Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 8

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE per WP:BLP WP:SNOW WP:V WP:RS WP:AUTO WP:BOI WP:N and the rest of the unholy alphabet soup. Incredible critical article with not one reliable citation. Patchwork of blogs, self-publicity and a 'party' that draws virtually nothing on google. -Doc^g 00:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy McClintock

Jeremy McClintock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

A curious mixture of speculation and unsourced criticism. Little on his party here and little more on the man here. Delete. Bridgeplayer 00:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Bigtop 00:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable.--Meno25 00:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There don't seem to be any reliable sources. Not verifiable. --Wafulz 00:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not sure how notable this guy can be, other than that he's a loud voice. --Dennisthe2 00:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the content is not verifiable, and is non-notable. — Arjun 00:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Quite odd. Really not sure whether this is a hoax, or someone having a personal crisis. Anyway, not notable: just circular references between non-reliable sources. --A bit iffy 01:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unless is heavily cleaned up. Article isn't sourced well and at this point seems some-what notable...but not with the citations given.Ganfon 02:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article has been heavily cleaned up. Is notable e.g. "Jeremy McClintock" has three of the top five search results on Google here [1] and here [2] and here [3] --Rupertchaucer 05:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC) — Rupertchaucer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• He seems to be a jokey blogger (jeremymcclintock.typepad.com); nothing else is verified and most of it is far-fetched. E.g., "he was alleged to have been arrested in the monkey enclosure of Belgrade Zoo at 3 o'clock in the morning", plus the link to the website of his supposed political party doesn't work. Oh yeah, Delete Allon Fambrizzi 06:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
• Delete for insufficient notability or verifiability. Doczilla 07:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable sources indicating notability per WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Smells a bit like a hoax. Rupertchaucer appeared at WP today wrote the article and has defended it with meaningless links. --Kevin Murray 07:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think there are enough reliable sources of information about the subject. They aren't cited because they don't exist. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• I think anyone in favour of mandatory custard should be supported but I am suspecting a hoax. Grace Note 07:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This man is for real – I work for a Kent/London borders free newspaper in the UK and I had an assignment to interview him just before Christmas. He is only beginning grassroots press work/campaigning now to get in the public eye, so he said. McClintock comes across like Tory leader Cameron with his beguiling mix of pragmatic speech and political principles. Clearly, he will have to match the depth of his ambitions with media to match – he must be a technophobe! Retain —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M al-Nour (talk • contribs) 14:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

• Comment: Was the interview published? J Milburn 17:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, the guy is real, he probably could also fit under notable but this article certainly does not assert that. I could change my vote if appropriate changes are made by end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The lack of citations seems to be because there are no reliable sources of info about the subject. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete He seems real, but no reliable citations are there to assert his notability. If they are provided, then keep the article. ← ANAS ^Talk? 17:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete What the article says about him is notable but there is no verifiable resources so I can not vote keep. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 22:39, 8 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. JIP | Talk 09:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slagus

Slagus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable band. Google search brings up nothing about them. Appears to be a vanity page and nothing more. Sukecchi 00:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Highlight of the article is rumors of some possible future demo recording? Not notable. Fan-1967 00:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 00:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - I'd support a speedy delete via Template:db-band. Black Falcon 00:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete pure vanity article, the fact that it says do not edit and has the user next to it is a huge clue that it's not notable. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 00:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Fits CSD A7 to the letter. Goodnightmush 01:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete not notable in the least and probably less. poorly written to boot.--Tainter 01:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete for sure! --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 02:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not well written and notability certainly doesnt make up for it.Ganfon 02:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. —ShadowHalo 03:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete under A7. --Meno25 06:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Doczilla 07:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: A7, no assertion of notability, unless saying you play for a band which doesn't even have a name counts. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per all above! Move along now..! Budgiekiller 08:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McKinney Boyd High School

McKinney Boyd High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable public high school likely created by a student (see discussion page). Delete Soltak | Talk 00:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into McKinney Independent School District. I removed most of the article since it was name-dropping, empty sections, or a record of school sports. WP:NOT a free webhost. --Wafulz 00:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There's not anything notable to merge - the McKinney, Texas article actually has more notable information on the school than the school's article did, or than the school district article does. What's the policy on school districts? Are they automatically notable like towns? Or do they have to prove notability like schools? Also note the district article has a link to Johnson Elementary, which is actually a school in Michigan, not Texas. Lyrl ^Talk _C 01:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Non-notable. Bigtop 01:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - this article is just a few days old and should be given chance to develop and not strangled at birth. Though this is a new school, it is already achieving notable results academically and in sports. TerriersFan 01:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. The article is total bollocks now but could be something decent if some others were to get involved. As above, article was just created so a delete seems hasty; a redirect is a perhaps a decent intermediate solution. Mystache 02:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per Wafulz. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to the district article per Wafulz. Nothing of note to see here, folks. -- Kicking222 02:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge/Redirect per nom. TJ Spyke 04:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable. --Meno25 06:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep rewritten version, now asserts notability. BryanG^(talk) 06:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Fix instead of listing here. And all schools are "notable". Let's not do this again. Grace Note 07:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Bullshit. That argument is NOT valid and not true. Schools are NOT inherently notable, they have to proove why they are notable. TJ Spyke 00:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Regardless of what your personal opinions are on schools being inherently notable or not, this one just happens to be notable. Please do not use disruptive language in an AFD. Zadernet 04:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Sourced, encyclopedic, keeps with precedents WilyD 16:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep What's wrong with a school having an article? --Lee Vonce 17:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Keep per WilyD. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — Meets my personal criteria for high school notability. :-) — RJH (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Fails my notability guidelines for schools. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 22:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability is not subjective - please don't make disruptive comments in an AFD WilyD 13:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Schools are generally notable for inclusion. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No they aren't, schools are not inherently notable. TJ Spyke 00:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I didn't say "inherently," I said "generally." And this one seems to fit the bill. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Notability demonstrated by marching band award referenced in article (thus meeting proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL. Also per notability: the districting plan that created the school is discussed in this Dallas Morning News article. Google News also turns up many other articles on the districting plan, as well as the school's sports. schi ^talk 23:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability of this school is demonstrated through multiple non-trivial sources, meets all proposed school guidelines. Silensor 03:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Like many others have noted, this article should be given a chance to develop more. It's as simple as that. If it's still a fluke in one to two weeks or so, then I recommend a merge. In terms of notability, Boyd qualifies for several valid reasons already mentioned, including it's numerous press references, attention, relative size (biggest nationally almost), band, and the like. Finally, seeing as McKinney is apparantly the fastest growing city in the nation, I'd expect it's three high schools to be covered in some detail. And Soltak, it makes absolutely no differences whatsoever WHO wrote it. It could be a dog for all anyone cares. The important thing is the relevance, accuracy, and contribution it makes to Wikipedia as a whole. For that reason, I question you motives behind even mentioning your theories on the author. Andrewtheart 04:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Article referenced using reliable sources, but would benefit greatly from expansion and addition of more references. Alansohn 08:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep please this is a decent article and has plenty of sources too Yuckfoo 09:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Andrewtheheart and and the other keep-sayers. This article needs a chance to develop more. I didn't intentionly post the rosters for name-dropping reasons, although i didn't know that you weren't able to post records, I guess I could have just put "The Football Team experienced an unsuccessful first season, with not a single win." And yes Soltak, I'm a student that attends MBHS. The last time I checked it wasn't against the rules for students to create/edit articles here on wikipedia or to be bold in editting. For those of you that don't know, a marching band that made sweeptakes at UIL and advanced to the finals at the Denton Golden Triangle its first year is a very difficult task to accomplish, thus making the band alone notable enough to have its own article. This School is also making tremendous progress in the academic field and in its extracurricular programs. The only reason you saw blank sections is because I was on break when I created this and therefore was not able to get citable information from the club sponsors themselves. I say give this article some time, and it will expand enough to become worthy enough to be on Wikipedia. Zadernet 10:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. High school. Herostratus 05:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Robert Fisk Award for Idiotarian of the Year 2003

The Robert Fisk Award for Idiotarian of the Year 2003 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Blogcruft. One political blog's "award" for one year. PROD tag added, but removed with long comment on irrelevant issues on the talk page. Calton | Talk 01:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Bigtop 01:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. No coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. - Aagtbdfoua 01:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Aagtbdfoua. A single award for a single year from a single blog with no independent sourcing. -- Kicking222 02:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 04:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as it needs several degrees of removal before you get to a notable topic (like, the award for 03 - award itself - the blog it comes from - the internet itself).--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete This is spam. --Meno25 06:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Doczilla 07:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, blog-related material with no evidence of WP:RS indicating notability per WP:WEB. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Debris from a blog war, no doubt. --Folantin 09:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Calton, you might have copied the already existing discussion to his page as you could probably imagine I didn't find it “irreælevant” since I took the time to write it, and as it address the requirements set up in “Notability (web)” directly.

Looking at the requirements set-up in the “Notability (web)” section. We have:

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

The content has been published in, among other places, :

Black & White World II ISBN 0-9724569-1-0

Black & White World II ISBN 0-9724569-1-0

The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organization

The website has won several awards. Among them from Jerusalem Post.

In addition, there are several grounds for notability:

• It is an event on one of the most visited blogs and which is widely reported and talked about outside that blog (google has about 10k hits and technorati reports hits from many sites besides LGF).
• The cartoonist Cox & Forkum, themselves widely used and “read”, draws (and publish) an annual cartoon to mark the event. e.g.

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000751.html

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000513.html

• In the voting for the winner, there are several tens of thousands of individuals participating.
• It is an recurring event, for now five years straight, meaning people will come looking for information (as I did actually) next year, and find is missing.

I personally have no whatsoever affiliation with the blog (or any of the individuals in the voting) so there is no personal gain for in “spamming”. In fact I came here to seek information on the event, and when I found it missing, decided to provide it. Rune X2 09:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Rune X2 09:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Little Green Footballs article. --Dweller 10:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete if this were a generic article on the "award" then a merge and redirect would be appropriate, but to cover a single year in this detail is manifestly disproortionate to its real significance. Guy (Help!) 11:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Guy, also see Little Green Footballs awards - already adequately covered. <<-armon->> 16:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete a web award, fails WP:WEB.-- danntm ^T _C 16:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, even if the award is notable Wikipedia is not an announcement board for organizations in lieu of their own Alf photoman 17:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable and already covered in the Little Green Footballs awards. Please note there is also a The Robert Fisk Award for Idiotarian of the Year 2002 article which looks the same as the nominated article here which is not up for AfD. --tgheretford (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. PROD tag added. --Calton | Talk 22:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --Ixfd64 20:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per everything said.Ganfon 20:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per above --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 22:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Dragomiloff 00:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above Bwithh 05:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above Pete.Hurd 02:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Fanclub

Royal Fanclub (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC criteria.

Also recommending the following article for deletion as one of the members of the band, (also non-notable):

• Viktor Bodvarsson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

--AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete both per nom. Bigtop 01:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Neither are notable. --Tainter 01:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enoughGanfon 02:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 03:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 06:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep for the band. Speedy Delete for the member of the band. --Meno25 06:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both. I disagree with User:Meno25 above, in that the band does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC, as all of its albums appear self-produced. Band member is non-notable per WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:20, 8 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 semi-speedy delete. Not really G11-type blatant spam, but there's a consensus here to delete. -- Steel 15:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matt's Gourmet Hot Dogs

Matt's Gourmet Hot Dogs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Fails to meet notability requirements of WP:CORP, also has no sources and lists entire menu in article Vicarious 01:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Bigtop 01:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notableGanfon 02:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete unless the article is completely rewritten. --Meno25 06:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 06:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, local chain which does not appear to meet WP:CORP. The inclusion of the menu probably counts as indiscriminate information. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Clearly nn. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. 6 restaurant chain based in Washington state. Speediable as spam and so tagged. Ohconfucius 08:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 09:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Batawagama

Camp Batawagama (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Originally speedy-tagged as spam, but the author, User:The Umbrella Corporation, created it as a good-faith effort to document a local place that really does not seem notable. About 300 google hits, mostly mentioned by former campers or local listings; no non-trivial unique coverage. Opabinia regalis 01:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Bigtop 01:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. nn. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete After a little searching, difficult to establish notability. Navou ^talk 03:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Адам12901 ^Talk
• Delete for lack of third-party coverage--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Meno25 06:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 07:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -300ghits, and lots of them seem to be people's vacation pics from there. SkierRMH,07:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is a legitimate, public place. No reason it shouldn't have a short article in wikipedia. --Lee Vonce 17:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That something exists isn't necessarily an indicator that it belongs in wikipedia.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -fails all WP:NOTE guidelines, and on top of that (and most importantly) has no hope of every achieving any of them. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 00:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It sounds like its a permanent kind of thing known about by hundreds of people - I'd say its notable enough. GB 01:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That something "sounds" notable does not make it notable. Lots of stuff is "known about" by way more than hundreds of people but that does not, in itself, make it notable nor does it make potential notability automatically verifiable. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Jimfbleak. MER-C 07:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 871 (Penn) Squadron ATC

871 (Penn) Squadron ATC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

It's an advert for a local youth organisation. Roleplayer 01:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Bigtop 01:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. as above. Mystache 02:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per norm. meshach 02:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: Not notable and advertisement. --06:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of meeting WP:ORG, possibly a speedy as advertising. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - second person spam. So tagged. MER-C 07:31, 8 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. JIP | Talk 09:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Young politics

Young politics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Speedy deletion tag was removed by the creator. I suppose I could ask for speedy deletion again but I'd rather have wider input on this. First, given that the creator of the article is Youngpolitics (talk · contribs) and that these are his sole edits, we have to assume conflict of interest. Secondly, there does not seem to be any evidence of third-party coverage so notability is a big question mark. Third, the "latest news" on that website is "we are now on Wikipedia" so we might also consider the whole write-up to be spam. So why am I not asking for speedy deletion? hmmmm... I guess because I'm a sucker for kids with good intentions. Pascal.Tesson 02:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NOT a webspace provider. This is a website/advertisment. They have basically put up their site on WP. The general rule is that someone not directly working for the organization should build a wikipedia article. meshach 02:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per {{db-web}}--Wafulz 03:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as corporate vanity. MER-C 04:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment in all fairness, I'm pretty sure this is not a for-profit entity. Pascal.Tesson 04:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam for a non-profit is still spam. MER-C 05:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not denying that. But non-profit spam is not corporate vanity and is slightly lower on my personal meter of evil. Pascal.Tesson 05:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see how this site satisfies any of the WP:WEB notability criteria. --Metropolitan90 05:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Wafulz. JuJube 06:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 08:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Egyptians

Egyptians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

article is a history not a surveys of people. other users ignores talks consensus to delete and create new article, refuse to debates issue in talk pages only to revert the page.

The article needs a complete rewrite, and I think it can be done like so:

1. Cut the History section by at least 90%. It should just be a summary type thing or sketch with a link to the main article History of Egypt A lot of websites so something similar in about 60 lines.
2. Expand a Culture section to tell us who are really the Egyptians. For the rewrite, I recommend you look at other similar articles and then work up an outline- cusisine, music, arts etc etc and go from there.
3. Include a "National character/How others see the Egyptians" section, like the Dutch and Swedish articles. This is very important for the Egyptians since historically they saw themselves as unique and even today do not simply consider themselves just another set of Arabs. They are a distinctive people, and that issue needs to be explored fully.
4. Also to be considered for inclusion is at least some brief discussion on relations with other peoples surrounding Egypt like Israel. This is also important for the Egyptians have put their own distinctive stamp on that issue. The 1973 Crossing Operation for example is generally regarded with respect by most non-Egyptian military analysts, see Herzog's Arab-Israeli Wars history for example, more so than the uneven performance by many Arab armies. This is only one example of course, but in this and many other ways, the Egyptians have made their mark. This needs to be brought out on a page like this. Obscure details about the 451 Council of Chalcedon or ancient solar calendars belong elsewhere.

Consensuses: Delete areticle and rewrite totally like Dutch People or Swedes articles. Moved duplicate history section to its own article called Historical perspectives on the Egyptian people. now focus can be on egyptian people not history. Nardelli 02:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Incredibly speedy keep The article is well-written and referenced over 100 times. If the nominator has a problem with the content of the article, he should bring it up on the article's talk page (which he has barely done, judging from Nardelli's contribution history). AfD is not the place for this discussion. -- Kicking222 02:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, the nominator's page split referenced above was speedily deleted as a misguided fork. -- Kicking222 02:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, improve the article via its talk page, and stop trying to make a point or POV fork--Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 02:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above, recommend immediate close. AfD is not a vehicle for content disputes involving clearly valid articles. Newyorkbrad 02:40, 8 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sonoma Wire Works

Sonoma Wire Works (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This company article was nominated for deletion as spam and references were produced, so taking to a wider audience to see if they are enough. Listing their product article as well.Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 02:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

• I don't understand the nomination. Someone tried to delete it, so someone produced sources for it, and now you're trying to delete it again? Keep swiftly and delist. Grace Note 07:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I think it fails WP:CORP

The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself. The references are all to the product of the company, not the company itself. The company does not appear to be the subject of non-trivial published works.

The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications. It isn't.

The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices.4 Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded. It isn't

as far as I can tell, the company is trivial. If the product isn't, then the product can have an article. QuiteUnusual 10:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Grace Note. -Toptomcat 12:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Grace Note. --Lee Vonce 17:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep it is spammy but the references seem to support its inclusion --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:14, 9 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eraser (software)

Eraser (software) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable software, just another disk wiper Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 02:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SOFTWARE. There appear to be MANY disk cleaning utilities with the name "Eraser" in them. JRHorse 03:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE provided by reliable sources. MER-C 07:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Please note that WP:SOFTWARE is a proposed guideline. It is not a guideline, and it certainly is not policy. AfD discussions really should not be citing it as a reason for delete. —DragonHawk (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Article fails to assert notability at all. Article fails to cite a reliable source which can verify anything about the software, and a brief Google search fails to find same. Wikipedia is not a directory of software. —DragonHawk (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 17:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article information has some (referenced) information, that is most likely quite useful to it's readers article. Of course it can be improved in many ways, but what we have there is still genuine and useful information. -- Karl Meier 21:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because information is useful does not mean it qualifies as an enecyclopedia article. If the page is deleted, afterwards, if someone is willing and able to write an encyclopedia article about "Eraser", they can still do so. --—DragonHawk (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • • It actually seems that it has also attracted quite a bit of media attention, which means that a proper article can be written, and that it is notable enough for us to have an article about. Examples: article on softpedia, pcauthority.com.au, dx21.com -- Karl Meier 08:32, 12 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. John254 00:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PhysOrg.com

PhysOrg.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Does not satisfy WP:WEB Alex Bakharev 02:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose PhysOrg.com is used as a source in at least 61 Wikipedia science articles. It needs an entry to expain its standing as a news source. See [4] Lumos3 09:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Lumos3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lee Vonce (talk • contribs) 17:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
• Keep I agree wtih Lumos's reasoning, and considering Alexa ranking, notable. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Widely-quoted, as a simple Google search shows. TimVickers 01:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Google has half a million hits - its quite popular and deserves an article.
• Weak keep The fact that PhysOrg.com is used as a source for many WP articles is significant. Somehow though, I can't see there being enough material for this article to ever develop past a stub. HEL 21:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: this article needs a little context and work, however. Basically the Digg.com or slashdot of physics and related technology. Danski14 22:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong speedy keep Per Danski. This is the major new source in the popular science field. Reliable enough for its articles to be used as a source in WP. Would the nominator care to say in what way it did not satisfy the WP:WEB?DGG 07:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Impressive "What links here"-list. highlunder 11:43, 12 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. Wickethewok 03:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hackers hangout

Hackers hangout (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

An article on a non-notable internet forum, at the end of the article there is a hidden text with anti-semetic message for potential deleters. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 03:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability. Tagged with {{db-web}}. -- Fan-1967 03:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Fan-1967. Nareklm 03:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete This dirty Jew votes for deletion. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:36, 8 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 IanManka deleted "Giving the shaft" (CSD G1; giving this article the shaft). Navou ^banter 07:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Giving the shaft (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Complete bollocks, unencyclopedic, bad grammar Shady Tree Man 04:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giving the shaft

• In agreement this is just a bunch of silliness - take it away - Markco1 04:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy DeleteNo argument here.Ganfon 04:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. So tagged. MER-C 04:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete no doubts. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 04:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice per nom. That thing's a trainwreck. ThuranX 04:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Copmplete bollucks. Whimsical attack page. The term "shafted" or "getting the shaft" long predated the movie "Shaft." Article lacks sourced factual content. Edison 04:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It even predates the original Shaft, much less the Sam Jackson version. Fan-1967 05:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as obvious vandalism.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Shaft's a valid slang term, but it's already mentioned on Wiktionary. This article is a load of bollocks. Quack 688 05:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Bucketsofg 05:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of episodes of Tom Green Live

List of episodes of Tom Green Live (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Disputed endorsed prod (see talk page). My original reason was: "notability not asserted. See also WP:NOT an dump of indiscriminate information" which I stand by. Akihabara 04:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There isn't a "List of The Tonight Show episodes" or a "List of Late Night episodes" for the same reason this shouldn't exist. This specifically fails WP:NOT. TJ Spyke 04:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fancruft, who will care in a month who was on a perticular episode. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 04:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per abov. MER-C 07:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Tom Green Live, as there is no content for the articles (i.e. The Simpsons episodes). SkierRMH,08:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT.-- danntm ^T _C 20:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Ghostbusters. For the purpose of merging, the text of this article before redirection may be accessed here. John254 00:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ghostbusters Trivia

Ghostbusters Trivia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This is a trivia article, without references, for a movie. Wikipedia is not the IMDb. delete Cornell Rockey 04:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• delete and perhaps merge into the main article? This is an awful lot of random trivia, though, so maybe not.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into the main Ghostbusters article. The main article doesn't actually have a trivia section, it just links out to this page. It's also acceptable for a movie article to include some real world trivia. However, even if it's merged, there needs to be an effort to find sources for individual claims. If you can source some claims and not others, then delete the unsourced ones and keep the sourced ones. Quack 688 05:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Quack 688. bibliomaniac15 05:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Quack 688. JuJube 06:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It appears that this article Ghostbusters did have a huge trivia section at one point for example and this was culled from it. User:Kingpin1055 appears to have created this from the Ghostbusters article. SkierRMH,08:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to Ghostbusters. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia. JIP | Talk 09:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As SkierRMH mentioned, I created the article because there'd been complaints with the trivia section being a part of the main Ghostbusters article. I figured that this would be a 'positive' resolution as I have felt most of the trivia, pending accurate descriptions and sourcing was valid for inclusion'. Trivia isn't included in real encycleopedia because they don't have the luxury of near infinite space or the resources of people who'd be willing to try look it out such as us, I say that isn't a problem with Wikipedia and that trivia isn't as 'evil' as some seem to regard it as. Kingpin1055 09:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete since it's - well, trivial. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - clearly it doesn't need an article by itself. Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 11:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge anythign that actually has a source into the appropriate sections of the rest of the Ghostbusters article and do not have a separate trivia section within the article. Most of the "trivia" is unsourced anyway. Otto4711 15:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge back into Ghostbusters. As per Otto, merge sourced trivia only. That should trim it down a bit. Proto::► 15:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Can't see any good reason to have a separate article for this. --Lee Vonce 17:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge anything that can be sourced back to the main article. Very shoddy cut-and-paste job. The first sentence reads "Lindsay Buckingham was also approached..." implying something else is supposed to be before it. A lot of it can be sourced, but isn't, for example: the Slimer character was not just rumored to be based on John Belushi, Dan Aykroyd has stated many times that it is based on him. This trivia section isn't really that large compared to some I've seen, so it doesn't need its own article (if you can call this an "article"). Wavy G 23:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Ghostbuster's trivia is popular MiracleMat 07:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pn ratio

Pn ratio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Prod removed by anon without comment. Supposedly a "controversial" rating method for university American football coaches, but I can find no sources to indicate it exists at all, or is the subject of any notice, much less controversy. Likely Original research, no sources, clearly not notable. Fan-1967 04:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. A protologism at the very least. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above; the article and everything (translation: nothing) I find on it leads me to suspect this is, at best, relevant only within a small portion of the blogosphere that's well below the threshold of notability. Does not satisfy WP:NEO at best; violates WP:OR at worst. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, if it were even being discussed in the blogosphere it would show up in a GSearch, and it doesn't. No indication this has been shared with anyone before this article. Fan-1967 18:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. MER-C 07:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. JIP | Talk 09:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - too short, not very meaningful content, and possibly original research. Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 11:52, 8 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 -- Samir धर्म 00:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Donnelly (author)

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}}

Michael Donnelly (author) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable bio; was speedied as nn and restored per author request, but no serious claim of meeting WP:BIO has been added. Prod'd as well, but prod removed. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also listing the below related article as the book series Michael has written. These are self-published books, with no indication of being notable whatsoever:

• The Mystic Battle Trilogy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

--AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• delete both as non-notable and potential conflict of interest--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. The Mystic Battle books were published at a vanity press, so that's not notable. If more information about his other works is available, that might sway me in the other direction. RedRollerskate 05:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per RedRollerskate and looking at the reference link this is a pay-to-publish author, which is marketing his book through the publisher's website. Theother reference is to some kind of real estate marketing pamphlets. Fails on notability. --Kevin Murray 07:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete - useful information, but taking the notability issue into account. Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 11:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I know Michael Donnelly, he lives in Perth, Western Australia. I dont really know about his Mystic Battle books, but I do know about his environmental work. His work is amazing!!! He is only a child, but he writes some really unique stuff!! everyone that is linked with Sustainable Living Tasmania knows him! I think that his page should be kept!!!!--Tasmaniazzz ^talk January 2006, 11:58 AM (tas) — Tasmaniazzz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep - Why the hell was Sustainable Living Tasmania deleted anyway!!!! They're really important in Tassie. Michael donnelly is really important to Tassie too. I have his books and pamphlets. They are really good. Dont delete this page who ever is reading my writing - hahahaha. --User:YupiMango — YupiMango (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep - Im new to wiki, and I have read Donnelly's page. It think it is notable, and I dont even live in Australia. User:Wise Fraternity

• Keep - Ok, I will remove the information about the self-published books and concentrate on the real stuff. The real stuff is about Global Warming and Environmental needs. Michael Donnelly is a big name in Sustainable Living (well, in Tasmania anyway). So, I shall remove the information about the self- published stuff, and concentrate on the real stuff. Does that make everyone happy? Please, Please, please??? -- User:Celtic010600:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)00:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)~~
  • Comment: Sorry, but it's not about making anyone happy - it's about determining if the article is encyclopedic. Currently there are no citations from reliable sources that prove the notability of the subject. Please review Wikipedia's verifiability policy. In a nutshell, even if something is true, it's should not be here unless there are reliable sources to back it up. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Kevin Murray? the other link is'nt to some marketing pamphlet site!!!! It is about sustainable living and the environment!!!! --User:Celtic010600:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Celtic0106
• Keep - This page does assert notabilty! Michael donnelly is Sustainable Living's main and greatest author. Keep this page. User:ChingChonee
• Keep - Michael Donnelly is a great author in Tasmania. Keep the page. Asuss 00:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This page is really important to Sustainable Living Tasmania, and Tasmania. User:Celtic0106
• Keep - Assets notabilty, great author, lots of information about author and works. KEEP. Fudgeloch 00:15, 12 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 redirect per WP:COJONES by Ohconfucius ¡Orale! Tubezone 20:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roberto Cofresí Ramírez de Arellano

Roberto Cofresí Ramírez de Arellano (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Reason Kornkidpr 04:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC) There's an article already about this subject.

Speedy delete - copyvio from [5]. So tagged. MER-C 07:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with the speedy delete. I'm not convinced of the copy vio. See discussion at page. --Kevin Murray 08:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's completely verbatim. Do pay attention. MER-C 08:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Don't be in such an overpowering hurry. You might cite the source of the copyvio so that others can work with you on this. --Kevin Murray 08:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete is a cut & paste from here. Article marked for spedy as copyvio. SkierRMH,08:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep This article has been rewritten to remove copyvio. I think it is an interesting story and seems to be easilly referenced to the source of the original article and expanded. --Kevin Murray 08:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Roberto Cofresí. Redundant redundancy. The closing admin may want to delete the article to flush out the page history. MER-C 08:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per above --Kevin Murray 08:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close Redirected per WP:BOLD. Ohconfucius 08:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Close Per Ohconfucius. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexpressionism

Sexpressionism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Looks like Neologism definition of a style of art, used by only one questionably notable artist. No indication it's a widespread school of art, or a widespread term. Fan-1967 05:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete neologism Alex Bakharev 05:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete dumb. JuJube 06:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. Doczilla 07:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - nn neologism, 90 ghits. MER-C 07:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I concede to the neologism. Go ahead and delete. I am still learning the wikipedia ropes and I thought that, although it is indeed a recently coined term, it would still be considered relevant/worthy based on the fact that people are interested in it. rebecca 08:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Rebecca, while people may be interested in it, it appears to be very much a niche form of art - and if it has only notability within certain circles, then it really needs to be a bit more notable than that. Delete, on account that this only has very limited notability. --Dennisthe2 09:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment.

_ _ I note that i suggested that some of Rebecca/Undream's related work "Reeks of n-n and the need for self-promotion" in my ProD of an intimately related article, before i learned of

_ _ her claim to be married to a colleague & apparent sympathizer of Steven Johnson Leyba, or

_ _ the deletion of her absurdly fantastical, nearly fact-free, and "reknown"-claiming WP autobio.

_ _ (Was i wrong in not responding to her claim that

...for you to say that creating an article about him and his work is akin to "self promotion" is completely unfair and also completely untrue, as I am not him

bcz i assumed that i'd have merely been rubbing salt in the wound if i had said this?:

_ _ Encouraging promotion of yourself by those who are trying to break the same new ground that you are, or by your or their lovers or leisure-time buddies, is clearly self promotion.

_ _ The same effect results from one's failure to make it clear to those same people that their doing it (even without your approval) is a bad thing, because it would make you reek of a need for self promotion, or for what is indistinguishable from it, and thus reek of lack of notability.)

_ _ Also note that her claim to me to be

still learning and fine tuning my wikipedia skills

may be disingenuous in light of her nearly 200 edits starting 2 full years ago, and

I am more than willing to rectify any technical mistakes

may be at least weasel-wording in light of her blanket rv 24 minutes earlier (re Leyba, the apparent principle exponent of Sexpressionism), where i

_ _ added {{ProD}}, which she was of course entitled to remove (-- i naively suggested she leave it in place while addressing my criticisms, and in order to perhaps forestall its nomination to AfD by a third party which in fact came about 2 hours after her reversion.)

_ _ retained (only) in comments, with suggestions on how to possibly make them acceptable, various instances of tangents, unencyclopedic vagueness, lack of verification, and predicting the future, and

_ _ made, indeed, technical corrections (that she discarded) like lower-casing "Beadwork" and un-wikifying the self-link that she should have remembered was implied by lking to the Rdr that she also created.

--Jerzy•t 19:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Notice: The same principal (or at least major) contributor's work is the subject of these AfDs:Template Template:Rebecca (or User:Undream) AfDs initiated by Jerzy•t 19:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

2007 January:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Kasner, actually 4 AfDs on one AfD sub-page, including also
   1. Stephen Kasner WORKS: 1993 - 2006
   2. Dwid Hellion
   3. Scapegoat Publishing
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Johnson Leyba
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexpressionism

Long closed:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Kasner

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note that the article was substantially improved after the delete comments were made on January 8, and that all subsequent comments have favored retention of the article. John254 00:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And Chaos Died (1970) Novel by Joanna Russ

And Chaos Died (1970) Novel by Joanna Russ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This is a book review, not an article, and the content, whose first paragraph is a knee-jerk reaction to my original prodding, speaks for itself. JuJube 06:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. Doczilla 07:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Even with some revision, the article remains poorly written, inappropriately titled, and short of citations for claims it makes. Rename And Chaos Died. Article authors need to read a lot of other novel articles to see how they are titled and written. Doczilla 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • In fairness, there are no "article authors" apart from the newcomer who created it. The rest of us are just some people who've pitched in to do some quick cleanup of an article on a notable topic. One of those people (not me) has had Featured Articles for fiction-related articles, so it might be better not to make such comments about other editors but just concentrate on the problem at hand. Metamagician3000 06:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. An article on the book based on reviews from reliable sources, etc., may be encyclopedic. This is not. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - I only needed to read the first two words to reach this conclusion. Blatant violation of WP:NOT. MER-C 07:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Book reviews <> encyclopedic content, massive POV problems. SkierRMH,07:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - re-written version, with note to move to And Chaos Died SkierRMH 21:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. But user is new and unwelcomed and probably unaware of our policies. --Groggy Dice T | C 08:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Keep and move revised version. Good work, Metamagician! --Groggy Dice T | C 20:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, pick one from WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV. Budgiekiller 08:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 12:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete under WP:NPOV and also it might be a copyvio. HOWEVER my vote is to keep if someone rewrites this as a proper article per other articles on novels.Keep revised version which now is a properly formatted novel article, albeit it still needs expansion. The article needs to be moved to properly formatted namespace if it is kept. 23skidoo 12:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 17:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above _SUBWAYguy 17:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOR.-- danntm ^T _C 20:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I removed the first paragraph to the talk page, as it was a rather unsightly self-reference to wikipedia policy and process and not a part of the encyclopedic article. It remains on the talk page, where discussion about an article belongs, reserving the main namespace for an encyclopedic discussion of the topic itself. Wintermut3 22:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Against the tide keep - notable book by one of the most famous and influential science fiction authors of her era. The fact that the article is currently in poor shape does not entail that it can't be cleaned up and otherwise improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metamagician3000 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I am not against an article called And Chaos Died; but this article is not it, and makes an unlikely redirect to boot. JuJube 04:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, why not try to rescue it, if you agree it's a notable topic? I've had a preliminary go at it, but I'm not inclined to do a lot more if my work is likely to be deleted. But tell me why what is there now is not the beginnings of an acceptable article? Metamagician3000 13:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry for forgetting to sign earlier. If the article is kept, it will, of course have to be moved, but that's easy. I'm pleased to see some more work has been done on it. Metamagician3000 00:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep revised version. Once this AfD is concluded, the page should be moved to And Chaos Died, per standard naming practice. I have added two external links to establish the notability of this book, which as a Nebula nominee should be solid. Anville 16:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep revised version, per User:Anville. There is already a Joanna Russ article and some (but not all) of her books have articles. I don't know enough to compare notability of her different novels, but feel that this one is at least a contender to have its own article. Note that there are five print articles commenting on her work in the reference section of The Female Man, so there are people who feel this work is significant. EdJohnston 19:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm withdrawing my nomination text since the article is much better now, but I still think it should be moved to And Chaos Died and this nonsensical redirect deleted. JuJube 20:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly about the move (and hey, redirects are cheap). Anville 20:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• keep on the basis of an excellent cleanup and sourcing, it now comports to wikipedia standards. Wintermut3 22:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article is now renamed to And Chaos Died, the way it should be. (Since the nominator has withdrawn the AfD and people are changing votes to keep, I figure this shouldn't derange anybody too seriously.) {{cn}} tags have been replaced with cite.php footnotes. Anville 02:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep revised version, substantially improved article - it needed challenge - but the article is much better now and for a notable genre piece of literature. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Consistent with our standards for books. I notice the nominator withdrew the nomination. DGG 07:08, 12 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kay Toliver

Kay Toliver (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Article is a resume/CV with a commerical site link and person does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability (people) test. Was previously tagged with Template:db-bio and with talk page entry but both were removed. —  AjaxSmack  07:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:HOLE. MER-C 07:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Should be kept. WP:HOLE should be burned. Sadly, this will be deleted, of course, although an encyclopaedia that included Ms Toliver would actually be a tremendous thing. Yes, I know. It would be big. Thinking big is not a sin though. Grace Note 07:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Though the COI issue makes me reluctant, I think I have heard of her, she appears in a lot of black media. Also, the Peabody Award for the Good Morning, Miss Toliver documentary checks out. --Groggy Dice T | C 07:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, but - in the true spirit of incrementalism - no objection to re-creation when Wikipedia reaches the size suggested by Grace Note (or even a slightly smaller size - just bigger than it is now). Grutness...wha? 08:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not assert sufficient notability or provide references to reliable sources. However, WP:HOLE is a horrible guideline that contradicts everything from WP:N to WP:CSB - just because you've never heard of something doesn't mean it's not notable. --70.72.19.133 09:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as there are 20-30 Google News Archive stories, some about her specifically, and some 30 Google Scholar results. Should be sufficient for an article despite what's behind paywalls. --Dhartung | Talk 09:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Dhart. -Toptomcat 12:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Including Toliver seems to be really stretching the boundries of notability. But on the other hand, is it really a bad thing to give good teachers some attention? --Lee Vonce 17:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The "boundaries" of notability are defined by our guideline WP:BIO as:

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. There are other potential criteria but this is the basic one. Being a teacher may not seem like much, but being a teacher who is nationally recognized with multiple profiles by non-local media over a period of more than a decade is pretty much the canonical exception. --Dhartung | Talk 04:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Per Dhartung, notable and verifiable. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep seems to be encyclopedic GB 03:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
• Keep, passes WP:BIO and is encyclopedic, that the person is “only” a teacher is not very relevant for this. Alf photoman 20:43, 9 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 Stephen Kasner is kept, need to be verified by citations. Dwid Hellion deleted and redirected to Integrity (band), the others were deleted by other admins previous to close.. Teke ^(talk) 02:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Kasner and Related Works

User:Undream is the primary author of several interesting articles. User claims to be the spouse of artist Stephen_Kasner who's best friend, Dwid_Hellion, has a claim to fame of being a contributor to Stephen's book Stephen_Kasner_WORKS:_1993_-_2006 published by Scapegoat_Publishing.

Stephen Kasner

• Unreferenced and unsourced, WP:CITE.
• Less than 11,000 unique google hits and less than 800 if you exclude myspace and wiki articles. Zero news hits. Seems to fail WP:NOTE
• If written by his spouse then WP:COI comes in to play, as well as WP:NPOV

Stephen Kasner WORKS: 1993 - 2006
Unreferenced and unsourced, WP:CITE. Less than 30 unique google hits. Fails WP:NOTE Lacks content, context, and was blanked for copyvio. WP:CSD#A1 If written by author's spouse then WP:COI comes in to play, as well as WP:NPOV

Dwid Hellion

• Unreferenced and unsourced, WP:CITE.
• Less than 800 unique google hits and less than 600 if you exclude myspace, youtube, and wiki articles. Zero news hits. Seems to fail WP:NOTE

Scapegoat Publishing

• Unreferenced and unsourced, WP:CITE.
• Less than 3,000 unique google hits none of which are remarkable or notable, Fails WP:CORP and WP:NOTE

Additionally nearly all articles indicate a massive failure to comply to many additional wikipedia guidlines. Including WP: NOT, WP:BIO, WP:RS, and WP:OR.

• Weak Delete, the article does not reflect anything that would make it under art, bio and so on yet there were independent expositions. If Strychnin can be confirmed even in a major gallery. The problems with the article outweigh the possibilities though. Alf photoman 16:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Stephen Kasner Although it needs to be verified, he appears to be notable due to number of exhibitions and independent articles, per Ohconfucius. Unsure On others. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Notice: The same principal (or at least major) contributor's work is the subject of these AfDs:Template Template:Rebecca (or User:Undream) AfDs initiated by Jerzy•t 19:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

2007 January:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Kasner, actually 4 AfDs on one AfD sub-page, including also
   1. Stephen Kasner WORKS: 1993 - 2006
   2. Dwid Hellion
   3. Scapegoat Publishing
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Johnson Leyba
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexpressionism

Long closed:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Kasner

• 'Keep for Stephen Kasner, delete for others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 07:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
• Keep - Stephen Kasner, as artist has had several shows, nationally and internationally, according to Google, and seems to be at least a marginally notable artist in the "horror art" field, if there is such a thing. Delete 0ther pages as non-notable. Badbilltucker 15:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I will go back and cite sources, etc. very shortly. I am just super busy and have been unable to do it in the past couple days since the controversy over this (and other pages I have contributed to) has arisen. rebecca 21:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pallikunnu gundas

Pallikunnu gundas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

I don't know whether the subject of the article is merely very unimportant or complete nonsense. There is nothing like any "official cricket team of KSCA"; there may or may not be a "Kerala State Cricket Cup" but even if there is, it is highly unimportant. There certainly is nobody who went on to play international cricket. Kerala has produced only two international cricketers ([6] & [7]) and neither was from anywhere near Kannur Tintin (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There's nothing verifiable here, and the absence of Google hits for Pallikunnu +cricket points to a joke/hoax by User:Nobaseballnolife. --Mereda 09:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hoax or not, we need good sources. Edison 22:52, 8 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 - crz crztalk 19:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spotbowl

Spotbowl (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

An AfD tag was placed on this article by User:Fbooth [8], however, he/she did not complete the remaining steps. Furthermore, the article's creator then created this AfD page with a defense of the article. I've left that user's comments below, and am leaving a note on Fbooth's talk page to get his or her viewpoint here. Procedural nom, so no opinion from me at this time. BryanG^(talk) 07:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As I explained on the article's discussion page, I am more than happy to make any changes needed to keep SPOTBOWL's entry within Wikipedia's encyclopedic guidelines.

In its defense, SPOTBOWL is a website that has attracted MILLIONS of hits over its three years of existence. Its presence on Wikipedia is legitimately in the public interest and addresses the long-standing trend of America's fascination with Super Bowl advertising.

SPOTBOWL's entry is no more self-serving than the entries of pop culture or entertainment-based websites like Jib Jab, TMZ.com, and others like it.

Please let me know what needs to be changed on the SPOTBOWL entry (tone, content, etc.) and I'll be happy to make the changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoffner1974 (talk • contribs)

delete from as I suggested AfD in the first place. Article sounds like it's written by website's creator. Don't think we need an entry for all websites in Wikipedia - there are search engines for that. Fbooth 08:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete already speedy deleted once at SPOTBOWL (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), which was created by the same user who has few unrelated contributions. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Only 623 total and 228 unique G-hits for "Spotbowl", but some of them seem to come from reliable sources, but some of those seem trivial or from blogs related to reliable media outlets. Thus, I'm unsure as to the iste's notability. -- Kicking222 14:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete just not notable. Nuttah68 12:34, 13 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. John254 00:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rocky Roe

Rocky Roe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Not sure this person is worthy of being listed on WP. Article is about a major league umpire where there are many others listed. See http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Baseball_umpires. and 1990 World Series which has a reference to the article. BuickCenturyDriver 07:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep He also did the 1999 Series (see the box score here). I think umpiring multiple World Series is a sufficient claim of notability. -- Kicking222 14:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Long time Major League umpire, definitely worth keeping. Citicat 16:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Stub's topic is verifiable; see [9] for Google hits that are only about the umpire and not the photographer or others. Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball doesn't appear to have specific guidelines for notability of umpires. Lacking those, I'm leaning weak delete since I'm not confident Roe meets the general guidelines of "multiple non-trivial third-party coverage". Umping World Series and All-Star games puts him on the edge of being notable enough within his sub-niche of baseball. But I'd have to see either feature coverage in baseball publications or substantial coverage in mainstream media before I could give it a "keep" !vote. Sources please? Barno 17:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Changing !vote to keep now that editors have added citations from multiple sources and added notable games that Roe umpired. Thanks for getting onto this one, folks! Barno 04:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Multiple World Series makes him notable in my mind. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Umpired in nine postseason series and two All-Star Games in a 22-year career. There are a number of umpires with articles who have worked far less in the postseason (and one or two with no postseason experience). MisfitToys 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I tagged the original version ('Rocky Roe is an umpire who calls balls and strikes at Major Leage Baseball games') for deletion but with all the extra content, this is a keeper. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 01:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  Kudos to MisfitToys for providing the details. BuickCenturyDriver 02:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable as a major league umpire; article is already well sourced to meet any verifiability concerns. Silensor 03:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep and note to th nominator The reason there are many major league umpires is that WP often includes them, and that there were many should have perhaps caused you to rethink your AfD nomination.DGG 07:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alberta Society for Asian Popular Arts

Alberta Society for Asian Popular Arts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Fails to meet the proposed WP:ORG and is also not notable, as it only handles one major event--which is notable. It is funny in how I am nominating them, because I have done work for them and still do. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 08:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - 7 unique non-wiki ghits. Fails WP:V. MER-C 08:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Farix (Talk) 22:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - A7 --Squilibob 08:15, 9 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. John254 00:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sweater_design

Sweater_design (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

The page is not encyclopedic. It is more instructional than informational, containing suggestions and ideas for design. It also contains much POV text, with phrases such as "A sweater made as a gift usually delights its intended -- but it may never be worn again if it does not serve some practical purpose." Delius1967 08:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete, while I found it very useful in selecting my next sweater, I think it probably falls short on WP:NOT #4 & #6. Nice diagrams though... Budgiekiller 08:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Sweater, which is tagged as a stub; production of the item is easily part of the main article thereof. SkierRMH,08:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Postpone vote As the main author of this article, I would like the opportunity of amending the article to conform to WP:NOT. I wrote it relatively early in my time here, and wasn't really aware of the policies. I believe that this article can be made encyclopedic, in the same spirit as architecture and naval architecture. Please give me the benefit of the doubt, in being both a sincere Wikipedian and capable of writing WP articles; for example, consider my involvement in several FA's over the past few months. I myself now see several problems with the article and its wording, but I invite everyone to discuss the article's shortcomings on its Talk page in a constructive way before proposing it for deletion. Today is a busy day for me, though, since I'm travelling; I'll do the best I can. Thank you very much for your patience, Willow 12:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Postpone AFD until Willow has some time to fix things. -Toptomcat 12:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Postpone (Man, that's a weird !vote.) The article, as it stands, could be much worse, and I'm willfully willing to give Willow the benefit of the doubt, as she seems like an incredibly strong contributor. If the article is fixed up within the next few days, let me know. -- Kicking222 14:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I note Information design, Product design, Production design, Game design, Graphic design, Automotive design, Interior design, Fashion design, Garden design and Urban design are all articles. Sweater design seems as valid a subject as any of these, and is discussed in a large body of literature. The article could certainly have a more encyclopedic tone, but this is not a criterion for deletion. TimVickers 16:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Add building design to Tim's list. This is not exactly a knitting pattern, which i would consider a how-to. The wording could be tightened up a bit to make it more encyclopedic but it seems to deal with concepts more than advice. David D. (Talk) 16:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Per Tim, but also article is sourced, and I think can be improved. --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• weak delete/ Strong cleanup, the article as it stands now is inappropriate--far too many "shoulds" and opinion statements. It's POV and not encyclopedic. However, if rewritten, it could be legitimate, so I'd say give it a chance, come back in a couple months, and if it's still like this, delete it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep Write on the article where possible, not it's deletion debate (I swear I should make that an essay or something). In my opinion deletion should be reserved for bad topics, and not bad articles. From the vast number of sources (IE dedicated magazines, with significant readerships, to knitting; college courses taught in knitting...) this appears to be a notable topic. It does strongly need cleanup, something I'm not really qualified to do, knowing nothing of the topic, but I'm confidant some editors who know more than I could make this a great article. AfD is not Requests for Cleanup, problems with voice, sourcing, POV or tone are better addressed by editing rather than nuking the article unless they are terminal and intractable flaws (like unresolvable POV definitions for lists, or nonexistant sources). Wintermut3 22:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for clean-up, there's potential here. Whilst there's no rule to quote (perhaps assumption of good faith?), a promise of clean-up from a productive contributor should count for something. QuagmireDog 23:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I am skeptical that this article could ever be encyclopedic - in other words, I don't think there is potential, but I'm certainly willing to suspend judgment.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't say any fairer than that. QuagmireDog 00:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep you'll usually find me on the deletionist side of any fence, but I don't understand why this article is on afd and not tagged for cleanup or somesuch. Techniques in clothing design is clearly an encyclopedic topic (though one that may be a victim of systemic bias) for which a multitude of reliable sources exist. True, it's not comprehensive and needs work on the tone (more on that on the talk page), but we don't delete articles because they're incomplete or need editing. I'm also a bit concerned that the nominator chose to bring this to afd despite having engaged with the author on the talk page and being directly told of her intention to work on it. Opabinia regalis 00:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is a valid topic with notability, thae article is not that bad as it stands.
• Fix Better you've never seen that vote before MiracleMat 07:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. What TimVickers said. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Postpone AFD, give main contributor time to fix highlunder 11:52, 12 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 16:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perry DeAngelis

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}}

Perry DeAngelis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

The article was created by a fan of the Skeptics Guide to the Universe Podcast [10]. DeAngelis is not notable enough for Wikipedia.

• Delete - fails WP:BIO. Wait until he/she/they find out this "article" is up for deletion... MER-C 09:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe (and de-wikilink the "Rogues"). Since Randi's involved with that weekly, it ought to be verifiable enough to stick around. Serpent's Choice 09:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'm skeptical this person is notable. Akihabara 12:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment there should be no doubt concerning the deletion of this article as is, a blank space under a REFERENCES header is slightly below what we expect here ... I'll keep my vote to see if there is anything added there by end of this AfD to make an informed judgment. Alf photoman 16:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It seems pretty obvious to me that the founder and Exectutive Director of an organization that wikipedia finds notable would be notable himself. I see no valid reason to delete this article and several compelling reasons to keep it. --Lee Vonce 17:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I know that the Rebbecca Watson (started SkepChick) article was deleted so I do not agree with you. --Timothy Clemans 20:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Founder and Executive directory of a notable organization, and host of a notable podcast. --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Articel contains nothing encyclopedic MiracleMat 08:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to New England Skeptical Society. Not really notable enough oh his own. --Havermayer 03:41, 11 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 16:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of known opiate addicts

List of known opiate addicts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Per this AfD and this AfD. Most of the sources are far from reliable, the list seems to ignore the difference between consumption and addiction, and someone will eventually sneak in a name that will make his/her lawyer's day. A liability. yandman 08:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. Ohconfucius 09:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 09:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Budgiekiller 09:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per the nom, runs serious risk of OR/POV that lands the project in trouble. --Dweller 10:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Since most of the dead are referred to as merely "deceased" and only a handful are referred to as "died of natural causes", a reader could imply that all those marked "deceased" died of drug-related problems. That doesn't appear to be the case; the first six persons I looked at marked "deceased" had indeed died of natural causes. --70.72.19.133 12:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Move to List of known opiate users and keep. The concept of "addiction" is probably contested enough that it ought not to figure in the title, but none of the cited concerns really make a case for deletion. It remains the case that quite a number of people, from Samuel Taylor Coleridge to Rush Limbaugh, are known for having taken opiates, and there is no good reason not to have a list of them. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Move and Keep as per Smerdis of Tlön. This is an extremely good article, one that I can see being used a lot. However, I admit that someone needs to sort out those sources, but they are not so bad that it needs to be deleted. The most drastic change would be to delete everything that is not sourced reliably. J Milburn 17:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This has absolutely GOT to be the most fatuous, useless, incomplete and unreferenced list in the whole encyclopedia. What does "known" mean? There are literally millions of opiate addicts known to the appropriate medical services. Is there quoted, compelling evidence that the living people on the list have been, AND CURRENTLY REMAIN, addicted? This has got to be an absolute happy hunting ground for any Lawyer/attorney with an ounce of get-up-and-go. Remove it before a lawsuit bankrupts us.--Anthony.bradbury 22:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Even if the title were fixed, this would still not be encyclopaedic. GassyGuy 22:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, each entry is well sourced. If you want to change the title from "addict" to "user" I would support that POV change because of the negative connotations of the word "addict". Also notice that each entry has an article in Wikipedia already, and this in not a telephone book list. This is less subjective than the "alcoholic" list, everyone has a drink, but not everyone uses opiates and mentions it in an interview, is arrested for possession, or dies from an overdose. I agree deceased is not a good label. for dead people the birth and death year would look better. An an overdose tag added for those that died of an overdose. Also an arrest for possession would be a good tag. Also note no one has mentioned a specific Wikipedia rule that it is in violation of. The list is verifiable and isn't a telephone list or a memorial. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As I recall I voted keep last time because there's some historic/cultural significance to opiate use, moreso than most other drugs. However I'm no longer sure this is the best way to deal with that. Maybe "opiate use in history and fiction", or something, would be better. As a list there might be too great a risk of non-notable or libellous additions.--T. Anthony 23:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd add though that on reflection I'd have a slight problem with "opiate users." Opiates are historically significant for pain management and are still used on occasion. When I was in intensive care I had to use an opiate for pain once or twice, but I did so as little as possible (less than the doctors wanted) as it made me feel strange. Still I could be classed as an "opiate user", if only for a brief time, but I find that notion vaguely absurd or unuseful. If you switch to "opiate user" could you somehow make it clear this is recreational use?--T. Anthony 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. These lists are a minefield both legally and practically. How much opiates must be comsumed how frequently to qualify? Is use at any point in the subject's life enough? Too subjective and unencyclopedic. Should meet the same fates as the alcoholics list. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 23:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete which the entries are largely verified, albeit from questionable sources, the scope of the article is unencyclopedic and arbitrary.-- danntm ^T _C 00:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete can o'worms, and per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information and legal considerations among other things. Dragomiloff 00:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Sources are highly dubious at best. Bulbous 03:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unclear scope (former users who've quit? People for whom it isn't known if they're still using? "Known opiate addicts" is a lawsuit waiting to happen there.) Way too much potential for abuse, OR, or some malicious idiot to slip in libel, and inherent WP:NPOV problems (who is an "addict", what makes that "known"?) Seraphimblade 15:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Move to, well, that is a problem, "List of known opiate users" might indicate they are still using the drugs, which at a given time might no longer be true. A better name, someone? highlunder 11:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and move per J Milburn -- Karl Meier 01:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete give the huge potential for WP:BLP problems and trouble deciding on the right scope, I don't think this can be salvaged. People's opiate use and additiction can be covered in their own articles. Eluchil404 02:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avidian (2nd nomination)

Avidian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

non-notable company. Prior nomination was no consensus. Two votes in favour of keeping were the creator, who claimed he would expand it, and someone who gave its notability as "growing exponentially" without evidence. However the article remains little more than an advertising stub with no assertion of notability. Akihabara 08:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Edison 22:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as a non-notabale company. Bigtop 23:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This can always be recreated at such time as interested parties can give it time and attention. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 03:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• delete, it clearly is not notable at this time, as it doesn't seem notable enough to attract attention from those who know something about it.DGG 02:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• delete per nom. Pete.Hurd 03:12, 13 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 snowball keep. Although I still stand that the article in its current shape is hopeless. `'mikka 22:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racial antisemitism

Racial antisemitism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Del POV fork of anti-Semitism. E.g. who told that pogroms or Dreyfus Affair or lots of other things copycatted here were specifically racial? In the case of Russia, this is plain false. `'mikka 09:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep how's this a POV fork? It is a common knowledge that antisemitism went through religious and racial phases. The Dreyfus Affair was one case of racial AS, The Holocaust was a culmination of racial AS. Those who perpetrated the pogroms or fought rootless cosmopolitans did not make any difference between Hasidim, Mitnagdim or Atheist Jews. They were "saving Russia". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Whatever anti-Semitism was, I am saying the article is a POV fork, erroneous, too. How come pogroms were racial in Russia? They made no distinction simply because there is no difference in their distinction from "true" religion of Russian ORtodoxy. "Rootless cosmopolitans" here is deep confusion altogether. Not all Jews were "rootless cosmo". But this page is not place for discussion. Why Dreyfus Affair was specifically racial? It makes sense to separate anti-Judaism, but anti-Semitism in general is inseparable mixture of racial anti-Semitism, religious anti-Semitism, economical anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, and xenophobic anti-Semitsm (did I miss something?). I see that the whole topic slowly converts in a mess of heavily overlapping essays. `'mikka 09:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Your considerations, mikka, are ill-informed original research. Racial antisemitism was one of the stages of antisemitism, which originated in Germany in the 19th century (even though it had a precursor in limpieza de sangre) and found most supporters in Germany and Austria. Please do at least some research on the topic before making bizarre nominations. Beit Or 11:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree with mikka above that these topics may be too inexorably intertwined for this kind of binary race/religion article split. Indeed, the article in question seems to do a poor job at staying within the lines, as it were. However, I don't think that deletion is a good solution. The content is not the problem, per se; the presentation is the problem. Because of the nature and sensitivity of the topic in general, I suggest taking the issue to the main anti-Semitism talk page (or to a topic RFC if that goes poorly) to determine how best to split off subtopics (which is necessary to keep a readable length). Serpent's Choice 10:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Does this answer your question: "Modern European antisemitism has its origin in 19th century theories—now mostly considered as pseudo-scientific—that said that the Semitic peoples, including the Jews, are entirely different from the Aryan, or Indo-European, populations, and that they can never be amalgamated with them. In this view, Jews are not opposed on account of their religion, but on account of their supposed hereditary or genetic racial characteristics: greed, a special aptitude for money-making, aversion to hard work, clannishness and obtrusiveness, lack of social tact, low cunning, and especially lack of patriotism." ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I'm quite aware of the concept of racial anti-Semitism. I know some of its origins, and even a little about its history, although I wouldn't pretend I could write a quality article about the topic without a lot of library time. However, the current article we do have doesn't seem to focus on the topic either. The article makes no assertion that the Dreyfus Affair was motivated by race rather than religion (I'd like to see some supporting citations here in particular, as it contradicts the Dreyfuss affair article rather directly). Our article on the pogroms includes a substantial quote from the Occidental Quarterly that indicates an economic, rather than racial, motivation. And the closing conspiracy theory section also makes no real distinction; Protocols is arguably religious anti-Semitism (see especially Protocols 14, 17, 23) or anti-Zionism, rather than being motivated by race. In general, the article does little to demonstrate (rather than state) that the topics discussed involve differences between racial and religious anti-Semitism. Again, though, I'm not suggesting deletion is the answer here ... but this article needs a lot of work to support what its trying to say, and so the nominator's position is understandable. Serpent's Choice 11:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Humus. Mikka, pick a random scholarly text on antisemitism to find out what racial antisemitism was. Beit Or 10:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't you think I didn't run google for the phrases "racial anti-semitism" and "racial antisemitism"? My nomination is based on the content of the article, which I see as POV fork. And I can name quite a few wikipedia editors that may vouch that I am not an anti-semite or holocaust denier or else. Of course I may be mistaken. And all of you to, by the way. `'mikka 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg
• Keep per Humus. Concept seems legitimately separate. -Toptomcat 12:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This article discusses a well-known phenomenon. If anything, the nominator here is PoV, maybe pushing a point. -- Chabuk <sup>[ T • C ]</sup> 14:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am pusthing a point. And there is nothing wrong with it as long as I don't edit/write an aritcle. PLease learn to understand this important distintion. We all are entitled to our POV. If a person does not have a POV, he is in a BIG trouble. Now, my POV is that the article arbitrarily conflates events under one cliche. In fact, it significantly duplicates non-religious parts of old article, therefore I recognized it a fork. `'mikka 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Humus GabrielF 15:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Paradoxically, I see this dissection into separate kinds of anti-Semitism as dilution of the unique phenomenon which anti-Semitism is. I am surprised that adult people fail to keep in mind that if you meld several things together, you get something unique that cannot be described as a sum of of the components. Even racial anti-Semitism of Hitler was rooted in economical/"class" anti-Semitim. At best, the article could have sense if it were written in the style "racist aspects of anti-Semitism". Let me give you an analogy. A magnet has its north pole and south pole. But there is no such thing as "north magnet" or south magnet" (yes, I know people are looking for monopole and yes I know all analogies are false; I am presenting it not as a proof of something, but as a demonstration that inseparable issues do exist, and they must be treated with clear awareness of their inseparability). `'mikka 17:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't oppose renaming it into Racist aspects of antisemitism. The article Antisemitism grew too long and it was broken (not by me) into subarticles. Let's discuss at talk how to improve the entire series, but IMHO, AFD is a wrong way to go. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect If there's anything of value in this article, then it can be merged with the main article on anti-Semitism. I don't see any valid reason to have a separate article based on a semantic quibble. Isn't "racial anti-Semitism" still "anti-Semitism"? --Lee Vonce 17:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The distinction between religious, racial ("modern" or "classic"), and ideological (or "new") antisemitism is one that many scholars adhere to. We have one article that explores antisemitism in general, and other articles that explore the variants cited by academics. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:04, 8 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 16:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Johnson Leyba

Steven Johnson Leyba (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Artist performing and promoting an obscure method of painting that seems to only be notable within a small niche crowd. Notability not asserted beyond a single magazine article. Bunch of indie press, but it's questionable insofar as that goes. Dennisthe2 09:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:BIO as far as I can tell. MER-C 09:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, as far as mainstream goes the article fails WP:BIO, the question is if within his circle there is a certain amount of notability if not notariety Alf photoman 16:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment relating at least as closely here, copied from where i first placed it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexpressionism, regarding the same principal contributor.

_ _ I note that i suggested that some of Rebecca/Undream's related work "Reeks of n-n and the need for self-promotion" in my ProD of an intimately related article, before i learned of

_ _ her claim to be married to a colleague & apparent sympathizer of Steven Johnson Leyba, or

_ _ the deletion of her absurdly fantastical, nearly fact-free, and "reknown"-claiming WP autobio.

_ _ (Was i wrong in not responding to her claim that

...for you to say that creating an article about him and his work is akin to "self promotion" is completely unfair and also completely untrue, as I am not him

bcz i assumed that i'd have merely been rubbing salt in the wound if i had said this?:

_ _ Encouraging promotion of yourself by those who are trying to break the same new ground that you are, or by your or their lovers or leisure-time buddies, is clearly self promotion.

_ _ The same effect results from one's failure to make it clear to those same people that their doing it (even without your approval) is a bad thing, because it would make you reek of a need for self promotion, or for what is indistinguishable from it, and thus reek of lack of notability.)

_ _ Also note that her claim to me to be

still learning and fine tuning my wikipedia skills

may be disingenuous in light of her nearly 200 edits starting 2 full years ago, and

I am more than willing to rectify any technical mistakes

may be at least weasel-wording in light of her blanket rv 24 minutes earlier (re Leyba, the apparent principle exponent of Sexpressionism), where i

_ _ added {{ProD}}, which she was of course entitled to remove (-- i naively suggested she leave it in place while addressing my criticisms, and in order to perhaps forestall its nomination to AfD by a third party which in fact came about 2 hours after her reversion.)

_ _ retained (only) in comments, with suggestions on how to possibly make them acceptable, various instances of tangents, unencyclopedic vagueness, lack of verification, and predicting the future, and

_ _ made, indeed, technical corrections (that she discarded) like lower-casing "Beadwork" and un-wikifying the self-link that she should have remembered was implied by lking to the Rdr that she also created.

--Jerzy•t 19:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Notice: The same principal (or at least major) contributor's work is the subject of these AfDs:Template Template:Rebecca (or User:Undream) AfDs initiated by Jerzy•t 19:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

2007 January:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Kasner, actually 4 AfDs on one AfD sub-page, including also
   1. Stephen Kasner WORKS: 1993 - 2006
   2. Dwid Hellion
   3. Scapegoat Publishing
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Johnson Leyba
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexpressionism

Long closed:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Kasner

• In light of the above notices, please be advised that I was unaware of these. Please assume good faith in this regard, and remember that deletion of this article is without prejudice to recreation: if the subject(s) meet WP criteria, they can be recreated. --Dennisthe2 22:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Also, she is promoting her husband's work, so it's semi-self promotion ,which falls under my "NO VANITY" rule. MiracleMat 08:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note per AfD Wikiquette — The accusation VANITY should be avoided [11], and is not in itself a reason for deletion. Tyrenius 18:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A WP Policy guideline at WP:COI states that articles which are a conflict of interest (a PC way of saying vanity articles) are AfD worthy if they fail notability guidelines. Such as this and is exactly what that user argued since he also said "as per nom" and the nom was based on notability issues. --Strothra 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
My strikethru and bold in the preceding signed contrib is to correct blatant misinformation (this is quickly verifiable beyond doubt) asserted as fact.--Jerzy•t 23:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not questioning "per nom" but "vanity". Please read AfD Wikiquette.
--Tyrenius 20:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strotha's input sounds (i haven't consulted that specific page beyond the box at its top) like as serious a misreading of the page as is their confusing a guideline with "Policy" (casing as in original). The clearly marked guideline on conflict of interest needs revision to correct a serious fuddlement if it says or means what Strotha attributes to it: with (at most) very few exceptions, lack of notability is reason for deletion without further requirements, and CoI is of interest on an AfD only to the extent that need to rely on sources with a CoI suggests non-notability. If Strotha has given a reasonable interpretation of the page, evidence of that should be posted on WP:VP Policy pg), for the widest possible discussion of how to avoid giving others the same impression.
  --Jerzy•t 23:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  

• I think you're both trying to say the same thing, or at least it ends up as the same thing. Tyrenius 01:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:BIO. --Strothra 19:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -no indication that the subject in question passes WP:BIO. Reads like promotion. Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The nom's "small niche crowd" is actually composed of internationally renowned figures, namely HR Giger, Genesis P-Orridge, and William S. Burroughs. This article needs facts such as list of shows, e.g. at the Museum of Porn in Art, Zurich[12] and the LA show Vaudeville Flesh,(click artists) his books and the video documentary on him,[13], (the latter shown at the 4th Independent San Francisco Film Festival)[14] performances such as the Spoken Word Festival in Stockholm,[15], published texts by him [16] and where he is mentioned such as New York Foundation for the Arts' Arts Wire Current.[17] Tyrenius 20:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darkmists

Darkmists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable online RPG. Article lists unencyclopedic in-game concepts without establishing any notability Percy Snoodle 10:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:WEB. No alexa rank. MER-C 13:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Edison 22:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement, language used isn't objective. McBrain 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

-McBrain, it's interesting how you say that the page is an advertisement when you have added 7 entries yourself to the Dark Mists Wikipedia page. :) ArzosahDM 08:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as failure of WP:WEB, no references and no assertion of notability. It is absolutely VITAL that MMOGs, flash games and indie games establish their notability. I couldn't find any mention of awards from the game's home page either, there's nothing to go on. QuagmireDog 23:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Responses to Comments:

-MER-C, per alexa.com darkmists.org has been online since September 5, 2000. There is no ranking data evident because the contact information was incomplete before; it does not say ranking is below 100,000. I had revised the contact information yesterday and hopefully the ranking would show up properly in a few days' time (per alexa). This issue has been resolved then, and if we look at existence online, it's been more than six years.

-Edison, I am sorry, but the remark "Delete per nominator" is not helpful and does not contribute to this discussion on whether the entry about an RPG MUD should be deleted. From your remark, there is no specific reason/direct explanation given on why it should be deleted or what any contributor could do to make the entry "more notable". "Delete per nominator" is simply agreeing with the nominator's viewpoint. This is not a "voting session" but a "discussion page".

-QuagmireDog, what do you think a text-based MUD could do to become "notable"? What content should we be referencing? We have stock classes/races as well as our own unique blend. Our areas are mostly original, though. Should we include a listing of all our areas (close to 300 of them) and indicate the full names of the builders for originality? There is no mention of an award because our players came to the game by word of mouth originally, and it is only recently that we have explored marketing more over the internet.

For the record, the original contributor of the Wikipedia entry is "SweetAndy" one of our players and not a game administrator; therefore his comments are not for self-publicity. There have been additions to the page from other players and then the admin staff from a few days' ago.

Dark Mists has been in existence since 1996. There have been other text-based MUDs whose entries have been retained. I have looked at their sites... there are no mention of awards and no other references listed other than their own website or forums, even unofficial ones created by players. I have also looked at their alexa.com ratings and some of them show "No Data" as well under "Traffic Rank".

We would work with the reviewers in resolving the notability issue if there is concrete detail that could be provided as to why this page entry should be removed from Wikipedia.com, keeping in mind that we are speaking of a text-based MUD where players log-in to assume a medieval fantasy role, interact with others socially or have player-versus-player combat with one another in a more traditional fashion, and not a graphical MUD where players log-in to be "entertained" per se, visually. Overall, I feel the remarks all fall under the category of "This page should be deleted because it ought to be deleted.", especially stating the term "unencyclopedic". ArzosahDM 05:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• The 'concrete detail' has already been provided. The article does not pass WP:WEB, the guideline used to judge notability of web content. "This page should be deleted because it ought to be deleted" was not the assertion, WP:WEB was linked twice already and you've obviously seen them since you've replied to myself and the other contributor who cited it.
• Notability is shorthand for external review and/or observation. Non-notability is not shorthand for "this is crap" or "we need more in-universe info", it's highlighting the lack of sources. Coming to WP and seeing something you're involved with personally described as non-notable can easily feel like a personal attack and a negative judgement on the quality of the subject. That's something I can quite understand, but it isn't the intention, it's just Wikipedia terminology for something which hasn't demonstrated outside attention within the article itself.
• WP is a tertiary source taking details from secondary sources to provide details for articles. Without secondary sources the article is not providing a rounded picture of the subject, nor is the article doing something which hasn't been done by elsewhere by Darkmists and its fans.
• Articles stand or fall on their own merits, that other MUDs which appear to be in the same position are listed here has no bearing on this AFD process, see WP:INN for details. There's nothing to stop such entries being listed for AFD at any point, just that nobody has had the time or inclination yet.
• A notable award, of some sort, would have passed one of the criteria for WP:WEB. Other things which would help would be reviews, reports etc. from folks not involved with Darkmists. Those outside reports would also have to come from a reliable source (see WP:RS). If yourself or anyone else finds something that seems to come from a reliable source then please provide it for discussion. The other criteria (distribution through a well known source) doesn't seem to apply. QuagmireDog 08:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this ASAP. While I am an administrator at this game and in general like the idea of having a Wikipedia entry for our game, this entry is being used as a verbal war in public by a few players who have bad attitudes toward the admin of the game. (Reference http://newdarkmists.16.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=491) It is a waste of our time and yours to be attempting to maintain an objective look at this entry. ---DM Immortal, 1/11/2007 noonish
  • Comment if you regard this as an "attack page" you could suggest speedy deletion under criterion G10 - Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile") - by putting {{db-attack}} at the top of the article. However, it would seem that ArzosahDM contests the deletion so it might be better just to let the AfD run its course. Percy Snoodle 13:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Actually, Percy Snoodle, my contention of the deletion was made prior to recent disparaging entries. ArzosahDM 10:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Days of our Lives Actors and Characters

Days of our Lives Actors and Characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Delete incorrectly capitalized, newly created article that is redundant to the cast list in the Days of our Lives article. Wryspy 11:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, not sure it is incorrectly capitlised, but it's redundant due to the fuller list here. Budgiekiller 11:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• I meant the "Days of our Lives" bit, not the "Actors and Characters" bit... silly me. Budgiekiller 17:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 13:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete redundant article. Edison 22:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Delete this cruft before aliens land on our planet and wisk some poor fool away because they watched some 'historical documents' about this nonsense MiracleMat 08:06, 9 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, although redirect created per nom's suggestion. Cool Hand Luke 23:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Shawn Donovan IV

Andrew Shawn Donovan IV (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Delete and redirect into Shane Donovan and Kimberly Brady. Article about minor, minor character that was a soap opera baby with no other real contribution to the series' history and disappeared from the show. Even the character's own mother, who had once been a prominent character, does not get her own article. Wryspy 11:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - soapy cruft. Not notable. MER-C 12:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, even in the pretend world. Nuttah68 12:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — per violation of WP:N and WP:CRUFT. Wizardman 19:37, 14 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 concensus, default keep.. Teke ^(talk) 02:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arnie Ginsburg

Arnie Ginsburg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Article written in informal tone by user with no other contribs, claims to fame are unreferenced and look like hyperbole. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless citations and sources are included so the whole thing affirms notability Alf photoman 16:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, there seems to be more to the article but I am not yet convinced as to WP:BIO Alf photoman 11:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tape recorded DJ shows were common in the 1960s, such as Dex Card. No sources. Edison 22:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Added two sources, you can find more on google just by searching for Arnie Ginsburg Woo Woo or Arnie Ginsburg Boston. Apparently many of the old bands credit him with breaking them into the scene nationally. See what else I can dig up. Article needs work, hope it was prod'd for a while before being put up and that Guy at least did a google search first. Just to note he is highlited in two other articles for radio stations he had an impact at. --NuclearZer0 03:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Make that 4 all together, lots more but had to make sure they were RS / V. This guy is known as one of Bostons most recognized voice from the 60's apparently. --NuclearZer0 04:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Just added another ref of his career afterwards, became General Manager of 2 other stations before becoming a partner of WXKS/KISS FM then owner of WVJV-TV. When WVJV-TV sold to the Home Shopping Network he went back to being a president of Pyramid Broadcasting. --NuclearZer0 13:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I just have to point out that if you want an example of a DJ who really did help bands to break out, then John Peel is your man. Guy (Help!) 14:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should research Ginsburg he is often credited with bringinng London to America. I believe one of the article I cited mentions that. --NuclearZer0 14:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Also if you check the "what links here", from Arnie Ginsburg you can see he was credited with breaking the track "Louie Louie" by the Kingsmen also sourced in the Arnie article and you will see how popular he was and notable. He is also mentioned in a host of other radio station articles for his popularity. This seems like a dead issue, notability is obviously established. --NuclearZer0 15:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Deveraux, Jr.

Jack Deveraux, Jr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Delete article about a soap opera baby that is not a character to warrant its own article. Character did nothing but be a baby and has left the show. Might redirect to Jack Deveraux. Would not merge because what little information is in Jr.'s article is unsourced and possibly unreliable. Wryspy 11:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 12:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Edison 22:42, 8 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 16:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Keller court martial

Adam Keller court martial (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

No relevance at all, the one who wrote this article is Adam Keller himself. He keeps advertising himself everywhere although he's irrelevant. This is just one of thousands of trials against military evaders. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 11:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this vanispamcruftisement Guy (Help!) 12:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 12:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, yes WP:VSCA applies well here. Budgiekiller 13:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the person himself is far from irrelevant, as the spokeperson of an important radical left organization. Google search gives 650 hits in hebrew, a lot of them from israel's three general daily newspapers.

The trial was the subject of a lot of press interest at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.218.190 (talk • contribs)

This is not true. It did not have a lot of press interest, and those 650 hits - almost none of them are from Israel's three general daily newspapers. Even the ones who are from there, are mostly talkbacks mentioning him and not part of the article. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 17:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Yes, WP:VSCA clearly applies to this article.--Anthony.bradbury 22:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Possible violation of WP:AUTO, fails WP:V. Caknuck 23:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, apparent vanity article. Dragomiloff 00:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete just a simple, unimportant court-martial.-- danntm ^T _C 03:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Let's keep it. It's good and important (but can be improved)

Johnbibby 22:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep until it is clear whether the case did "have a lot of press interest" or not. It is probably impossible to find the articles from the time on the internet today, so somebody from Israel should go through the paper archives... And of course, the article must be purified and more NPOV.--Ioannes Pragensis 15:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Until citations for notability can be provided. JASpencer 11:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at this, Adam Keller certainly seems notable in himself so I think a more appropriate response would be to Rename to Adam Keller. The only article I've found from an independent source is this one in the Guardian so it's not notable in itself. JASpencer 18:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

JASpencer 18:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If I may something for myself: I did write this article. I don't think that it is a "vanity" article, I think that the content is of general interest. It is not just "one of many court martials". As far as I know, there had not been in the Israeli armed forces' history another case of a soldier while on military service writing political graffity on 117 tanks and other military vehicles, and I don't think there were many such cases in other armies anywhere. About press coverage: I can certainly mention for example, a two-page article in "Hadashot" newspaper, which I well remember because the Prison Commander and his officers saw it before me (the officer charged with censoring prisoners' letters brought it to his office before finally delivering my wife's letter to me). And there were several articles in other newspapers, both new reports and commentaries. Adam Keller 13:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete — per all. Wizardman 19:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep — The court martial itself was notable and covered in the Israeli and Arab media at the time (before the papers went online). Kellner's act was probably ineffective, but notable and shows that Israeli society and military do not soley consist of settler thugs. Abu ali 20:27, 15 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 16:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheri Florance

Cheri Florance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Tagged {{db-bio}} but notability is asserted. Adjunct professor, does not appear to pass WP:PROF at a quick glance. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, which has nothing to do with Ms. Florance but with the ill manner in which the article is written. needs a complete re-work. I'll keep my vote to see if something happens before the end of this AfD. Alf photoman 16:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I do not feel that she passes WP:PROF under present guidelines. I am happy that she was able to educate her autistic son, but so have very many other people, both academics and non-academics.--Anthony.bradbury 22:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'm suspicious that parent1 is Cheri Florence, supposedly the discoverer of the "Florence Syndrome," and her amazon reviewer are certainly mixed. Static Universe 16:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Q0 08:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• strong keep: Cognitive therapies have significant implications for the rapidly growing autistic community, and this author evidences keen insight from a learned perspective. Ombudsman 08:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I am in the field and have never heard of her or her methods which look distinctly fringe to me. She has not published in scholarly journals since the early 1980s, as far as I can see. I was also a bit disturbed to find a new link to her page on the Speech therapy page, and seems like links have been spread around other autism related articles a fair bit. It looks a bit like advertising to me. --Slp1 12:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete First time in ages I've voted to delete a professor. But she has only two articles in PubMed and is clearly not notable as such. BUT is she perhaps notable on the grounds of popular authorship? DGG 07:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity/ad. JFW | T@lk 23:54, 13 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 Cool Hand Luke 23:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jos Oehlen

Jos Oehlen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Delete article about artist with no indication of notability. Being the relative of a non-notable filmmaker (see AfD for that Oehlen family member's article) does not connote notability. Doczilla 11:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:BIO, no independant verifiable sources. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 01:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• 'delete It is rare that I delete an artist, but unless someone finds unexpected information, this really does not meet minimum standards.DGG 02:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — Fails WP:BIO, WP:N, and there's probably no hope in improving this article to achieve notability. Wizardman 17:30, 15 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 16:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smita Jaykar

Smita Jaykar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Tagged {{db-bio}} but notability asserted. Nothing to back the claim, though. Guy (Help!) 12:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:BIO. I slapped {{db-bio}} on her to begin with. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, cleaned it up a bit, added link to IMDb profile. She played in 40 films, so she definitely pass Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions criteria from WP:BIO. Can't find a good bio of her, and even her DOB. Probably, some Indian wikipedians can dig more information on her? MaxSem 13:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, the article needs a lot of work and a lot more sources to avoid nomination after nomination as AfD Alf photoman 16:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable Bollywood actor. Eluchil404 02:48, 14 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suz Andreasen

Suz Andreasen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy deletion but not unambiguous. Sources seem weak and trivial (see article's Talk), author has an apparent conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 12:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete References do not establish notability though they may for her parents. Because of the apparent conflict of interest we clearly need reliable sources justifying notability. Akihabara 12:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- Based on conversations with the article's creator, this person sounds like they are notable, or at least it's a good possibility, and the guy is only just learning about Wikipedia at all, but the article was sent to AfD within 7 hours of its creation. Here are some sources I dug up after a quick google search: [18], she's written 2 books, including Dreaming the Future, reviewed by USA Today, and a couple online sources, not to mention her jewelry designs being profiled in the two books mentioned in the article. And there are a lot more hits out there, and surely the author knows about more. If this doesn't convince you she's notable, at least I hope it convinces you we should give the article a chance here. Mangojuice^talk 13:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • And, let me note, I think there is no conflict of interest, based on WP:AGF and this post from the creator on my talk page. Mangojuice^talk 16:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Keep and nominate."

Suz Andreasen is a prominent American artist in the field of Jewellery Design as well as publishing/writing and music. There are hundreds if not thousands of links to her work on google. Not many photos of her as she is shy about having her picture taken but this should not be relevant. In primary sources like text books and art books I have a few dozen which is a great deal consider she is only 42. She is in major museums, showed at SOFA (this is no small feat I can tell you in the world of functional art) and here is the link: http://www.sofaexpo.com/NY/2006/fact.htm. All of this and more makes her a notable person. I included her parents in the article because her father, who invented memory wire, was exposed to toxicity and got Multiple Myaloma and died when she was only 20. It was under his encouragement that she pursued metalsmithing. Her mother, who is a noted scientist an author was also mentioned because it was through Nancy that she learned to write. These are only there because of her background - not as any form of nepetism as Suz Andreasen does not need it as she is entirely notable in her own right through her works which are easily found. Also, if is sometimes important to include geneological background when a number of notable persons come from the same family. Example: Rembrant Bugatti the sculpture was the son of Carlo Bugatti the Car designer.

It appears that under this category of Jeweller Designers, more individuals are needed and good editors as well. Since I am a PHD student at Bard College in the curatorial dept, I can tell you definitively that this individual should be nominated. As Mango said, there are hundreds of primary resources for her life's works, it is just a matter of handling the article in a way that is appropriate and meshing that with the given category.

That being said, I will note that in this category I see alot of inconsitencies. Example: Efva Attling From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Efva Attling, was born in Stockholm, Sweden in 1952 and is well known today for being an avant garde jewellery designer. In the early 80's she played in the band "X Models" and released the hit single "Två av oss" (Two of us) her passion for design continued by working for Levi's and H&M before in the mid 90's staring her own distinct line of jewellery. Today top celebrities from Madonna to Jennifer Aniston and Kylie Minogue have all been seen wearing her unique designs. She lives with Eva Dahlgren, popular Swedish pop singer.

In my assesment this designer Efva Attling has less under her belt than not only Suz Andreasen, but many other designers I would like to see included such as Dorie Nossiter, Archibald Knox, George Jensen, JAR, - the list goes on and on. This person, Efva is included as a person of note, seemingly because she has Madonna as a client. Ms Andreasen is a couturier for Oprah Winfrey but I did not mention this because I felt that in a scholarly approach, this should not be the primary argument.

So, please illimunate me as to how and why the various designers who are listed under "Jewellery Designers" are there as opposed to the person I am currently working on who seems to have more credentials than most included on Wikipedia with the exclusion of Picasso and Lalique?

Thanks, Archie Martin

Archiemartin 16:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, not because the article fails in quality the person does in notability. Having won a few prestigious national awards is certainly enough for WP:BIO, but that article needs a lot of work. If it survives this AfD it will be nominated again next month if it does not improve Alf photoman 17:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep

In rebutt to Alf photoman this is not a weak keep. When you say that having a few prestigious awards is not enough, you should then release and not keep most of the jewellery designers you have under your heading of Jewellery Designers. Further - this person is of note - not only because she has won prestigious natiional awards but because of her work in areas of arts - publishing, music as well as functional design.

Archie Archiemartin 18:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• (struck keep !vote, duplicate) Mangojuice^talk 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Article is well written, and referenced enough to start, and the person seems notable enough as well, and does fit WP:BIO. Ganfon 22:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Author is well versed and subject is well known. Seems like simple math to me. DrregusDrregus 23:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Simple Google search suggests notability in that realm of expertise. JuJube 02:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable enough. --Wetman 20:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to fit WP:BIo and author seems a good writer.jamjam207.237.49.43 06:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep tho perhapos it should count since I think was the one who removed the speedy tag. But I did so on the basis that she might be notable, and it would be worth a debate. I'm glad to find out that, under the cooperative checking of an AfD, that she apparently is. DGG 07:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep The editor has to flesh this out considerably. Until I read the talk page, I was fairly underwhelmed. It was not at all clear to me that this person was particularly notable. I now think she might be, but I am somewhat puzzled that the editor was not able to get more information about the subject in the article, given that the editor apparently knows the subject personally. Compare this biography to other biographies on WP and use them as a guide for how to convince us of notability.--Filll 14:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Response to Weak Keep:

I suggest that perhaps the last post was underwhelmed because the editor does not have expertise in this area and I have been basically hammered to death about NOT going on more about the subjects personal life nor my insights as that would not be in keeping with WP:BIO. I have read all of the bios in this category and quite frankly, with the exception of Lalique, I was not only underwhelmed to quote Filll, but also feel that I have done en excellent job at editing this. If you look at my edits, I have done now more than 40-50. I am more than happy to add more but at this time, I would like to see not only a little more support from editors to keep, (especially those who know about functional art and design) but also a little less waffling here. The rules are the rules. I am following them to my best and to the letter. So - once this is put up, and the consensus period is over, (which is should be soon and we seem to have a consensus that it should be kept) then I am more than happy to elaborate further on not only her, but other designers I have knowledge of either through research or personally - dead or living. Let's try and be a little supportive here. We do this in our spare time. I love doing it, but editorial rules must be followed and I have done that. ArchiemartinArchiemartin

• • (struck keep !vote, duplicate) Mangojuice^talk 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Solid Keep Seems to fit WP:BIo and author seems a good writer.bernardolaBernardola

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

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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 01:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guido Caldarelli

Guido Caldarelli (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Deleted via WP:PROD, contested and restored. Normally I leave AfD nomination of contested PRODs up to the original PROD nominator, but as that was an anon in this case, and probably won't receive a message, I'm breaking my usual rule and doing a procedural nomination.

The PROD justification was "Likely failure of WP:BIO and WP:AUTO". Abstain for now. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, Mr. Caldarelli should easily pass WP:PROF. My problem is that the article itself is pretty thin and someone should do some work on it. Alf photoman 16:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I am familiar with Dr Caldarelli's work. He meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criteria 2, 3 and 5. He has contributed to scale-free networks, assortative mixing, Complex Networks and the stable marriage problem. Oxford University Press commissioned him to write a definitve guide to scale free networks, which is now in press. Thomas Fink 19:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Like Caldarelli, Thomas Fink is a self-promoter. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criteria 2, 3 and 5. Bernhard Kenner 12:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Less than 50 edits, mostly to stuff related to Thomas Fink for some reason. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As to Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The content (and the lenght) of the page is appropriate to the page subject ruvido 12:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Single-purpose account. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete self-promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Student life and culture at MIT

Student life and culture at MIT (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy as spam, but not really spam as such. Subject might be savable, but probably not. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I actually rather like the idea, and MIT is not exactly West Hickville U. If any institution merits an article of its type, it does. -Toptomcat 12:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - no reason why this can't become a good article, and might be better than having separate articles for each notable subject that this could cover. Tarinth 14:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The MIT article is undergoing FAC review and the length of some sections warrant sub-articles to explore topics in greater depth. These sections had previously been home to linkspam and in-line external links, this page is meant to provide a forum for these to be worked out rather than the main MIT article.Madcoverboy 16:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This university is clearly notable, and this is a sub-topic of the university, no reason why it can't be improved.

--SunStar Net^talk 17:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I see nothing wrong witht he article. A most I can see a case for a merge, not a deletion.Ganfon 22:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• merge - I agree with most of the above but I don't see it as a reason for this to be its own article --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Though it needs a more apt title, and there's no section on "tooling" (no, that's not the same as "being a tool") Bwithh 05:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and create similar articles for other universities. This is where information about choral groups and similar organizations can be collected. Fg2 07:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Per the above. Why was this article created with the speedy tag already on it? Nationalparks 01:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge DOn't see why this needs its own article. The Placebo Effect 22:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There is enough encyclopedic material to be included. -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 14:34, 12 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, along what Bluerain said. I'm recreating a redirect to Aga Khan, as most of the information is referenced there. Teke ^(talk) 02:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aga Khani

Aga Khani (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy on the grounds that this is a pejorative term and not a real sect, but that's not really speediable. Needs more eyes. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Nizari? -Toptomcat 12:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The only verifiable section is Incumbent Imam which was copied directly from Aga Khan. -- Aylahs ^(talk) 15:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Article violates WP:POVFORK by using Aga Khani to refer to diminutively to the Nizari Ismaili community. It undermines WP:NPOV by imposing unbalanced, incomplete and imagined ideas in the beliefs section. Finally, the name Aga Khani qualifies this article as libellous since its content could justifiably be considered defamatory by the Aga Khan. -- Aylahs ^(talk) 15:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as POVish fork of Nizari Ismaili. A search turns up non-pejorative use of the term, so perhaps a mention in that article. --Dhartung | Talk 15:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per the above. - Merzbow 04:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Why delete

It seems to me that if there is a google search that shows and confirms the term Aga Khani than it should be mentioned. Most of the Pakistanis know the followers of Aga Khan as Aga Khani so 140 million people according to the user should be disregarded. Maybe as in the artice on nation of islam there is a link to the criticism of Nation of Islam, than a similar link should be placed for Nizari Ismailis

trueblood 03:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment We certainly don't need a separate article on it if it's just going to be a fork of Aga Khan or Nizari Ismaili. Aylahs or someone else who would know, is this term one that would be incredibly offensive if we just redirected it to Aga Khan? It's obviously a real word, so it would be a good idea to redirect it somewhere just so that in six months, this doesn't come up again. But if that would be the functional equivalent of redirecting a racial slur to the article on that race, there's no real need for it. --BigDT 04:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  It is not a racial slur, but the term is used in pejorative reference to the Ismailis. It is conceivable that it could also be used out of ignorance, so the redirect is a good compromise. I agree with Bluerain's arguments below - the article should be deleted. -- Aylahs ^(talk) 05:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I second Aylahs... Pakistan govt. also considers Qadanis to be non-Muslims. Surely it cant be called a WP:RS. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 05:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ismaili. TruthSpreader^reply 06:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• 'Aga Khani' refers to Nizari Ismailis (for whom the Aga Khan is the current Imam), which already has an article, so there's no point in it having a separate article. While having a redirect may seem harmless –– (1) the term is something that arises out of ignorance; it is never used in an academic setting which makes it unfit for an encyclopedia, (2) the community does not refer to itself as 'Aga Khani'; if anything, it is considered pejorative by members of the community. (3) people searching for 'Aga Khani' might as well search for 'Aga Khan' and come across the same thing – so having a redirect doesn't serve much purpose. Hence, Delete. --Bluerain ^talk 17:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Article's name Aga Khani is clearly pejorative, therefore inherently biased, violating WP:NPOV. Scoutfinch07 19:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources found about Aga Khani Miks110 20:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Hi All. The term Aga Khani literally means of Aga Khan in Hindi/Urdu. A rough translation would be Followers of Aga Khan. Though I don't know much about the sect, you can rest assured that it exists. The other term used to describe the members of the sect is Ismaili. I am not sure if Aga Khani sect is an offshoot/part of Ismaili sect or not. The above information was confirmed by one of my muslim friends, who is not an Aga Khani. Sorry for not being much help. I'll post more if I find more about it. Mahalo! --Vikas Kumar Ojha _{Talk to me!} 23:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete The term Aga Khani is favoured by extremists who falsely claim that the Ismailis believe the Aga Khan to literally be God. They use the term to spread false information about the community's beliefs and practices and encourage their persecution. It is a dangerous term, conveying a very narrow point of view. By its very name, this article would lend support to extremist propaganda. Cimm^[talk] 23:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep As with Nation of Islam which has both sides, why is Users here getting so upset as in Nation of Islam there is a separate section of their beliefs. So there is nothing wrong with having this article. Aga Khan followers in India and Pakistan use this term to identify themselves so it is proper.trueblood 05:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• It seems to me that as in Nation of Islam Article there is a link to critism of Nation of Islam where the other side is also listed could be a proper compromise so both sides have their opinions listed. why not do the same here. An insert a link to a new article where the other side is also told

• Strong Keep* In todays world we in the United States see bombings between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq and than witness all kinds of individuals stating that they are the main stream Islam, while in fact Mainstream muslims who constitute over 99% of Islam in Shia and Sunnis but people dont know who to look at. In fact, if one is to look up the suicide bombers it is clear that most of them are members of a sect that follows extremist views such as going to heaven by killing innocent people, while vast majority of muslims are clearly opposed to this. In order to understand Islam and the mainstream Islam it is incumbent upon the editors to have these cults and sects in one section where it is all for see what these small sects really beliveve in. For instance, the Qadianis claim they have 200 million followers while in fact they have less than 10 million members, the Aga Khanis are less than 5 million members, the Nation of Islam maybe one half million, these sects are not mainstreams.

Just as in Christianity there are the cults such as David Koresh's Branch Dravidians, and the Chritian Identity up in Idaho, those cults do not represent mainstream Christianity, and these cults are listed separately. If one is to look up th Encyclopedia of American Religion, Fourth Edition by J. Gordon Melton, The Encylcopedia lists every single religion in America, including each of the cults mentioned in this article. Thus to delete this article would be unfair.

In fact it would be the same as deleting on the Nation of Islam article the critisms of Nation of Islam. In fact if one puts up anything in the Ismaili article the users who are followers of that particular brand of Islam call it vandalism, while in fact it is a viewpoint which is different than that held by the followers. In one instance a statement was added to the Wahabi sect and a user from Israel objected, eventhough, I doubt very much that Israelis have a very deep understanding of Wahabis, the user called it vandalism, while in truth and fact the United States Government and in particulara the FBI has stated that Wahabis are extremists and that the 9/11 hijackers were all wahabis and that Osama Bin Ladin proclaims himself to be a Wahabi, but the reference was deleted as being untrue and as vandalism.

Here if one is to listen to the argument put forward by the adherents of the view that Islam is a pluralistic religion and all are accepted, than we would not be witnessing over 90 dead bodies in Iraq everyday. In fact my own nephew who was with the 4ID in Iraq was a victim of the cultish violence, in fact he won a purple heart for his bravery. We have to identify the cults in Islam so that the world can see that these cult followers even with their billions of dollars who have bought our Government in Washington, do not in fact represent Islam.

Obvioiusly, the Mormon cultist who was marying off 12 year old girls also did not consider himself to be a cultist. If only the viewpoint of the particular follower of the cult or sect are listed than Wikipedia cannot be called an Encyclopedia but rather a proponent of only the views of the sects or cults that want to propogate their own viewpoints.

I hope that the editors are mindful of the viewpoint that to make a complete encyclopedia all viewpoints must be published.

Thanks for taking the time to consider the above.

• Strong Keep
• keep To me, deletes which seem to have some relationship to bias and POV on a religious topic are an indication that the article must be kept, DGG 07:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.Proabivouac 04:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The arguments made against the deletion of this article express personal bias and emotional appeal, and are based on hearsay rather than fact. The facts are clear:
  • This article contains no reliable sources. Reliable sources - scholarly or otherwise - favour the term Shia Nizari Ismaili Muslim or simply Ismaili over the pejorative Aga Khani.
  • The term Aga Khani is a reference to the Nizari Ismaili Muslims. Wikipedia already contains a well sourced, NPOV article on that topic, so this article is inherently a POV fork due to its pejorative name.
  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda; for example, this article cannot arbitrarily declare the Shia Ismaili Muslims a cult.
  • Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or inventions, such as what appears in the beliefs section of this article. It contains false and misleading claims, including some statements that could be considered libellous by the Aga Khan.

The facts demonstrate that it is impossible for an article bearing the name Aga Khani to exist without breaching Wikipedia's cardinal policies of maintaining a neutral point of view and being verifiable. Additionally, with the libellous invented statements about so-called beliefs, the course of action is clear. I stand by my assertion that this article be deleted, and further request that it be permanently protected against recreation. -- Aylahs ^(talk) 08:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to User Aylahs

Former members of this cult or sect have numerous websites that say the same thing, I have not seen the Aga Khan file a defamation suit anywhere in the world to say that these are false. Every cult in history has said that anyone who says anything about their cult or sect is clearly libelous, see former members of the Church of Scientology or Branch Dravidians or now Aga Khanis.

Everyone says the same things. So to put forward both views is what Wikipedia is all about.

trueblood 19:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• ,,,Strong keep,,, I reside in New jersy, and hear their are many Aga Khani people. This page gives in depth inside on the history and present day Aga Khani people OIA819
• Strong keep genuine sect. KazakhPol 07:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — It needs to be expaded and cleaned up, but it's a real sect and therefore does not merit deletion. Wizardman 17:21, 15 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, no merge needed for the company information as non-notable.. Teke ^(talk) 02:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BSW Data

BSW Data (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Tagged as speedy A7 but ocntested. Minor firm bought out by Plessey. Not much evidence of independent significance. Sources are not good. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable enough to meet WP:CORP. Budgiekiller 13:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Plessey. Not worth an article on its own, true, but I don't see why we shouldn't keep the information and the link. Tevildo 16:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I looked through the sources available online and could not find any articles where BSW was the subject. Thus, the company appears to fail WP:CORP. At most, it might be worth a slightly expanded mention in the Plessey article.--Kubigula (talk) 22:55, 10 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, delete, delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of band names containing a repeated word or phrase

List of band names containing a repeated word or phrase (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

List of arbitrarily selected things which match an arbitrary criterion. There is no encyclopaedic topic band name containing a repeated word or phrase. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete delete Per Guy. This list has no real purpose. --Folantin 12:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete delete - listcruft that is useless, arbitary, indiscrimiate, arbitary, indiscriminate useless listcruft. MER-C 13:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC) MER-C 13:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• DDeelleettee per above. Budgiekiller 14:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Mmm... crufty! -- Kicking222 14:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and move to BJAODN. Listcruft, and certainly not useful - suince there is no encyclopedic topic that links to it. --SunStar Net^talk 17:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - purest listcruft. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete! Delete! Seems crufty even to folks in Walla Walla and Bora Bora. Edison 22:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GassyGuy 22:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-encyclopedic. Extra deduction of style points for neglecting Rise Robots Rise. Caknuck 23:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Delete List serves no purpose. QuagmireDog 23:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete oh, no, no, no -Doc^g 00:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Cute but pointless...and I noticed one was missing: Wet Wet Wet. Shame, shame. Wavy G 00:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Duran Duran, I mean Delete Delete JuJube 02:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopedic listcruft. —ShadowHalo 05:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this nonsensical cruft and any other article such as list [blah] with multiple vowels MiracleMat 08:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not an encyclopedic topic. VegaDark 21:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Herostratus 05:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• If you must, but how interesting there are so few. Rich Farmbrough, 22:16 11 January 2007 (GMT).

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby Ballistic

Bobby Ballistic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Tagged {{db-band}} but notability is asserted. Looks iffy to me, mostly direct-to-download tracks. Does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC Guy (Help!) 12:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I tagged it. Where do you think it asserts notability? P4k 13:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy A7 per P4k. No assertion of notability that I can see. Tevildo 18:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under A7. I don't see the assertion of notability either. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 03:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 06:10, 9 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, fails WP:BIO. Teke ^(talk) 02:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Arichea

Daniel Arichea (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Tagged {{db-bio}} but notability is asserted. No idea whether being a Methodist Bishop in the Phillippines counts as notable, though. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless independent sources are quoted by end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 02:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voyager (Australian band)

Voyager (Australian band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Tagged {{db-band}} but notability is asserted. Only appears to have one album which is produced by anyone other than themselves. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 06:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete lacks the number of releases, news articles or anything else to meet the WP:BAND requirements. Also a conflict of interest creation by a single purpose account - Peripitus (Talk) 06:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• comment this should include Daniel Estrin, currently a redirect to Voyager (Australian band)Garrie 03:30, 11 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. John254 01:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Two Witnesses

The Two Witnesses (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy as empty but is not. I would say this is excessive treatment of a single mention in a single verse of the Bible. "The two witnesses" is not a widely discussed topic, I think. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. A Google search of "two witnesses revelation 11' yields over 1.5 million results. The "two witnesses" are the subject of much discussion amongst the "End times" movement. The article as it stands could use a substantial rewrite, but it is a valid topic. The Mob Rules 14:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per TMR. -Toptomcat 14:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - seems reasonable. Article really needs improvement though. Virtually any significant character or concept from the Bible is probably notable (with the possible exception of names that appear solely in begats). Compare to other minor mythological characters like Charybdis. Tarinth 14:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The answer to systemic bias is to have more information about other things, not to delete stuff about Christianity.--Doc^g 00:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless article is completely rewritten by the end of the discussion period. As of now, this is completely unreferenced OR. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• 'Keep and rewrite we can record scholarly interpretation of this passage, and there is no doubt plenty of notable tinfoilhat end-times garbage to make up the difference. --Doc^g 00:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Book of Revelation; doesn't seem to have potential as an article on its own without walking all over WP:NPOV. JuJube 02:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The two witnesses are important characters in prophecy and should have a separate article, they also occur in fiction as well as in Revelation. True the article needs quite a bit more work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs)
• Keep I'm one of the researchers of the article - I'm an educator/administrator in the public high schools here in California - also, I maintain several web sites which deal with eschatological issues (small traffic, around 15,000 hits per day or 1,000 visitors per day) - Now, what I have done here is to elicit some input on the topic - a topic that is exceedingly significant in the scheme of eschatological-biblical subject matter (It will NOT be a waste of time and interest . . . the exposure of this topic will be staggering - you wait and see.) I intend to bring scores of authors, theologians, etc. into the arena. Not only will it involve Christians of all stripes - but the nation of Israel and those of Jewish ancestry - the "theological history" of this topic is staggering! Therefore, I, along with a number of others will input into the topic - and, I am pleasantly surprised that no one, up to this juncture, has dared to enter into this most significant eschatological topic: THE TWO WITNESSES - who they are (from a wide-variety of propositions) and why, when, and where they will accomplish their witness. Bear with me - by the time this is completed, it will have geo-political ramifications of immense priority - and it will be fair and balanced in its presentation (viz., objective). Thank you for your indulgence - I/we hope to have all the material integrated into the topic within the week. The "Two Witness Crew" (all 10 of us!).... and, incidentally, it is not completely unreferenced as one critic amongst us all alledges - grant it, it's exceedingly brief - but those of you "in the know" realize we've got an elephant by the tail! Let's be reasonable - why do you think there are over 1.5 Google responses on this topic - is not that sufficient? I think so. Frankly - if the "Left Behind Series" can sell upwards of 65 million copies - and, now the video games - there is an immense interest here! This topic was presented by me at a joint Christian-Jewish seminar as a "paper" and was originally accepted in several theological journals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.129.87.139 (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
• Comment They are certainly important figures in a massive religion. However, if all that's written about them is this one nebulous paragraph then I fail to see how an entire article could be written about them without a bunch of speculative nonsense and lists of "people who know what it means." Quadzilla99 04:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Given that the article appears to be being rewritten on a daily basis, I suggest that any AfD discussion be postponed for 7 days, to give the author an opportunity to have reviewed a coherent and complete-as-possible version. -- Simon Cursitor 12:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep without prejudice per User:Simoncursitor and rename to The two witnesses or Two witnesses of Revelation. This is a major topic in Christian eschatology. I'm sitting here googling in stunned disbelief that there isn't already an article on this topic under a different name. Obviously, this article is far from being something useful at this point ... but it would be nice to see it through. --BigDT 04:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I thinks that there is not necessity to delete by the article of the encyclopedia.--Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions) 05:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I realize that the "enthusiasm level" of this article will increase with time, along with efforts to alter the research presentation prior to its completion "within the week" which we have promised, prior to commencing on the project. The nature of Wikipedia in a project of this nature needs a bit of patience - and, since we are somewhat new to this, we appreciate the help - especially on designing appropriate links that are less "sightly" (perhaps "down below" would be better - help:}) - we've included another section on the religio-politico ramifications of the Two Witnesses - Note: We've capitalized the topic purposefully for effect; however, in our opinion, to not do so would "diminish" the topic. thanks for everyone's patience! "The Originators of the piece." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kriegerdwm (talk • contribs) 06:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
• Merge with Christian eschatology or the Book of Revelation. I have a hard time seeing a complete, independent article without OR. Pastordavid 00:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, both the old and the better, new version. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:52, 12 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; this probably needs to be revisited to see if the hopes for improvement will have materialized. ~ trialsanderrors 08:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity and Buddhism

Christianity and Buddhism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Delete— has very little information and is unnecessary given the articles on Christianity and Buddha. Why combine these two religions into an article?. — RunningAway 06:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This article was nominated for deletion on 25 October 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.Please see the deletion debate at [19] The content has been the subject of a harsh revert war recently and most of it recently blanked. Please look back through the history of the last several edits. There is a long scholarly history of comparative religion, taught at major universities, comparing the doctrines and beliefs of Christianity with those of Buddhism. This is an important and encyclopedic topic, but the article is obviously undergoing a polemic edit war. Those who have studied comparative religion should take a look at the article and use Wikipedia edit policies, and perhaps RFC to straighten out the POV edit warring going on. Keep the article, perhaps bring disruptive editors under control using the tools available. There is clearly information relevant to the interaction of Christianity and Buddhism that is better located here than in the two separate articles. Edison 14:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep strong correlation between the 2 religions
• Delete this is just indiscriminate waffle and is going to be POV and OR hell. Can I just pick any two political or religious topics and give them a joint article? Makes for a good essay, but a rubbish article. We can record the field of Comparative religion elsewhere.-Doc^g 00:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Looking back at the article history, this is either going to be a permanent stub or a messy collection of OR. Tevildo 02:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Although it is a pale shadow of what the article should be, there is a good potential in this topic if it can be written with NPOV. GB 03:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Comparison is inherently OR. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 03:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and every reason after a delete vote. If you're going to write an article of this magnitude, make sure you have something to say first. MiracleMat 08:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• keepA good article on the comparision of Christianity to buddhism could be written. Article has good potential.--Sefringle 03:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as OR crap— OLP1999 04:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Wikipedical 05:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see anyway to write this article without extensive OR. Further, I'm not sure what it could add that is not already in the Buddhism & Christianity articles. Pastordavid 23:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep Once more I see possibly religious reason why it may be desired to delete the article; there are other artticles comparing religions, and there is even some historical connections. DGG 07:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Comparative study between Buddhism and Christianity is historical and there is a lot of existing information out there on the subject. Interest in the subject is both academic and practical, as some people practice a mix of traditions. The article could be greatly improved if references are used and it is written from a NPOV. Dorje 23:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — If the information is important in the article than jst put it in the Christianity and Buddhism articles. Wizardman 17:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dora the Explorer (Canada)

Dora the Explorer (Canada) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This is the exact same article as the main Dora the Explorer article. -- azumanga 00:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This was copied into place by hoaxer User:Topper113 on a day when the articles he created weren't, frankly, complete bollocks. Vashti 18:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per nom. G3 or G6. Tevildo 16:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (Canada) as duplication. QuagmireDog 23:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Take off, eh I was expecting subtle differences, like in this version, Dora uses the metric system and drinks LaBatt's. But no. It's the same thing. Wavy G 00:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Beauty delete per nom. JuJube 02:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. —ShadowHalo 02:15, 9 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. John254 01:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hugo de Garis

Hugo de Garis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

It's not clear that this person is significant or notable; No details are given about significant achievements or contributions to society. There's no sign of any sort of peer-reviewed publication or widely available or known work, or of anything significant that he's done or produced. Earlier versions of this article were speedily deleted as they made no attempt to claim significance for him. As it's just being recreated each time, I thought it best to bring it here to see if others shared my view or not. Mnemopis 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Recently interviewed on BBC's Horizon ]]):[20] and presented as one of the two leading futurists (the other one was Ray KurzweilHe also seems to have a fair number of articles published and some web-pages about thim. Just google "Hugo de Garis". --Denoir 04:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

List of peer-reviewed publications:[21] --Denoir 04:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep although some of the language has an "in universe" appearance and the references are messed up, seems to meet WP:BIO. Note, a comment visible below is actually from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inertialess drive, at least until DumbBot or somebody can fix it. --Dhartung | Talk 15:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, notable in the AI field, should easily pass WP:PROF but urgently needs work cleaning up those references. Alf photoman 16:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable individual, published, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cardsplayer4life (talk • contribs).
• Strong Keep notable and published, also is WP:PROF Example 1 for The Artilect War. And per third sentence of article. Meets WP:BIO as the primary subject of multiple verifiable independent sources. The article's history goes to 2002, it is not in the deletion log. skip (t / c) 08:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep important AI researcher M Alan Kazlev 12:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable and published --Denoir 16:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep clearly notable; perhaps the nominator was put off by section 3, about his theories. This section needs rewriting in an encyclopedic way, but that is no reason to delete. DGG 07:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Thomale

Jessica Thomale (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

It's not clear that this person is significant or notable; No details are given about significant achievements or contributions to society. There's no sign of any sort of peer-reviewed publication or widely available or known work, or of anything significant that she's done or produced. I thought it best to bring it here to see if others shared my view or not. Mnemopis 22:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No assertion of notability. One Night In Hackney 03:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, the only useful reference I could find was an entry in The Impact of Unique Meteorological Phenomena Detected by the Oklahoma Mesonet and ARS Micronet on Automated Quality Control (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) where she receives an acknowledgment as system operator. If there is more please include it by end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Being mentioned in passing as a system operator (per Alf) isn't notable. The article's only claim of notability is that her tornado forecasts "helped save many lives from highly-effective advance public warnings." While I hope that warnings never kill me, the verifiability policy requires content to be verifiable through reliable sources. If no BAMS papers or newspaper feature articles back up the "save(d) many lives" claim, we're left with nothing notable enough for an encyclopedia article. See the WP:BIO guideline. Barno 17:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There is nothing in the article that is verifiable, or indeed, has any reliable sources, so there's nothing left to make this an encyclopedic article. --SunStar Net^talk 17:24, 8 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 Eluchil404 02:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lemon Creek, Staten Island

Lemon Creek, Staten Island (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This is apparently just a stream. Doesn't claim to be notable in any way...however, there may well be articles on far less exciting streams than this in Wikipedia. WP:NN Montchav 00:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Staten Island. No claim of notability. Google search for "Lemon Creek" "Staten Island" verifies its existence but shows nothing more significant than "the most this'n'that on the south shore of Staten Island". Like all creeks near populated areas it's had water drawn from it and it's been polluted a bit. WP:NOT a directory, a travel guide, or an indiscriminate collection of information. If locals can document that the creek or the adjacent park have more than minor local significance, that can be added to the parent article. Barno 17:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article make explicit claims of notability, and should be kept along with all of the other geographic features of New York City. As usual, WP:NOT is being misinterpreted to mean "anything that I think should be deleted". Alansohn 08:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Please identify the "explicit claims of notability" that you see in the article. Neither at this writing nor twelve hours ago did I see any content that claims importance or coverage that would meet any notability guidelines. As usual, notability guidelines are being misinterpreted to mean "anything that I think should be kept". I can identify at least thirty streams along which I've hiked in the last year, none of which merit WP articles despite being geographic features of New York State, Pennsylvania, or Virginia. Barno 14:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• keep Any remaining open waterways inside large cities are possibly notable: they are so few and so precarious. Should be verifiable. Alansohn is right, and that anythin gtends to be things relating to cities and science and art, which do go together (smile).DGG 02:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Poss[i]bly notable", "should be verifiable": Yes, well, I tried using Google to see whether it is notable and is verifiable, and I didn't find any of the first three pages of hits to be substantive and independent coverage that showed any distinction or any impact on culture. About the biggest thing was a local notice of hearings on water rights. If there's anything meeting WP's general standards, I didn't see it. If this is a place notably "relating to cities and science and art", that hasn't made its way to newspapers and magazines. In other words, please demonstrate that it has been noted in reliable sources, don't just handwave without evidence. I don't have my mind set against including this creek's article, I just need to see something that meets WP standards. If "open waterway inside a large city" is a claim of notability under some policy or guideline that I haven't seen, please point me to it. Barno 21:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I've just done a large expansion and referencing of the article. Given its local status (only freshwater marsh in Staten Island, has only colony of purple martins in NYC, former importance of oystering industry at mouth) and the sources I've been able to find, I think it should qualify for a separate article under WP:LOCAL. Choess 07:29, 13 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 per WP:SNOW. Mangojuice^talk 14:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes

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

This page has no meaning on WP, therefore, I have proposed it for deletion. If there is any objection, please state it on my talk page Thanks! Kaspazes ^talk 11:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Internationally successful animated cartoon which has a feature film spinoff. List is thorough, complete and well formatted. If we delete this then we should delete other episode guides e.g List_of_simpsons_episodes, List_of_Friends_episodes. Yorkshiresky 14:14, 8 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 as a neologism- that is what the article is based on. Teke ^(talk) 03:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mamacita

Mamacita (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep: Don't agree with reasons stated for deletion. Atom 13:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Did I miss where "Atom doesn't like the nomination" became a speedy keep criterion? I'm thinking it's not. GassyGuy 23:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless a major clean up is carried out. Mallanox 03:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as part of the general resistance to nominator's recent crusade to purge WP of sexual slang he doesn't care for. Otto4711 16:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Not a neologism, a standard Spanish language word, dimunitive of mama, fairly wide distribution in English. The article is beyond a dicdef, although it could be expanded further... Cheech Marin used the word, and that was about 30 years ago (mamacita with the bony knees) ;-) Tubezone 20:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Close to 800K ghits seems to negate the WP:NEO argument. For what it's worth, OutKast also has a song by the same name, which reinforces the term's cultural relevance. Caknuck 22:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This one isn't really going anywhere beyond a dicdef and proof of usage. One could write a similar article about "sweetie pie" or "sugar lips" or other terms of endearment. I'm not sure how the fact that it's a word and it gets used makes it notable when that argument could be made for any word. GassyGuy 23:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This one is just a dicdef, and unlikely to proceed beyond that. Tevildo 02:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Bad faith nom per Otto4711. Well-known enough term, but article needs to be properly sourced. Ohconfucius 03:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Lovey dovey" is also a well-known term. "Sweetie pie" is a well-known term. "Chump" is a well-known term. "Hijo de puta" is a well-known term. Do they merit their own articles? No, because, like this one, they couldn't really expand beyond dictionary definition status. What else is there to be said about "mamacita" beyond further examples of usage? It's just a word, and all this does is give various denotations. GassyGuy 04:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

After re-reading the article, I see that you have a point, and have withdrawn my vote. However, it does not discount the fact that the nominator reveals his motivations with his/her themed AfD discussion which appears to target sexual slang in a manner which may be coonsidered indiscriminate. The nom does not cite "dicdef" as grounds for deletion. Ohconfucius 01:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• keep but I do wonder if we may be becoming liable to discount any nominator of even a remotely sexual subect by theis particula nominator.DGG 07:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• delete - dicdef, with some non-notable WP:TRIVIA rant about a WWF wrestler. Does anyone look up Mamacita on google in order to know more about the wrestler? All other information is just dicdef. This term isn't really sexual either, thus this nomination doesn't fit that category (i.e., in this case, bad faith nomination ≠ shouldn't be deleted). -Patstuart^talk|edits 02:05, 17 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 Merge into Ed Roth. Avi 08:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Gasser & the Weirdos

Mr. Gasser & the Weirdos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

OK, so I've never heard of them. Popular search engines neither. Was this band notable in their time? Hard to discern Montchav 00:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unverifiable. ShadowHalo 03:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Ed Roth. There are a handful of references out there but nothing really establishing notability other than that their discs are "exceedingly rare" today -- which argues a bit against it. --Dhartung | Talk 15:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Ed Roth, keeping a redirect from this title. Hot Rod Hootenanny achieved some minor notability in its time, but in general the band made much less public impact than Roth's custom cars and hot-rod-culture artwork. I'll change to "keep" if someone finds hardcopies of 1960s magazine articles featuring the band, rather than mentioning the band as a sidenote to the Rat Fink images or his kustom kars. Barno 17:45, 8 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 16:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sting's Army

Sting's Army (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This is a non-notable profesional wrestling stable. Amounts to fancruft. -- The Hybrid 06:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A team that existed for 1 PPV, not notable. TJ Spyke 07:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Aaru Bui ^DII 13:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops -- The Hybrid 14:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. cruftastic. Mystache 16:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably nothing worth merging here. delldot | talk 22:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. (nothing on that page. Govvy 15:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. One-off tag team thrown together for the purpose of a one-on-one feud. Non-notable. Normy132 06:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep and remove unsourced claims per WP:BLP. ~ trialsanderrors 08:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zakaria Zubeidi

Zakaria Zubeidi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

this article has no encyclopedic value John Hyams 15:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep certainly an encyclopedic subject, although the article could do with expansion and improvement. PatGallacher 16:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not every would-be suicide bomber requires a personal "shrine page" on Wikipedia. There are many persons on the FBI wanted list, and on Israel's wanted list, yet this fact alone does not merit an encyclopedia article. By that logic, anyone who has a link about the authorities trying to capture him/her, would be entitled of a Wikipedia page. His name can be mentioned in the main article about that terrorist organisaztion. John Hyams 06:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The text notes that Zubeidi is married with two children. How wonderful. He must be a nice guy. I imagine that the creation of this image of being a homebody is the purpose of the article itself. But why does this justify an article about him? I'm a nice father, too. Would you let me post an article about myself? Of course, I'm not a wanted criminal or murderer, either. How many articles are there on Wikipedia about wanted criminals and murderers? {{subst:signed|Zozoulia}} {{time}} 06:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now expanded the article, including some material taken from an Israeli source, with a link to the original article. This person also has articles on the French and Hebrew language Wikipedias, so it seems even some Israeli Wikipedians regard him as notable. PatGallacher 10:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not convincing at all. So the guy is also a film actor in addition to being a would-be suicide bomber? If the guy is so notable as you say, where are the references to all his terror acts for which he is so wanted?... You have added a bit to the article but conveniently avoided mentioning any terror acts, and you also linked to a another Wikipedia page that you yourself created initially. Apart from the fact that this is clearly not NPOV, i.e - a biased article, this person and his obviously missing deeds do not justify an article. And again, Wikipedia is not a shrine for promoting personal agendas. John Hyams 11:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, individual obviously notable as a top leader of an internationally recognized terrorist organization, and the "power broker" in a major Palestinian city.[22][23][24] (note: all three articles are largely about Zubeidi himself and not just the Brigades or their activities, all three are highlighted by photos of the man). This seems to be a bad-faith nomination based on a valuation of the person. --Dhartung | Talk 15:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the subject seems notable enough for an article. Some cleanup is needed. ← ANAS ^Talk? 17:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, per citations provided by Dhartung above. Notability demonstrated. Sure to be a POV-war magnet so I suggest an admin should semi-protect the article. Barno 17:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel or Palestine-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  09:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• CommmetThe hebrew article was deleted. Jon513 11:29, 9 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 cleanup (notability established) . Patstuart^talk|edits 01:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stanford Sierra Camp

Stanford Sierra Camp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

The first nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanford Sierra Camp

Pointless article. Half of the US doesn't know about this camp and Wikipedia is not a tourist guide to show what fun things there are to do at this camp. The sections are useless and small because their isn't enough infromation In one of the paragraphs it talks about John Stienbeck, a famous artist. This isn't notable enough. It's tone is better though. Carpet9 23:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:NOT an advertisement. Axem Titanium 23:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. By the way, if anybody really wants to keep the infromation I have it userfied in my userspace. Carpet9 23:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I thought this should be deleted until I started digging a bit, but it actually seems to be fairly notable as a local landmark. For example, it's covered in pretty significant detail in this article in the New York Times. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I've gone ahead and updated our article with some of the info from the NYT profile. There are other sources listed on a LexisNexis search (including big profiles in the LA Times, SF Chronicle, and Contra Costa Times), but none are free to access and I'll have to leave them for someone else. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• To clarify, by "our article" I meant the article in Wikipedia, as opposed to the article in the Times. I have no connection to the camp. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mangojuice^talk 14:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per HBWS' impressive detective work. -Toptomcat 14:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Probably Keep Except it reads like an advertisement. Their hours and rentals can be put on the camps page, rather than using Wikipedia to camp their ads. KP Botany 17:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a case for fixing the article, not deleting it. -Toptomcat 22:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. Still, it's sometimes hard to see what we're keeping when it's all an ad. I don't really see any good reason for deleting it. I sit on the other side at Big Games and still I've heard of it. KP Botany 22:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Cleanup to remove spam. Ohconfucius 03:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep "half of the US doesnt know about the camp" as a reason for deletion? -- well, that seems to assert that half the US does know about the camp, and that would perhaps make it the most notable of all camps.DGG 07:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --- RockMFR 03:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick J. Treacy

Patrick J. Treacy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Previously speedily deleted material per CSD G12; contributer asserts that he/she has permission to upload text. However, subject of text appears to fail our notability standards, and is clearly self-promotion (in violation of WP:COI). -- Merope 15:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The GlaxoSmithKline Irish Medical Media Awards may be "coveted" but they appear to hand out a lot of them and there isn't much out there except self-reporting by winners. No other real evidence of notability although he appears to have led an interesting life to date. --Dhartung | Talk 15:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatant self-promotion.--Chris 18:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no matter if self promotion or not, the article contains no references, cites or other proof of natability, probaly some NPOV problems too ... Alf photoman 20:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. NN Ry Jones 16:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep NN as a physician, perhaps, N as a medical journalist. , the self-promotion part must go. DGG 07:41, 12 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nullarbor (demo party)

Nullarbor (demo party) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability; looks to be a convention that's been around just under a year. I initially speedied it under CSD A7, but am wondering whether that really applies. Also, someone really needs to brush up on his Latin. -- Merope 15:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A few reasons nullarbor is noteworthy/important: 1. It is the only demoparty in Australia 2. It has the biggest demo scene presence in Australia. 3. It is a major part of GO3 - a very large event, including companys such as Epic, lucas arts, nVidia, midway. 4. It supports Perth's IGDA and Siggraph. 5. It is now running for its 2nd year, not 1.

Also, how is nullarbor any less/more notable than: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7DX_(demo_party) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_demo_party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundown_(party) etc...

User is well aware of the debatable Latin, but thats how people refer to it. -- Aboeing 15:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not sure what notability guidelines they fall under, but they don't seem to be notable. Also if you feel like including the other articles mentioned, make it Delete all. One Night In Hackney 15:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Not sure what criteria it falls under? Maybe you should find one that applies then? McKay 17:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete isnt notiable as per WP:NOT also WP:RS no reliable sources, Gnangarra 15:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What part of WP:NOT is it failing? I can't find anything. WP:RS is not policy. What you mean is WP:OR, it had references to other sources (admittedly not well linked, but he did link to Perth Siggraph and a quick search shows notability. McKay 17:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think the delete nominators need to check all that is linked with List of demoparties before they get too carried away. I dont support the article - because it is obvious that the red link user who is creating the article is either organiser or the actual promoter of the event! The user has not even had any editors courtesy of putting a welcome and warning about either 'advertisement' or 'original research' - the notability issue looks like a furphy - its the self penned article that someone needs to explain to a new user for a start! SatuSuro 15:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Well I've now learned an Australian slang word - furphy. I don't have that many problems with the article itself, it looks like the editor made the wise decision to make it similar to the existing demoparties articles. Admittedly it could use some cleanup, but that wasn't part of my reasoning. One Night In Hackney 16:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, user who created article is a co-organizer of the event. Yes, I am a new user, and I would be happy to put some kind of disclaimer about it or whatever. As such, I don't know how to argue whats notable and whats not, I'm not sure how to argue the 'reliablility', the event was co-organized by the australian Department of Industry and Resources, which seems to be what is required in terms of notablility? (government org), and was also organized with Edith Cowan University (academic org). Plus plenty of other organizations (ACM SIGGRAPH, IGDA, etc.) Because of the name, its difficult to assert its 'notability' independantly, (since you cant just google for nullarbor) , but google "nullarbor game" returns 43k results and "nullarbor plain" returns 133k results, making this event about 1/3rd as notable as the nullarbor plain, which I'd say is pretty notable.. ? In my opinion nullarbor is more notable than many of the other demopartys or game development competitions already listed in wikipedia.

I should stress nullarbor is a free, non-profit, volanteer run event. -- 16:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Has the event been covered in the media at all? If you produce independent sources, I'll be happy to change my "vote" from delete to keep. One Night In Hackney 16:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Was published in Xpress Magazine http://www.xpressmag.com.au/

Propel Arts magazine http://www.propelarts.org.au/

reAKT!magazine http://www.reakt.com.au/

HUGI Magazine http://www.hugi.scene.org/

ECU Magazine http://ecumediaqa.ids.ecu.edu.au/

Some online publications here:

http://ecumediaqa.ids.ecu.edu.au/popups/mrPopup.asp?mrID=748 http://ecumediaqa.ids.ecu.edu.au/mediarelease.asp?page=8 http://perth.siggraph.org.au/screening_20060223.shtml http://www.hugi.scene.org/online/hugi32/ http://www.igda.org/perth/mixer_07/index.html http://pigmi.org/wiki/doku.php?id=competitions http://www.demoparty.net/nullarbor2006/ http://www.aliak.com/node/2194 http://nehe.gamedev.net/ http://www.go3.com.au/html/competitions.html http://www.scissa.org.au/2005/12/11/nullarbor-demoparty-and-game-development-competition/ -- Aboeing 16:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• 'Comment I know of at least two thousand stubs that dont meet the level of sources that this article has to accompany it. What does concern me is that the editor (who wasnt welcomed or explained policy to) is the promoter - I am not sure the correct policy or procedure relative to work through this - however I would caution at this stage any continued delete on sight promoters- at this stage - about dont bite the newcomers and - good faith - as I believe the editor has shown however strange the subject and the article appeared at first - that the subject somehow exists in this wonderful and strange world we live in. SatuSuro 23:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Do not agree with deletion - just because it seemed odd and weird in the early stage in the writing up, it is not a candidate for deletion - the article and subject appear to be genuine. My only issue has been repeated above SatuSuro 23:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment still fails WP:NOT which is different to WP:NOTE with which it also struggles. This isnt a WP:BITE, its about a non encyclopedic event advertisement. Xpress mag isnt an independant editorial mag its a paid editorial publication, as such doesnt WP:RS reliable source requirements the others are all associated with the event. Gnangarra 23:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

'Response point taken on not and note - but the list that I cited above shows thats it part of a weird and wonderful world that does not appear to be a hoax? SatuSuro 00:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

'Response Please indicate in more detail the ways in which you think that the article fails WP:NOT. The assertion that "the others are all associated with the event." is completely false. Several of the publications listed have nothing to do with the event. If your only concern is that the article was written by one of the event organisers, then that can be easily remedied. Chr15m 00:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

'Response I also do not understand how it fails WP:NOT. An explanation on the magazines and the "association" with the event:

• 1. Xpress mag was not paid to publish an article or advertisment for the event, they did it from they're own free will. They independently decided the event was newsworthy for their audience.
• 2. Propel Arts magazine is produced by Propel Arts, and independent group, funded by ArtsWA. Some funding from nullarbor came from the Department of Industry and Resources. These are seperate funding bodies, so there is no conflict or association with the event here, other than both organizations belong to the WA government.
• 3. reAKT!magazine is compeltely independent afaik. It is not funded by the government, it has no association with nullarbor. (I do not know much about this magazine, I might be wrong)
• 4. HUGI Magazine is published online from Vienna, Austria. It is completely independent from the event. The magazine publishes newsworthy events in the demoscene area.
• 5. ECU Magazine is published by the same body which funded the event. This is a non-independent source. However, the magazine is academic in nature, and so I thought it was worth mentioning.

I hope this clears up the 'independance' of the references of the publications. -- Aboeing 10:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Response checking xpress archives doesnt reveal any articles on the event, can you provide an issue # or publication date. It fails WP:NOT#SOAP "self promotion" no different to any other trade show. Gnangarra 00:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I can not find the article online on xpress either, I hope to track down a physical copy for you soon. (I am not currently in Australia, so it is a little difficult) -- Aboeing 10:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Factual. Verifiable. Notable within the relevant subculture. Hesperian 00:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Information is factual and unbiased, despite being from an interested party. This judgement made in my own knowledge of the subculture and the specific event itself. User:dowlingw 13:44, 9th January 2007 (GMT+8)
  • Thanks for your input, dowlingw. You're welcome to participate in this debate, but as a new account with no other contributions to Wikipedia, your opinion is likely to be discounted when the final decision is made. :-( Hesperian 05:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed - the issue is one which editors with long standing - are the ones to take notice of in issues such as this. No edit and red link editors are considered in these situations as about helpful to the case as no support at all SatuSuro 05:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. The article looks nicely done, too bad the event needs to grow a bit to be _really_ notable. // Gargaj 11:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It's a well written article, and I wish more demoparty articles had non-scene references. The fact it was started just last year works against it, but we could always decide again in a year or so whether it's notable enough to keep or not. It would help if there were more articles linking to it other than the List of demoparties. --Vossanova ^o< 14:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It has sources, apparently - it just needs the attention of an experienced editor. I am confident Aboeing will become one in time. And given the extensive list of links dealing with the Nullarbor demo party as their subject, it is without doubt more worthy of inclusion than, say, RuneScape gods or Cortana. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable within the demoscene subculture, and is verifiable in triplicate through reliable sources. Silensor 23:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it has sources, it needs cleanup not deletion.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - while I have doubts about some of the sources, it's notable within its own context and does not appear to be an advertisement. Orderinchaos78 03:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep please the subject is notable and has mulptiple sources available too Yuckfoo 03:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Alkivar. --Myles Long 05:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep What? Why was this even marked for deletion? Version of the article as of time of deletion post. Okay, so that makes a little more sense, but still not justifiable. It had external references. So, maybe they weren't of the highest quality. That's what the cleanup tag is for. Also, maybe the person who sumbitted the article for deletion should actually learn Greek. "Pseudo-latin" doesn't have to be real latin. Silly deletionists. McKay 17:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this was the version I marked for deletion. The author has then modified the comment so that it no longer says "Latin". Also, I have learned Greek. The article had no sources, no assertion of notability, and very little content, which is why it was nominated for deletion. -- Merope 19:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe there should be a rule about nominating an article for deletion within 2 minutes of the article's creation? I'm sorry, most articles need a chance. Post a message on the talk page, saying "hey, is this notable"? Give them a chance to say "oh, yeah, I hadn't yet posted the bajillion news items about it yet, I'll have that done in the next 30 minutes" or even a couple days. This falls under WP:AGF. Then, if they haven't said anything in a couple days. Let it slide. I'm not a fan of deletionists. Yes, I understand where you were coming from, and (aside from probably not assuming good faith) there was nothing technically wrong with this AFD, but was it really necessary? Very little content is not a reason to delete an article. WP:NOT, WP:NOTE those are the criteria. I made a post to the WP:SPEEDY talk page. McKay 22:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, Merope did see a very early version of the article, and made a justifiable choice in deleting. The only thing I can say is that I'm a novice wikipedia user, so I was planning on incrementally adding content, I did not realise that you needed to add a complete article on creation. I think it would have been better to have a comment and then deleting it if the article is not improved later, however I can understand not everyone might have the time to go through this procedure. I have asked some other people unrelated to nullarbor (other than they were there) to add content. Hopefully that will happen soon. I would like to know what Merop's objections still are to the article so it can be addressed. (Also, "The author has then modified the comment" is not true, another editor made those changes, as you can see from the history I have not touched this article since I was informed of WP:NOT#SOAP "self promotion") -- Aboeing

• Keep. Whatever concerns the nominator had originally, they appear to have been resolved. The current version of the article is well sourced and does a fair job of conveying notability. One thing for certain: it never should have been speedy deleted, especially so abruptly while the author was in the process of writing the damn thing. RFerreira 20:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Beg to disagree with the last two - when a red link user is clearly the promoter and organiser - If you folks are going to ignore that - the whole of wikipedia would be full of advertising before you can say demoscene party :( SatuSuro 22:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A fair point, I'd like to ask you for a bit more patience, I have asked some people to contribute content to the article, at which point I hope it will be completely different from its original form. I hope that will then fullfill the WP:NOT#SOAP requirement. --- Aboeing 10:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Just as notable as other demoscene articles that survived the recent rush to AFD them. It has good sources - but I agree that clean up maybe in order. Then again, I understand that the AFD was made while the article was being created for the first time... --Sodium N4 23:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Notable within the Australian demoscene with multiple reliable sources to show for it. Only because a scene is small does not make it not-noteworthy, I thought this is now mainstream wisdom since Web 2.0 and the "Long Tail" roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 09:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment the references in the article #1 Sponsor of 2007 event, #3 a calander for 2007 event #4 is the advert for 2007 event none of these source meet WP:RS requirements. The most significant reference #2 a government/industry funded body to promote computer industry in WA quotes "Over 150 people attended the event!" such a significant number people for a city with a population 1.5~1.6 million people thats like a whole 0.01% of the population how is this notiable. as per WP:NOT#SOAP this article is about advertising the event all references used are advertising for this years event, the references cited/claims earlier in this discussion are not used in the article. Gnangarra 10:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Response There are more solid references here in this page, but I have not wanted to modify this article as to avoid WP:NOT#SOAP. I hope to have even more solid references for you soon. The quotation you've included I believe only referes to the screening, which is one part of the entire event. Just to clarify, I thought your remaing objetions were WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:RS, and that WP:NOTE is no longer an issue. Would you be able to clarify your position? Also, I have been assuming that if the article was rewritten by another editor it would no longer be WP:NOT#SOAP, is that correct?-- Aboeing 10:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Also note that #2, SIGGRAPH is not a government or industry sponsored body. It is a organization of researchers, and are fiercly independent from any gov or ind influence. see http://www.perth.siggraph.org.au/credits_links.shtml for SIGGRAPH Perth supporters. --- Aboeing 11:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, ACM SIGGRAPH's reputable is unimpeachable, and the reference does indeed support the relevant claim. But it is still a pretty pathetic reference. :-( You were always going to be skating on thin ice if these four references are all that has ever been written about the event. Next year, at least fire off a press release to ECU's student newspaper letting them know how it went. Then you'll have something worth citing! Hesperian 11:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment WP:NOTE primary criteria The "independence" qualification excludes all self-publicity, advertising by the subject, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works affiliated with the subject, its creators, or others with a vested interest or bias every reference in the article clearly fails this requirement as well. The link to credits for ACM SIGGRAPH clearly the logo of four bodies 2 governement based eduction funded bodies, 1 body thats funded by both government and industry and the forth is partially funded by the government, that page doesnt indicate its fiercly independant. Funding aside WP:NOT#SOAP still applies the sources fail WP:RS and as quoted from WP:NOTE it doesnt pass the primary criteria of that. Gnangarra 12:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. --

Longhair\^talk 10:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I am dumbfounded that an article which was created less than a week ago, which is referenced, is up for deletion already... speedy delete if it meets the criteria is one thing but this is bizzare. If uni was back the article would have been expanded I am sure simply by contribution of Edith Cowan computing students. How many other games dev competitions / events are there in Perth???Garrie 05:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have added a set of nullarbor articles in the media here:

http://www.notrees.org/media_coverage/ Including:

• Interview with Martin Masek. Korea Science Magazine (A monthly magazine for science teachers), Volume 503, Issue 9, 2006, pp96 – 101.
• Xpress Magazine, Western Australia, Issue No. 992, 16/02/06, p29.
• Campus Buzz, News for ECU Students – Incorporating harambee Student Guild News, Winter 2006, p7.
• Cohesion, Faculty of Computing, Health, and Science Quarterly Magazine, March 2006, p21.

See: http://www.notrees.org/media_coverage/Nullarbor%2006%20-%20Xpress%20Magazine%20Issue%20992,%2016-02-06,%20p29.jpg http://www.notrees.org/media_coverage/Nullarbor%2006%20-%20Korea%20Science%20Magazine%20Vol503,%20Issue%209,%202006.%20pp96-101.jpg http://www.notrees.org/media_coverage/Nullarbor%2006%20-%20Cohesion,%20Faculty%20of%20Computing,%20Health,%20and%20Science%20Quarterly%20Magazine,%20March%202006,%20p21.gif http://www.notrees.org/media_coverage/Nullarbor%2006%20-%20Campus%20Buzz,%20Winter%202006,%20p7.jpg -- Aboeing 14:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keith hayes

Keith hayes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non notable author. 13 Google hits at [25]. None relevant. Dweller 15:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed AFD nom. I think. Also, Delete per WP:BIO. -- Merope 15:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A Google search including his book title is even more alarming [26]. However I'm tempted to err on the side of caution here. I'd suggest bringing this up on a relevant Wikiproject (I'm sure there must be one for trains!) to see if any UK editors know of any coverage in specialist train magazines. One Night In Hackney 15:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. No sources are presented and the book title "Stop That Dog, It's a Parcel!" gets no ghits. --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above. Budgiekiller 17:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources and citations demonstrating notability are included by the end of this AfD Alf photoman 20:38, 9 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 21:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asianovelas

Asianovelas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

nn neologisms. Nifjs 15:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Move to a descriptive title, e.g. "Asian television dramas in the Philippines". Also needs sources. The related article Koreanovelas, should also be redirected/merged to Korean drama, which is the international term (the term "Koreanovelas" being limited to Philippine English and Taglish, as far as I know). cab 23:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete even if it was moved to a more descriptive title, why would we need it? We already have categories such as Category:South Korean television drama and Category:Taiwanese television series. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 15:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete foreign language neologism per WP:NEO and WP:WINAD.--Kubigula (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — per Kubigula. Wizardman 17:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content Protector

Content Protector (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Reads like an ad, seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (software), author seems to be a WP:SPA promoting software from this same vendor. Google searches (for joomla + 'content protector') return this page as top listing. Majority of later pages are irrelevant results. - rernst 15:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

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

• Delete both. I don't see any particular reason why these Joomla plugins matter. (Side comment: The first one sounds like it'd be a huge pain in the rear for readers, and the second sounds like a SEO tool.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:37, 8 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 per consensus and subject's comment. Cbrown1023 01:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waldo Jaquith

Waldo Jaquith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

The subject of this article does not even approach the threshold for Wikipedia notability. The page was apparently begun either by the subject person himself, or one of his friends.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Btsom (talk • contribs).

• Comment - See this ([27]) diff. --Dweller 16:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:BIO. -- Merope 20:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 01:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Games Workshop Online Community

Games Workshop Online Community (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Aside from the "Worldwide Campaigns" material (which is discussed elsewhere), is nothing more than advertising links for fan websites. Fails WP:NOT and WP:WEB DarthBinky 16:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)