22:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As a result of this AfD debate the article has now been refed and has (currently) 9 references. This is what I had hoped would happen. I withdraw my nomination for deletion NBeale 16:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The AfD “debate” consisted of you nominating the article for deletion, and everyone else saying it should be kept. In that respect, it seems that nominating the article for deletion was a little extreme, especially since it is obvious that the article is not (and never was) OR. If you really want references added to an article, the correct procedure is to add the Unreferenced tag. 17.201.38.216 21:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - the article is an unreferenced mess but argument from free will appears to be a well established philisophical viewpoint, used in not only discussions about the impact of omnipotence but in ones about computers/robots/freewill. google hits show some serious academic articles, I get at least 1/2 a dozen relevant google-scholar links, and the concept+phrase used in academic books back to at least 1890. - Peripitus (Talk) 23:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm sure sources can be found. --N Shar 23:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and change tag There seems to be some useful content and there seems to be some verifiability, but the article is badly in need of cleanup and reliable sources. The {{cleanup}} tag should be used instead of AfD. --JJLatWiki 00:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Extensive cleanup or rewrite required, but the argument occurs often and the content is not unsalvageable. Saligron 00:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I have read about the argument from free will in a number of places outside Wikipedia, so the problem with the article is not WP:NOR but WP:V. Some possible sources (both pro and con): [53], [54], [55]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 03:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment It is all very well to say that "the argument from free will" appears to be a well established philosophical viewpoint or "I'm sure sources can be found" but unless and until sufficient properly notable sources are found and added to the article this article really shouldn't be there. We can't have unreferenced un-sourced articles in Wikipedia on the basis that some editors believe that it would be possible to write an article that did meet the criteria for inclusion, unless someone actually does. The main reason I listed this as AfD is because an anonymous editor keeps changing it (in a mindbogglingly philosophically naive fashion) to what (s)he considers "the original version" of the argument but neither (s)he nor anyone else (despite the refs tag) has put in any references at all. Unless proper notable sources are found and inserted into the article we really should delete this. NBeale 06:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • A lack of sources is not a reason for deletion (see WP:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may be needed). Note that WP articles must be verifiable and should be verified. If an article is unsourced, but there is no reason to question its truthfulness, and it is verifiable (as is the case here, where sources are readily available), then the appropriate action is not deletion but adding {{unreferenced}} to the article (unless the article makes controversial, libelous claims, in which case, those claims should be removed). Black Falcon 23:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep NBeale, your comment makes no sense. “Unless proper notable sources are found and inserted into the article, we really should delete this”? If the article were deleted, it would be a lot harder to add sources, wouldn’t it? A simple Google search has proven that the article is not OR, so the next step is adding sources, not deletion. As for my edits being “philosophically naive,” they are nothing of the sort. You took a well-established argument based on specific definitions of omniscience and free will, then started qualifying and modifying those definitions, which had the end result of completely changing the argument. The argument from free will should be some form of the argument from various referenced pages, which includes (but is not limited to) the premises “an omniscient being knows the actions of individuals” and “an individual has free will to choose from multiple actions.” If you change either of those premises, you change the argument. 75.17.113.113 09:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree with above. I would also note that the argument for deleting articles for lack of sourcing is strongest where there is reason to suspect that the factual claims of an article may be untrue. I think this nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator. Allon Fambrizzi 09:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 PeaceNT 13:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Visual modularity

Looks like a research article for an academic publication rather than encyclopedic entry Alex Bakharev 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep pending a better deletion reason - I'm not sure what policy this is supposed to be against. The article is clearly an academic article and so does read like most other articles, however it's replete with references, does not seem to be original research. May be a limited point of view but it's beyond my technical knowledge to determine. - Peripitus (Talk) 23:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Good article, but it may have original research.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Claidheamohmor (talk • contribs) 13:10, 30 January 2007.
  • Delete essay. Yes it is Original research. Mukadderat 00:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Is the subject original research or just the current text ?If just the current form then edit with an axe !.It does appear to be a real term used in cognative/vision psychology, with numerous articles. I don't know enough to be able to make the article balanced but it does look largely like it just needs expert attention. It's noted in [56],[57],PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1990, Volume One: Contributed Papers (1990), pp. 365-378, Visual Cognition (DOI:10.1080/13506280444000454) and numerous other places. 4 Google scholar hits and 4 in google books is not large but is certainly seems to be real, used and and worthy of an article Peripitus (Talk) 03:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I am the author of the article. I can confirm that the contents of the article is exclusively based on a summary, review and synthesis of earlier publications and thus is not original research. I have reread the article and removed or "hedged" anything that goes beyond the evidence. The reader will note that every single statement of fact is supported with references from peer-reviewed scientific journals. As for the limited point of view, the evidence marshalled is from many different sources and using many different techniques. Furthermore, where relevent caveats are clear. For instance, the sentence, "...a stream of diverse anatomical areas subserves motion perception" is followed by "However, the extent to which this is ‘pure’ is in question: with Akinetopsia come severe difficulties in obtaining structure from motion (Rizzo, Nawrot, Zihl, 1995). Thus the article does not argue for visual modularity but reports the evidence from the scientific literature, noting where the science is still unsure ("in question"). As for looking like a research article, I agree it is too much like a research article and I would welcome efforts to make it more encyclopedic.--Neuropsychology 10:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Appears to be a legitimate topic backed up strongly by sources, though it needs some work to become an impartial encyclopedia article. Saligron 12:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If we can include Skylion as a note worthy Christian rapper in the Encyclopedia we can certainly include this artical.Shoessss 12:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. But the introduction and summary need editing, as they currently read like original research (synthesis of existing and supported facts to draw new conclusions). I'm not convinced that a summary is needed at all, in fact; in a research paper or survey that would be the place to put the author's conclusions drawn from the facts presented in the rest of the paper, but author conclusions are inappropriate here. —David Eppstein 08:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks David Eppstein, I have made changes to the introduction and scrapped the summary on your suggestion. --Neuropsychology 11:32, 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 13:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disaster Squad

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

independent film shown only in Cleveland, Ohio Donald Albury 19:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment A couple of sources show that this film was shown at the Ohio Independent Film Festival[58] and at the Case-Western Reserve University's Film Society Local Filmmaker's Night[59], but no evidence of any wider distribution. There's also a MySpace entry about the music for the film[60]. So, with the Wikipedia article, that makes four relevant Google hits for '"Paul Tokach" Disaster Squad'. -- Donald Albury 20:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • delete fails WP:N. Madmedea 21:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. - Shaundakulbara 05:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 23:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There's nothing in the article indicating it to be notable. Saligron 12:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. ShadowHalo 09:19, 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 merge. However, I'll leave this as a redirect so someone else can add any relevant information. I could see nothing that was sourced. Majorly (o rly?) 18:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheesy Poofs

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

Non-notable piece of television trivia that is not the subject of reliable, independent, third-party sources. Fails WP:N and WP:FICT. Chardish 23:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • merge into List of fictional brands in South Park and include info (song, for example, which is kinda cool) on that page, as has been done for other items. I think the author's acted in good faith, and it has a place on the source page Scandrett 01:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Merge into List of fictional brands in South Park as above.
So I guess I mean Merge. And I forgot to sign again. Arakunem 17:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. Merge into [List of fictional brands in South Park]]. Vassyana 12:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, there looks to be too much material in this article to fit nicely into the list page. Bryan Derksen 03:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: List pages have a tendency to get fairly large. This is unfortunate, but ultimately preferable to every item on the list having its own article. It is easier to browse and manage, and the unified talk page is very useful. Regardless, the issue at hand is the notability of this topic. - Chardish 06:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bryan Derksen. The product is what Scooby Snacks were in the 70s and we more information about this than for many real foods. —freak(talk) 08:47, Feb. 3, 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into its own section in List of fictional brands in South Park so as to not ruin that neat table. Pomte 02:40, 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 13:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Bunglais

Contested speedy Alex Bakharev 23:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - "Gary Bunglais" gets zero g-hits, the article cites no sources, and the image description makes no sense whatsoever. --BigDT 23:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete completely inappropriate in tone and highly dubious notability. Pascal.Tesson 00:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete apparent hoax. Mukadderat 00:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete db-bio. JuJube 01:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete — per JuJube. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 04:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete — as nonsense (per WP:CSD#G1) and so tagged. Ohconfucius 04:41, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 16:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of armies by name

List of armies by name (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This list serves the same purpose as a category with little room for expansion. Lists are helpful when they arrange data in ways that it cannot be arranged in a category, when they contain substantial numbers of redlinks to assist with article creation, or when they contain data that cannot be expressed in a category. But none of those really seem to apply here. BigDT 23:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - Though I can see the argument that the information may already be displayed in different areas, I would like to keep the article for convenience sake. I find it a lot easier to find and search through list articles than category pages, which tend to be more difficult to find and read easily (at-least in my experience). --Hibernian 04:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. The list is redundant.--Kubigula (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above... Addhoc 15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Bucketsofg 18:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] O Zittre nicht, mein lieber Sohn

O Zittre nicht, mein lieber Sohn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I can hardly imagine, that an article about a single aria out of a larger opus would meet any notability criteria - though Wikipedia:Notability (music) does not even mention arias. Yet: Lyrics belong in WikiSource, but tend to be copyright violations and Songs are not generally notable, and should be listed under album or artist as appropriate (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Music) FordPrefect42 23:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about Wiki policies (deletion, notability, etc.) but I found this article to be very useful. It was exactly what I was looking for: technical discussion and lyrics. I hope it stays somewhere (Wiki or WikiSource(?)), as long as it's easy to find again, at least with a hot link from a non-deleted, more notable topic page ("Magic Flute"? "Der Holle Rache ..."?). As far as copyright is concerned, isn't a libretto from 1791 out of copyright? I suppose a particular translation might be copyright protected (if less than 95 years old) but I don't know the source of the one supplied on the main article page.AdderUser 13:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The five lines of useful information might easily incorporated in the article about The Magic Flute. The lyrics should not be in wikipedia at all, but rather in wikisource, because it is the right place for it. Copyright matters are not the main point here, but you got it completely right: the original text is in the public domain, but the translation cited here is copyright protected (cf. [61], scroll down to the very bottom). --FordPrefect42 17:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I started and wrote most of this article. I believed (and still do) that the lyrics fall under fair use, but if not, I'd be willing to get rid of the translation. The lyrics themselves are no longer copyrighted, as noted below. Many musicians, myself included, find it very helpful when an article about an aria (especially on wikipedia) includes the lyrics. Musical scores normally do not have the lyrics organized aside, only under the appropriate notes. This format makes it easier to study, analyze and perform better. Also, I believe that the aria is famous enough to deserve its own article. True, the gist of it could be put into the Magic Flute article, but when an aria is famous enough, it deserves its own article. There's a reason why there's an entire "Arias" category in wikipedia. In short: 1) This arias is famous enough to have its own article 2) This aria is sure complex enough to be analyzed in much greater detail, thereby needing more focus by future editors to expand it which I believe can only be done in a stand-alone article 3) if the translation of the lyrics is indeed copyright violation and not fair use I'd be happy to remove it, perhaps supplying my own translation. This article should not be deleted. John Holly 19:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Question. Can you find a non-copyright or appropriately licensed (GPDL, Creative Commons, etc)? Can you provide some references showing its notable place as a distinct piece in and of itself? Vassyana 11:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Non-copyright or appropriately licensed version of the lyrics translation? I guess that scouring the library for at least a distinctly old libretto translation could help; I myself cannot do that any time soon. The rest of the questions refers to references indicating the aria's notability? I'm afraid I cannot at the moment. Given enough time I could reference at least a couple of books. It'll be easy to just point out that every musical dictionary enlists this aria (along with Der Hölle Rache, Isis und Osiris and Die Bieldnis as notable arias) under The Magic Flute as a notable aria. Musical dictionaries might also mention this aria as an entry, being the first classical aria to use the F6 note. John Holly 14:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep or merge. No point deleting useful information. Kla'quot 06:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Once more, just to make my point clear: The lyrics should not appear in Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is no source book. A link to WikiSource or the Aria Database is sufficient. "Source text generally belongs on WikiSource." (cf. What Wikipedia is not). For the rest of the article: keep by merging into The Magic Flute, but delete this article. This aria is certainly not outstanding enough to legitimate splitting up the information about the Magic Flute into various mini articles. --FordPrefect42 12:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete unless sourced. If this subject deserves its own article there should be multiple references clearly demonstrating this. Addhoc 15:09, 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--Jersey Devil 06:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CRKD

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

No indication of notability. Prose is not NPOV, and generally it seems like an unencyclopedic article. Readro 23:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

   If the prose is changed to NPOV, will it be passable on wikipedia?Raysaagar 15:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete A7 - Essay on someone's Halo Clan. No assertion in the article of any interest by the outside world, no references Peripitus (Talk) 23:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under G11 and A7. Iced Kola(Mmm...) 23:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


Can we rewrite this article, so that it will not be deleted ?Kishan4uall 00:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to rewrite it at any time during this proccess. Iced Kola(Mmm...) 00:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
We have rewritten much of the page into what we hope is NPOV. is the content exceptable? raysaagar
  • Speedy delete Wikipedia is not free webspace. Pascal.Tesson 00:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
   we're not using it as free webspace. its a article in creation, its not completed yet.Raysaagar 15:42, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 16:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Leventhal

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

Declined speedy A7 because he's apparently designed games and won an award. Looking closer, it turns out that the games are redlinked, and the award was from some film school. Googling this name brings up MySpaces and blogs, and the nature of the content suggests this is a WP:AUTO case. Steel 23:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The red links are now fixed, and I have added external links about Jonathan Leventhal's career in game design. — Diplodocusbones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong delete. The arguments for notability are unconvincing. More importantly, the article history reveals a clear conflict of interest. The entire article was created by User:Diplodocusbones. The same user is also the sole creator of Edgar Lopez: Janitor of Souls, which links to the Leventhal page in several places. That article also has no other contributors, nor has Diplo made any other contributions at all. For this reason I am adding Edgar Lopez: Janitor of Souls to this AfD nomination. YechielMan 01:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Both articles written by Diplodocusbones, are written in a neutral manner. If linking related articles is against your policy, then all links can be removed, it is not a problem. The reason Diplodocusbones created the Edgar Lopez: Janitor of Souls article immediately, is because you were complaining about all the red links in the Jonathan Leventhal article. — Diplodocusbones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 16:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Judy Blume Diary

The Judy Blume Diary (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable blank journaling & calendar book, despite the quotations included. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails all the tests: less than 100 non-wiki ghits, and none from notable media sources; no inward links except from Judy Blume (consider a merge with her article) and this AfD; article history shows only two meaningful content edits on the same day by the same user six months ago. YechielMan 01:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge then delete (I'm saying delete because I don't think it would be a useful redirect). This could be a section in the article Judy Blume. Hard to verify and should probably be trimmed a bit, but I think a merge would do better than an outright delete. James086Talk 04:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I fixed it up a bit. - Peregrine Fisher 18:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - per fix my Peregrine Fisher and notability established. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:40, 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 no consensus. Majorly (o rly?) 17:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello, Sailor

Hello, Sailor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable; not closely associated enough with Zork to be merged and redirected. --Yath 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • On account that I've seen the phrase in the Jargon File, I'd have to go with a Keep. A reference to certain usage therein has been added, though it's kind of obscure. --Dennisthe2 00:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but change emphasis. Phrase is notable, and crops up a fair bit in Victorian literature and subsequent satire; usage in game is not. Scandrett 01:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep could be a useful reference LazyDaisy 13:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The article is about one phrase in one computer game. It has no independent sources other than the game. Wikipedia is not a game guide, and should not have articles on every particle of dialogue in every computer game. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. "ILIKEIT' is not a substitute for meeting of the minimum standards for notability and multiple reliable independent sources. If kept, the article should be renamed to show the article relates to the game. If the article were rewritten to be about "a phrase dockside hookers use" it might be appropriate for Wiktionary, but probably not for Wikipedia, which is not a dictionary. Edison 19:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Although the games are certainly notable, bits of trivia from those games don't seem like they belong in their own article. WP:NOT seems to come into play here. If there's fear that important information about the game universe will be lost, then perhaps something could be mentioned in the Zork#Commands section --- The Bethling(Talk) 00:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This topic may be notable, but there's no evidence the emphasis on its use on the Zork computer game is. There would clearly be an encyclopedic content problem if an article entitled Christianity focused mainly on Ned Flanders; this may be a similar example of picking a minor pop culture allusion to a topic whose principle encyclopedic notability, if any, comes from something else. --Shirahadasha 01:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep — per Scandrett. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 04:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable fancruft. articles like this are just silly. Waitangi 01:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 12:28, 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.