Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 5

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

The result was Delete. Redirected to AAA. — Scientizzle 17:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TripleA

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

Non-notable beta software. The only referenced independent sources are a review on a blog and a review on an infrequently-updated, likely self-published website. (The links to Freshmeat and Apple Mac OS X Downloads are not independent sources, since those sites merely post information submitted by the developer.). In summary, there's nothing here that seems to meet WP:RS, WP:V, or WP:N. Psychonaut 00:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The intro and the references show that this Java platform is not yet well-established. Default redirect to AAA. Shalom ^Hello 02:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete the review that's posted as a link states that the "review" is "From the website", which doesnt really make it a review. I cant find any other independent sources which mention (non-trivially) this game either Corpx 06:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marašmusïne_Talk 17:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete - re: the review; I believe it's only the game synopsis that is taken from the official website, the rest is written by the LinuxGames staff member Cybrid. However, I don't think the site qualifies as a reliable source (per WP:Reliable source) - there doesn't appear to be any 'editorial oversight'. Marašmusïne_Talk 17:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. While it seems plausible that among internet memes of a few years ago this was of possible note, it's clear that the article in current form fails WP:V because of its extraordinarily vague citations. Failing this policy makes the inability to address WP:N secondary. No prejudice against recreation & reevaluation if said references can be clarified & verified. — Scientizzle 17:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fat Chicks in Party Hats

Fat Chicks in Party Hats (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No references and no real claims to notability. Has stuck around on Wikipedia for years but ultimately has become a non-notable internet meme. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. What do you mean, "no references"? The article lists plenty of print reviews (although the citations are incomplete). I recall reading reviews in other print publications as well. Seems to pass WP:N. —Psychonaut 00:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete with long-winded reason: Assuming good faith this passes notability for coverage in multiple secondary sources...or at least so it says. 5 different references are listed and not one of them is an appropriate citation. If Premium Magazine conducted an interview, great. What issue? What pages of that issue? If there is a web version of the magazine, where is the link? This presumably passes WP:NN and then seems to be intent on throwing that away by boldly failing that whole "verifiable" part of WP:V. Beyond this, the article is written like a fansite, and it's horribly awash in weasel words (particularly here) presumably to once again avoid that pesky task of actually looking up citations. I mean really: "Some believe he is actually Seanbaby himself...". Who thinks that? The author? The author's friend who once sent him an e-mail with a link to the site? I'm willing to nudge my opinion to "weak keep" if citations are added, but the OR and POV seriously need to be cleaned up as well.-Markeer 00:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - Searched google news archive and came up with 3 hits, and I would categorize all 3 as trivial, adding no notability to the site. Corpx 06:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Utterly unnotable, and reads likea joke at Wiki's expense. Delete unles indepently verified, and rewriten to come up to standard. SockpuppetSamuelson 10:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - it's not a joke on wikipedia's expense, it's a real site that's been around for years. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be deleted though. WLU 12:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable although the website does exist. Bigdaddy1981 17:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As per the nomination; internet meme with no importance or sources. ♠PMC♠ 00:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. >Radiant< 14:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-known humour site, internet meme. Was very popular during its peak. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 04:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 11:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leatherhead Fire Station

Leatherhead Fire Station (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I nominate this article for deletion as I believe it does not come up to the standards required by WP:NOTE. I would suggest that the best of it be merged into appropriate sections in Surrey Fire and Rescue Service and Leatherhead. I have contacted an admin over this (off-wiki) and he agrees that it is not notable enough to justify a page of its own. - Vox Humana 8' 23:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Rarely would an individual fire station be notable--a few may be in important historic buildings, but then the article would usually be the building. DGG 00:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete References do not assert its notability as a fire station. There have been no significant (referenced) fires it has been involved in and the station itself is not architecturally significant. Tdmg 03:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete based on that fire stations, just like government buildings are not inherently notable Corpx 06:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone provides sources asserting notability. Fire stations are not automatically notable. J Milburn 11:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There are thousands of fire stations in the UK and there is nothing notable about this one. Escaper2007 10:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the above reasonings. --Daysleeper47 12:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^One 17:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aneta Buena

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

Initially flagged for speedy deletion, I believe the subject does have some notability. While notability is not inherited (through her work with Ewa Sonnet and Ines Cudna, she has been prolific within her genre.)- h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete lacks news coverage Addhoc 22:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Most adult models that are notable enough for articles lack news coverage. Kerry Marie and Nadine Jansen lack news coverage; does that in itself mean we shouldn't have articles on them?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The answer to that is obviously yes. Valrith 19:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Feel free to nominate them for deletion then.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Should pass WP:PORNBIO criterion 3.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Where are the reliable sources? Addhoc 23:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. She does seem to straddle the boundaries between big-bust and BBW, and thus may be notable for starting a new trend, but I'm having trouble finding WP:RS to support that.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h}
• Speedy Delete. No coverage in reliable sources. Very litle work done in the pornography world and none of it notable. Fails all criteria for notability in either WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Valrith 19:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment for closing admin: Not sure what is usually done about it, but it was a violation of procedure for the author of this article to remove the {{db-bio}} speedy tag that was placed on it...
    • Comment. I removed it per WP:IAR, which is helping to improve the encyclopedia because I thought there was a serious chance of notability.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 00:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. --  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article doesn't currently pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 19:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per association with the other notable Polish models Ines Cudna and Ewa Sonnet with whom she co-starred in countless videos including notable Polish site Busty. Soft porn, less pretentious than that of Playboy or Penthouse. greg park avenue 00:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: neither personal associations nor number of films/videos is a criterion for establishing notability. Valrith 20:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: I don't want to sound sarcastic but for someone with Spanish good looks like Aneta it would be even harder to make it to feature the Playboy's cover girl, in which a magazine I never saw one like that, just the department store model types with proper sizes and too "made up". But they , the Playboy, make this policy, so be it. I still vouch for Aneta, just to be on a save side and not to discriminate anybody who doesn't fit into that commercial stereotype. Just one question. Why the other gals could be there (in Wikipedia) while Aneta could be not? One more notice. If we set the same rules for Hollywood stars as Playboy does for its models, than half of them stars with big bust or with Spanish features similar to Bo Derek or to Katy Jurado, who walked once the Sunset Boulevard should be made expelled out of town and from the Wikipedia too? greg park avenue 16:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 20:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blueback (novel)

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

No assertion of notability - Are we to have an article for every short novel with a notable author? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete does not fulfill the criteria of WP:BK (at least verifiably, because there are no independent references): not the subject of multiple major publications, no awards, no an adapted film, not used in instruction, and not an historically significant author. Also, no references asserting the book's notability. Tdmg 03:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Book has been subject of multiple non-trivial reviews in independent reliable sources, including Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, NYT Book Review, Booklist and Kirkus Reviews. Some of these reviews contain enough information to expand the article beyond a plot summary. per WP:BK. See Amazon list of reviews here. JulesH 11:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. A search of the AusLit database came up with this:
• New South Wales Premier's Literary Awards, Ethel Turner Prize for Young People's Literature, 1999: shortlisted
• Western Australian Premier's Book Awards, Children's Books, 1998: shortlisted
• WAYRBA (WA Young Readers Book) award, Hoffman Award for Older Readers, 1998: winner
• ABA Book of the Year Award, 1998: shortlisted
• The Wilderness Society Environment Award for Children's Literature, Senior Fiction, 1998: winner

As well as several reviews and works of criticism related to the novel. As I've mentioned before, material on Australian literature is not widely available on the net, and won't always show up on google searches. Recurring dreams 03:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 07:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Change to keep per Recurring dreams - his/her research more than adequatly demonstrates notability, IMO. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a Tim Winton novel. Why are we here? Rebecca 13:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and close WP:SNOW.Garrie 05:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Major Australian author --Melburnian 09:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think we're allowed to do that because there is still a delete vote just below my nomination; unless someone can convince him to change his mind, much as I became convinced to change mine. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 11:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transformers (film) the sequel

Transformers (film) the sequel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No sources, sounds like its just rumours at this point, the original film JUST came out, less than a week ago to be percise. WP:CRYSTAL and Wikipedia is not IMDB or Filmrumors.com Rackabello 22:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I have to agree with the nominator here. Name dropping is not sourcing an article, also due to the extremely speculative nature, speculation is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. Possibly a brief mention on the main film page, but otherwise, send it skipping. UnseemlyWeasel 00:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Let's wait till there are more sources on this Corpx 06:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as crystalish. Pity there isn't a speedy for this. Blueboy96 03:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 12:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent

The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Apparently a hoax. There are zero references on Google to "The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent" that do not come from this article. The ebay link goes to [1], which doesn't seem to have any bearing on this supposed society. Nothing for "Golden Books of Venetian Nobility" except another Wikipedia article written by the same author, which I have put the "hoax" tag on. I asked if the other two references mentioned this society and was told that they did, but as they're not available for me to peruse, based on the other supposed references, I must assume bad faith. This is a continuation of an edit war at List of collegiate secret societies, in which multiple anonymous editors don't like the idea of being required to produce sources. Corvus cornix 22:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I agree, the 'references' provided here do not add up. Unless the authors of the page can provide reliable sources for verification, the article should be considered a hoax and deleted. Terraxos 23:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless specific references that can be checked (including page numbers and all those other irritating minutiae) are provided, this fails WP:V big time. And I think it's a hoax too. Deor 00:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There is a society at Purdue called Skull & Crescent.[2]. THAT society is also referenced on the Theta Nu Epsilon webpage. So, there is such a society. This rambling nonsense produced by a small number of individuals makes no sense and is wholly unverifiable. However, I think Corvus cornix's presumptions and continual contentiousness also detracts from getting anything constructive done in these articles. (I would not have brought this up, except that he chose to make broadcast accuastions above.)129.133.124.199 01:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Uhhuh. The links that are provided are so useful for proving notability. As is the name "Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent". Corvus cornix 02:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above Rackabello 01:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have found further evidence related to what is becoming increasingly obvious as a hoax.

The same user who wrote the Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent Article, and created The Pugilist Club article, is also meddling with the Barbaro Family page. I found numerous inconsistencies with that SOSC (Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent) article which he attempted to explain away citing unnamed sources, or sources only he claims to have access to. He has edited my personal comments on the discussion page of that article in what appears to me to be an attempt to cover his mistakes. In the discussion page of his SOSC article he has referenced pugilism, Amelia Earhart, the Wright Brothers, and a letter by Daniel Russell to a Bro. Chase, a letter which is also cited in his article on the alleged Skull and Crescent Order as being one of their prized artifacts. The citing of this letter was the final straw for me. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but when I found that letter quite amazingly and coincidentally while researching Theta Nu Epsilon on ebay of all places, it became clear that the article on the Sacred Order of the Skull and Crescent was founded mainly, if not wholly, on this individual's fantasies. That letter can still be found on ebay by putting 200101453405, the item number into the ebay search. When I casually confronted the author of the Sacred Order of the Skull and Crescent wikipedia article with this, he initially presented a fantastic notion that perhaps the SOSC members were engaging in the ruse of selling their sacred artifacts to themselves in order to make them look worthless. When I gave the ebay item number, then he quite suddenly and conveniently recalled that oh yes, he just remembered that in his unavailable source it says they reprinted copies of this letter for their members and that this must be one of those ultra rare reprints. The buyer (obviously the author of the Skull and Crescent article, The Pugilist Club, and the bastardizer of the Barbaro Family page) left positive feedback for it. Any dullard can tell an original hand written letter from a copy, if it were a copy negative feedback would have been left. Now there is a link to the Ebay item cited as a source on the SOSC article. Upon looking into the publicly available links to items this same person purchased on the online auction site, I found many other fraternity related items as well as Amelia Earhart, Wright Brothers, and pugilism posters! Now I find the author's wikipedia alias is Tiki-Two. Well, that name is almost exactly what the ebay user who purchased this masonic letter uses!

I do not know what his motives are, but it seems he is building a hoax on wikipedia, probably as a teenager considering his use of vulgarity elsewhere, though perhaps as a member of a fraternity. It is also possible that he is building a collection of items that he intends to present and cite in articles as important artifacts of secret societies. As a relative outsider to wikipedia, I don't know what course to take, and really don't have the time to find out. I mainly enjoy reading wikipedia articles, not engaging in what to me is vain online argumentation.

I agree--There is no record anywhere else online of a Vitus Sebastian Barbaro that I can find. There is no record anywhere else online of The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent either. There is no record of a "Pugilist Club" aka "Fight Club" at Purdue anywhere else online.

We can almost certainly expect more hoaxes from this individual.

This won't be the only place I send the above information. Hyper_individualist@yahoo.com July 5, 20:24 PST —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.83.249.234 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 5 July 2007.

• • "probably as a teenager considering his use of vulgarity elsewhere, though perhaps as a member of a fraternity" or he could just be a loony.

• Delete - fails WP:V, and appears to be a hoax. --Haemo 04:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete almost certainly a hoax, but that doesn't matter: even if it's "true" (and let's face it, it ain't), it's unverifiable by encyclopedic standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete One more thing regarding the ebay item linked to in the SOSC article and above--The seller states plainly that the "Letter is written to Horace Chase" while the SOSC hoaxer says it was written to Salomon P Chase. Is there not a single thing this poor hoaxer posts that isn't easily verified as made up?

Hyper_individualist@yahoo.com --76.83.249.234 05:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax and/or unverifiable, and I hope similar attention can be paid to other related articles (and the list), which are proving to be potential hoax/vandal magnets. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Haemo and Starblind. this is a hoax and thus not verifiable. --Aude (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Clear hoax. Wright brothers & Amelia Earhart as teachers? Student secret society five years before classes began? Main editor and his army of IPs has history of hoaxing. Edward321 05:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I hate hoaxes. NawlinWiki 17:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The society might be real, but if it is, I doubt it's notable; and most of what's in the article is probably a hoax. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 12:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ashford-Dunwoody Road

Ashford-Dunwoody Road (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Is this road article notable nationally?? I suggest someone should be able to explain this article's notability for a non-local encyclopedia. Georgia guy 22:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It's as the article says - a long road between Ashford and Dunwoody. It's not notable, unlike Peachtree Street. Acroterion _(talk) 22:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete...This is just a road and roads are not inherently notable Corpx 06:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A proposed guideline at WP:N/HWY is being discussed right now. If this article has history and sources, it is best kept. (→zelzany - review) 15:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think this ever was more than a generic two-lane road partially widened into a suburban arterial. I can't find any mentions that are not directories or driving directions. --NE2 15:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- Not a numbered highway, not an expressway, not a freeway, not notable, not worthy of an article. —Scott5114↗ 16:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, just a generic road with no state-level designation. I'm not even sure this road is notable within Atlanta, much less nationwide. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, if the street was a former major numbered road, I would say keep, but this stubby article does not mention this, therefore it does not belong in wikipedia. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 22:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Based on other's input, I will have to say delete, because there are no reliable sources to establish its notability. There is also the fact that it's not a former numbered road, but that's part of the sourcing. A long road that does not have any historical significance does not need to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. (→zelzany - review) 20:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This road isn't numbered by the state, nor any type of freeway/expressway. It may or may not be notable within Atlanta, however, until there are reliable sources to establish this road's significance, I don't see a need for the article's existence. --myselfalso 23:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Just a road. Someguy1221 04:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas ^talk? 12:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Risk/Reward

Risk/Reward (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

PROD was bulldozed by the author. No significant assertion of notability (e.g. film reviews). Shalom ^Hello 22:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Christian Science Monitor Review New York Times Review

• Keep. Would it have really been that difficult to check the IMDb reviews page for this film before nominating this article for deletion? —Psychonaut 00:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep based on the link above Corpx 06:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as the documentary concerns public figures and can be linked readily to existing articles. Bearian 16:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - IMDB link fixed, other references readily available to subjects of film. SkierRMH 04:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 21:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Digital Nitrate Prize

Digital Nitrate Prize (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Still non-notable; only Google hits are itself, related online discussion groups, and the Buffalo Intl Film Festival (created by the same person) -- MightyWarrior 22:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - No mentions anywhere and I dont think much has changed since the last AFD Corpx 06:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no reliable sources. -- Whpq 17:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 12:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fog City Hammerheads

Fog City Hammerheads (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable youth swimming club. Was tagged for speedy delete and I originally speedied, then restored (after protest by author) because it does assert one notable alumnus. I don't think that's enough, though. NawlinWiki 22:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nonnotable. Having a notable swimmer in the club does not make the whole club notable IMO. Shalom ^Hello 22:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unless rewritten and more info added and maybe some writeups in papers I would say to remove it. Callelinea 22:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It really just isn't notable. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 11:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Closure overturned at DRV; relisted at AfD. Non-administrators should never close discussions this early. Xoloz 15:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was Keep, obvious consensus here. I should also echo the fact that bringing a brand-new article to AfD isn't usually a good idea. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SkyWest Airlines flight 5741

SkyWest Airlines flight 5741 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable plane crash. No injuries. No sources, though the bottom half of the article, at least, looks as if it was copied from somwhere (some extraneous footer material left bedhind), though I have been unable to find the source. What makes this incident encyclopedia article worthy? Corvus cornix 22:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Is it usual practice to AfD an article after only 2 edits, and only ONE minute after it's creation? I'm sorry, but the creator made 19 edits after that within the first 40 minutes, and addressed most of your concerns. The nominator should be investigated to see if such knee-jerk nominations are his usual method of operation. Perhaps he should be assigned to hand copy the WP:AGF guidleine 100 times. :) Seriously, Wikipedia is always a wrok in progress, and sufficient time should be allowed for an editor to complete what he started in a reasonable omount of time. One minute is certainly not reasonalbe. - - BillCJ 23:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Many notable aircraft incidents (such as British Airways Flight 9) resulted in zero injuries and zero fatalities. A similar incident occurred in the 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion. Of course inclusion is not an indicator of notability, but in the context of airline incidents, I think it's probably notable if the NTSB plans to publish an official report. Shalom ^Hello 22:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Very serious runway incursion. Please see also the draft notability guidlines at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force (I apreciate that, as a work in progress, they don't yet directly state whether this is notable or not, but the general spread of what is and isn't notable there should show that this is within notable boundarys). 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion previously survived AfD (I created it back when I was a noob, and I still was at AfD time...) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - After the creator actually finished his initial edits, notability was established. Borderline, yes, but also notable in that it's a warning of what could happen. Repercussions of this should be felt for awhile, as it's not even been 6 weeks since it happened. - BillCJ 23:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per concensus. Ranma9617 00:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for several reasons: first, this appears to be a bad-faith nomination. Nominator didn't take the time to look into whether this was genuinely a notable incident. No discussion was attempted to see what the situation was. I try hard to assume good faith, but my threshold is when bad faith is blatantly demonstrated. Now, about the article itself...runway incursions are very serious incidents which have been a focus of the aviation safety community for some time now. The fact that one was prevented by the AMASS system definitely makes this one notable. The combined name of the article, though needs to be addressed when this is all over. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as outlined above. I feel that the guidelines for notability proposed by the aviation task force are acceptable. I also feel that the current revision has addressed most of Corvus cornix's issues with the article. Trusilver 02:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete ck lostsword•T•C 18:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of musicians appearing on Beavis and Butt-Head

Pointless and very trivial list that violates Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and WP:LISTCRUFT. Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not only does it clearly run afoul of the policy cited by nom, but the fact that it doesn't give any context puts the nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned. A catalog of which musicians appeared on which episodes, with maybe a description of the context, might at least be marginally interesting. As it is, this article is both against Wikipedia policy, and tedious to boot :D --Jaysweet 21:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Trivial list of very little use! -- MightyWarrior 22:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Heh heh heh. This list sucks, Beavis. Let's delete it because, uh... these guys want to. Yeah, delete... heh heh heh (Translation: Delete per nom's reasoning). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Another one of those useless and listcruft trivia separate articles. Maybe add some of the most notable ones in the main article but that's it.--JForget 00:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The music video commentary is one of the main attractions on the show. Irk_(talk) 00:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a directory of loosely associated subjects. The musicians are in no way made more notable by having been selected to appear in a two minute segment of a Beavis and Butt-head episode. Otto4711 02:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia should not document every character that appears in beavis & butt-head. Corpx 06:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Excessive detail. Casperonline 18:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No brainer, useless trivia. Until(1 == 2) 23:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not appropriate for a separate article. You might be able to get away with a sidebox in an existing article. Cedars 10:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Not only was this the main feature of the show, but also the high point of several of these band's careers, at least publicity-wise. Article also represents a musical snapshot of the era. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 04:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 03:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diana Fortuna

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

Non-notable person. No coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Valrith 21:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, if it was sourced and a little more info then maybe keep but as written now.. remove. Callelinea 22:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - I've added sources to show she is notable. It's still an extremely short article but could be expanded on. DraxusD 05:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I've improved the article further with background career info, a photo, and some categories. I think it's ok to keep now. I wrote the Citizens Budget Commission article, which is the source of her current notability. If this one ends up being deleted the other one might need to go as well. DraxusD 09:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia contains articles on much less notable people. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 12:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Losing My Edge CJLO

Losing My Edge CJLO (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Tagged for lack of notability since January, created by since-abandoned SPA, orphaned, and no ghits except from parent website and Wikipedia mirrors. Carson 21:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not Notable - Fordan (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable college radio show. Precious Roy 09:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 21:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of terms based on the word cube

List of terms based on the word cube (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Quite pointless article created in early days by myself. `'Miikka 21:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, please, delete. BJAODN worthy. Corvus cornix 22:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Actually you can type db|author at the top of the article page you've nominated and this will be nominated for speedy deletion. Yeah actually it is useless this article. Delete--JForget 00:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Unfortunately you can't db-author something that others have already contributed to. Someguy1221 05:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not the worst list by any means but too loosely connected. You can't {{db-author}} something when others have made non-trivial contributions to it. GassyGuy 00:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete... and blue ribbon to Mikkalai, who created the article three years ago and nominated it for deletion himself. Put this one in the hay baler. Mandsford 02:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the dab page that wasn't. Someguy1221 05:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per not a dictionary or thesaurus Corpx 06:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and its missing hypercube. The shame! Bigdaddy1981 17:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not suitable for Wikipedia. Cedars 10:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Rename Cube (disambiguation), tag with {{dab}}, and leave as mildly useful navigation aid. If Mikka simply finds the edit too embarassing, he should request oversight. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • He-he, too late to rename (I like to repeat many wikipedians too lazy to re-read what they wrote). Not to say that IMO the dab page already has what it is supposed to have. `'Miikka 23:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a place for pointless meaningless lists. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Dan Gluck 13:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

History.

OK. Seeing a pleasantly ovewhelming consensus to kill this realy strange list, and on the verge of its Last and Ultimate Edit I will tell you how it came into being.

It happened in early days of Wild Wikipedia when anons were strong and policies were weak. When a single page could have contained several articles, and a person who could correctly spell "disambiguation" was readily promoted to the glorious status of SysOp (only Jimbo the Jumbo was above and beyond)... Leisurely eyeballing things of none of my business, in best wikiholical traditions, I noticed that throughout 2003 Someones Anonymous were persistently introducing the Time Cube cookery into the pitiful Cube article, while named editors equally laborously deleted it. And suddenly I saw the Tao and it was Jujutsu, and I created Cube (disambiguation) for normal wikipedians and List of terms based on the word cube as a bait for the Time Cubed ones. And it worked! `'Miikka 00:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - not a very strong consensus, but a perponderance of keeps to deletes, combined with policy-based arguments on (one) keep results in a keep. Cheers, WilyD 15:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Coaly

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

A mule who helped build the Penn State student union in the 1800's. While he played an important part, he is not worthy in and of himself of an encyclopedia article. The Evil Spartan 21:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Move to BJAODN because WP:ILIKEIT. Of course, Coaly is notable among mules but not among Wikipedians. Shalom ^Hello 22:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable (to anyone outside Penn State, and perhaps even them too).Terraxos 02:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep doesn't have to be notable to everyone.-Todd(Talk-Contribs) 02:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. As notable as any other mascot. I would think his inclusion in WikiProject Penn State alone would demonstrate his notability. —xanderer 14:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, inclusion in a WikiProject is a poor reason for inclusion on Wikipedia. For example, the information from articles on several Penn State buildings and the Willard Preacher were merged into other, more significant articles. Same thing should happen here. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 21:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep, verifiable sources and apparent evidence of notability. Bigdaddy1981 17:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Old Main; we don't have any references outside the Penn State website and the PSU collegiate newspaper. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 21:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: notable enough to have places at Penn named after him is notable enough for WP, I think. A fun little article. Otherwise, merge as above. -- phoebe/(talk) 00:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, sources aren't reliable enough, notability not demonstrated. Feel free to repost if you can find better sources. NawlinWiki 03:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethan Kage

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

This person appears to be non-notable, and there is no evidence that he meets the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Prod removed with comment "removing prod, I'll fix the article later", but with no indication of how this person is notable. FisherQueen (Talk) 20:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Within gay culture, often times porn stars become gossip subjects, and become known for more than just their on-screen presence. There is an anonymous editor that has been sending quite a few of these articles to deletion and I don't have time to get the appropriate information for each of them at the same time. I would appreciate a bit more time to get things done. I can assure you that there are a few articles written about him, and thus satisfies WP:BIO. Thank you. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 21:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply. He's right; I have seen quite a few porn actors tagged for speedy deletion lately. I did change the speedy-deletion tag to a prod to give you time to add the needed sources, because I wasn't convinced he met the speedy criteria, but when a prod is removed before the problem is solved, my practice is to send the article to AfD. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Well, first off, FisherQueen is not anonymous. Second off, you haven't provided a lick of policy in your assertion that this person is notable. Can you provide any reliable sources? The Evil Spartan 21:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

    You are correct, FisherQueen is not the anonymous user I was referring to; he is the administrator who responded to the speedy delete request the anonymous user put up. As part of the gawker media, it looks like Fleshbot meets the requirements of WP:RS, and doing a quick search, yields [3]and this [4]. The previous editors have hinted at more, and I think a bit of searching will be required to find them, but the previous articles should be enough to meet the minimum requirements of WP:BIO. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 22:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, if it had refrences I would say keep. But since it has no refrences and is about a living person it needs a speedy delete. Callelinea 22:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)KEEP, after careful examination on my prejudice on Porn actors, I refelected that Porn is big business, gay porn is big business and porn actors are notable in their professions and if they are nominated for awards or win awards in their field they are even more notable. So I vote to keep. Callelinea 19:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no references or assertion of notability. Terraxos 02:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO. Nothing found on gayvn.com which indicates notability either Corpx 07:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't meet criteria for notability under WP:PORNBIO or WP:BIO. 71.127.229.14 12:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - if FleshBot and QueerMeNow are reliable sources, then this article meets WP:BIO. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Fleshbot looks like a porn rumor site and QueerMeNow says its a blog, so I dont think either are reliable sources. Corpx 08:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - [5]. Google hits for many porn stars, even non-notable ones, often range in the high tens of thousands. This man doesn't even hit 600 - the mentions are only on gay porn-cruft like sites. The Evil Spartan 20:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Corpx, Terraxos, 71.127.229.14, The Evil Spartan. Subject is not notable. Strongly disagree with Callelinea: Yes, porn and gay porn are big business, but simply being part of a big business does not confer notability, nor do articles from gossip or blogs. If this actor had been nominated or had won an award that would be different, but as far as I know he hasn't been nominated for nor won anything. If you have found evidence to the contrary, let us know. 72.76.102.253 01:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and work on it. 1. Various editors have asked for time to work on this article to bring it to an acceptable standard. 2. 2 reliable sources have been named 3. Google is not god and nor is it a reliable source in and of itself. People citing google page counts as a means for or against deletion drives me nuts. do some actuall reseach. CaveatLector^Talk 11:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree, CaveatLector. I see just one editor has asked for more time; two sources have been named but neither is reliable (as also noted by Corpx): one is gossip, the other, blog; and, the number of hits a subject scores on a google search is a measure of interest in, and, hence, notability of, the subject, especially as compared to others in the same industry (as noted by The Evil Spartan). And those hits are to gay porn-cruft like sites. It's simple: Ethan Kage is not notable. Delete this article. 72.76.2.40 12:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Refresh my memory, why are leading sites in their fields discounted as reliable sources because of labels that you are placing on them? The point is that there IS information AND sources out there to be used in this article. IHAVENTHEARDOFIT is not a check for notability (nor for reliability for that matter), and if we judge information by how many google hits something gets, we wouldn't have talked about French military victories at all before google fixed its google bomb problems. CaveatLector^Talk 16:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, and IHAVEHEARDOFHIM and WP:ILIKEIT aren't good reasoning either. The fact is that there are paltry mentions of this man, and he abysmally fails WP:PORNBIO. This comes nowhere near the mentions by "multiple non-trivial third part sources" - thus not passing WP:BIO either. And that is good policy. The Evil Spartan 16:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• I dont believe that rumor sites and and blogs are the leading sites in that field Corpx 17:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The sites being used to attempt to assert notability are gossip and blog -- it's what they are. Gossip and blog are not reliable sources, whether or not they're "leading sites in their fields" -- which neither of these is. Nothing better can or will be found because there's nothing else. This guy's not notable and he doesn't warrant an article. 72.76.98.153 18:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 12:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Water engine

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

This appears to be a fringe theory with no assertion of notability. (Note that neither 'Carl Cella', his band 'Rampage', or the journal mentioned here, 'Psychadelic Illuminations', are notable enough to have articles themselves.) The article is utterly unsourced, with the exception of a link to an article written by Mr. Cella himself, who can hardly be considered 'reliable'. It admits 'accurate documentation of the engine is hard to find on the Internet', suggesting that even the page author is unable to find supporting material. If any evidence of notability/verifiability can be found, the claims here could be merged into Water-fuelled car. Terraxos 20:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete. I'm seeing lots of talk about this on the internet in blogs and fringe-theory sites, most of it coming from Cella himself, but nothing I could call a reliable source. If it is kept, it'll need to be rewritten from the reliable sources to make it clearer that the thing doesn't actually work. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete as per Fisher. Actually, a Water Engine article would be welcome, although this one seems to be nothing but a link to a 2001 essay by the misunderstood genius, Carl Cella... as with the flying car and the perpetual motion machine, there have been others who claimed that they had made an engine powered by water. In fact, I saw such a person on American Inventor last night, so even if there is no such thing yet, there are such people. Mandsford 02:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No independent sources to establish notability for this specific engine design. General concept is covered in water-fuelled car article. Gandalf61 10:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• I tried several keywords and would never have found water-fuelled car (especially since some of us spell it "fueled"). I hope that some redirects can be created, or even a name change. Maybe some of the stuff here can be merged into that. Mandsford 12:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Water-fueled car page covers the topic more than adequately, but needs a name change. There are no sources, and needless to say it is a load of bollocks. There are many more problems with the water fueled car than the fueltank going rusty LOL121.155.16.188 04:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)pignut
• Delete. The article is incomplete and does not adequately represent the shortcomings of the design. Namely that it would still require a mobile source of electricity and if such a mobile source was available it would be many times more efficient to get it to drive an electric motor directly (thus forming an electric car). Cedars 10:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete obviously a hoax, and not a good one either: a rocker as the inventor? water s a fuel? (in fact it is not: it is the waste product). Hydrogen as a +2 ion? and many other absurd ideas. While such a thing as "water engine" exists, it is meant as a laboratory toy, is much older than described and has a much different design than described. Dan Gluck 14:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Unsourced and lists only one (probably minor if real) example of this type of scam. Given that these claims have appeared in other now-deleted articles [see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas (4th nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown's gas], there may be a basis for an article here, but not one like this. --EMS | Talk 02:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 12:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nerissa Sugars

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

Fails WP:NN. No ascertation of notability, unnotable role in news broadcast. Kevinwong913 ^{Speak out loud!} 20:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. There's no useful sources in the article; my googling doesn't find anything to show notability beyond what one would expect from a local newsreader. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable person. Terraxos 01:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 21:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Villa Heights Elementary

Villa Heights Elementary (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested Prod. This elementary school does not assert any notability at all. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete Per nom. You can pick any policy you want for deletion on this one, from WP:V which is particually important to the demographic information, WP:N because the article is just lacking in that area and a db-spam on this page would be quite appropriate. Just call it WP:SCFT and be done with it. Thewinchester ^(talk) 22:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Thewinchester ^(talk) 22:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this elementary school article, like most others. It's not much different than any of them. Shalom ^Hello 22:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep/merge neutral and informative article, a school which is important to education in its area like most others. Kappa 23:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, by Wikipedia policy: elementary schools are not inherently notable. Terraxos 01:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Per above - these schools are not notable. Corpx 07:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this information is only of any relevence to those in the locality and is available from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System webpages, which I see no need for Wikipedia to mirror. I also don't see it as likely that this page will be updated sufficiently. Average Earthman 07:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Cedars 10:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 12:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nationalcycles

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

Clearly added only as an advert for the company - user has also been inserting links to other, even unrelated articles. No citation. Edited to say: similar pages created by this user have been speedily deleted, and the user was warned not to recreate them. Stephenb (Talk) 20:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I can find no reliable sources to assert notability, and nothing to confirm their claim to be the number two online cycle retailer by volume in Britain, nor am I convinced that claim, if true, would make the company notable. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as self-promotion by non-notable company. Terraxos 01:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I cant find anything on a google search that'd provide notability Corpx 07:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 12:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fout

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

Article is likely a hoax. There is no evidence that such a drink exists. Article is a new editor's only edits. The only editors who have edited the article are SocialAnthropologist27 (talk · contribs) and an anonymous user. Article's citations, several of which are 404 errors, do not establish that such a drink exists. Contrary to the claims of the article, chinanowmag.com does not reference 'fout' — goethean ॐ 19:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as a hoax. 27 years to brew? Clarityfiend 20:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Stephenb (Talk) 20:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete "Tastes better than smack" as a fact?! Hoax. Kevinwong913 ^{Speak out loud!} 20:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a stunningly nonsensical hoax. I do not see any evidence that any beverage has the power to suck all matter into a black hole. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense (potentially BJAODN material, but not particularly funny).Terraxos 01:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 12:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bubbles the Bear

Bubbles the Bear (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Sub-stub that makes no attempt to show notability, let alone to establish such. TexasAndroid 19:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - better to mention the critter in the West Ham United F.C. article if a source is available to confirm; I don't see it standing alone. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Googling reveals even less discussion of the team mascot than one might expect, certainly the mascot has no notability separate from the team, nor does there appear to be anything more to say about it than the single sentence that is already here. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 22:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect if desired. The reason there isn't a lot of info on Bubbles is that West Ham has two mascots, with Herbie Hammer being the more popular (if less cute) of the pair. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I would say "merge with West Ham United F.C.", but there's actually no content at all to merge with. --Angelo 22:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• DeleteA brief mention at the most on the main West Ham article is all this merits at the very most. And redirect isn't needed in my opinion as the bear isn't notable enough on its own. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - What the heck (see Baseball team mascots, for example). For those reading closely, this is interesting and useful. - Dudesleeper · Talk 23:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Useful?? Punkmorten 10:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Just some sarcasm for the rationale trolls. - Dudesleeper · Talk 10:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge to West Ham United F.C. as it provides likely no extra detail.JForget 00:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I'm sure this could be deleted under {{db-test}}. Anyway, here we are. G1ggy ^(t|c|p) 07:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^One 17:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zombie Panic!

Zombie Panic! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Mod with no assertion of real-world notability. As far as I can tell, not subject of any third-party review or commentary. No mention of notability despite presence of {{notability}} tag for three weeks. EEMeltonIV 19:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Only references are the mod's own website, and nothing useful comes up in Google. I call vaporware. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not all mods are notable. This mod appears to be one of the many which are not. No useful sources. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, per above. Terraxos 01:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Week keep. Reliable third party review here. I don't have time to search for others, but they probably exist. JulesH 12:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If you delete a mod page like this, then we should go around the entirety of Wikipedia and remove all defunct games and mods. Give me a break, and give the fans a break. Nullvar 03:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A1) —Xezbeth 21:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Ocifers

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

Non-notable small-town incident, with no evidence it really happened. Katharineamy 19:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete A1 (no context). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - no context indeed. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 21:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GWAR Enemies & Victims

GWAR Enemies & Victims (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list of people that are considered enemies of GWAR. Doesn't assert how any of this information is notable, and lacks reliable sources. If kept, needs a rewrite to fit the Manual of Style, as currently it reads more like prose than an encyclopedic article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• ... uhm. Wow. Obviously, I've missed a lot not going to a GWAR show. However... this looks to be original research, if nothing else, as well as being thin on reliable sources to back up the commentary. I hate to use the word, but "fancruft" is a pretty good way to describe this. Delete - I'm sure some of it might find a home in the GWAR article, but the full rundown is very excessive. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• First: What's GWAR? From this article, I can't tell if it's a band, a science fiction show, or some sort of paramilitary organization. Second: Delete. Unless, that is, someone comes up with some actual reliable sources; I couldn't find any by googling. By the way, I did find an answer to my first question while googling. Apparently, the answer is, kind of all of the above. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish they were a paramilitary organizasation. then maybe we might be allowed to nuke them into orbit (have you by now guessed that I don't like GWAR?) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not just for my anti-GWAR bias, but more imprtantly for the sheer lack of notability. I hereby challenge you to find someone who cares. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, non-encyclopaedic, and just downright ridiculous. Terraxos 01:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• BJAODN Please! This is hilarious! Chubbles 21:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Super-heavy tank. Anas ^talk? 12:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ultra-heavy tank

Ultra-heavy tank (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unclear basis for existence, little unique content, already merged into super-heavy tank  —Michael Z. 2007-07-05 18:59 Z 18:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing here that isn't in articles it links to. Clarityfiend 20:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 01:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Super-heavy tank. Terraxos 01:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to super-heavy tank. Redirects are cheap. Yum. Someguy1221 05:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the useful information appears to already be present in the Super-heavy tank article. Average Earthman 07:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Allow me to just point out (as the nom did) that the information is only there because the two articles were merged, and point out that there are GDFL concerns in merging information from an article and then deleting it. Someguy1221 18:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  Is'nt there a way to deal with that? Should the histories be merged? —Michael Z. 2007-07-09 05:38 Z

• Comment. Yes, admins can do that. Someguy1221 15:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to Super-heavy tank. No information that is not already there.--Victor falk 09:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Do not redirect unless the term exists in the real world. Pavel Vozenilek 15:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the purpose of a redirect, to guide people from erroneous terms to a correct one.--Victor falk 08:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to Keep. Walton^One 17:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of selected cities by population density

List of selected cities by population density (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article has no defined criteria for inclusion, and as such, is useless as a list. From WP:LIST - “Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria”. The article's ambiguous title means it can't provide this. Further, the article is predominantly unsourced, and I believe the calculation of the population densities by users (as stated at the top of the article) can be considered original research. Hammer Raccoon 18:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep but define criteria. --DodgerOfZion 18:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep has some potential to become an interesting list although could certainly do with clarification of the criteria for inclusion. PatGallacher 19:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not just delete this and create a new page, e.g List of cities by population density, or something to that effect? Hammer Raccoon 20:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be far too large; this list is for more well-known cities, and besides, it isn't like this page is a lost cause. --DodgerOfZion 20:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that page would be too large, so only the top however many cities would be listed - much like the article List of cities by population. But the reason that this article should be deleted is inherent in the title; there is no basis for inclusion or exclusion in the list. Where in the article does is say that "this list is for more well-known cities"? Hammer Raccoon 20:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - The fact that the title says selected cities implies there is no definition for inclusion, i.e. it's POV. On this basis the article should be deleted. -- MightyWarrior 22:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Although the title says cities, most of the areas are smaller communes, districts, municipalities, etc. -- MightyWarrior 22:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per m:eventualism. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing, and the information is fundamentally relevant to an encyclopedia. Shalom ^Hello 22:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and because the "area" and "population" of a "city" has different meanings in different countries making comparison either (a) subjective and POV, or (b) meaningless. Take "cities" in Italy which equate to the comune to which they are assigned; the comune may have more or less rural area assigned, making the ratio change dramatically; most cities in Europe follow that notion (commune in France, gemeinde (municipality) in Germany, etc.) but how the country divides itself into these divisions and whether rural areas are or are not thrown into various cities determines the density as calculated in the article. Note that according to our Communes of France article, France's 61 million people are divvied among 36,568 communes; and Comune tells us that Italy's 59 million people are divided among only 8,101 comuni; its very much comparing apples and oranges. Carlossuarez46 23:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Perhaps it needs some work; the "selected cities" title is unfortunate, since the locations are worldwide and are chosen for their density, or, in the case of some notable locations, their lack of density. Moreover, there probably needs to be more of an explanation as to the criteria, although one can infer that it's based on the "city limits" of a municipality with its own government. I'd never heard of Levallois-Perret but it apparently is such a municipality, and similar in origins and in name to Levittown; this is a good companion piece to Population denisities; the stats on Manila and Cairo are revealing. Mandsford 03:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Manila especially, as its density drops by 1/3 if defined in the way other jurisdictions would define the city, see Metro Manila, which just demonstrates the apples & oranges of this. Take Hamburg, Germany, not listed in this article because the definition of the city is coextensive with the entire bundesland dropping the density too low to be among the "selected". Since density is not uniform, it is an interesting statistic but ultimately because of the differences of definition not useful in a comparative way. Carlossuarez46 18:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and define critera. Another victim of bad titles. --Hemlock Martinis 08:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not very informative, unmaintainable. Article about how densely populated areas impact urban planning and life style would be useful, a list with who knows from where and how obsolete values is not. Pavel Vozenilek 15:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Selected cities indicate a certain degree of bias. Had it been like List of cities in some state of the United States by population density, it could be a different story.--Kylohk 12:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete ck lostsword•T•C 23:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional Medal of Honor recipients

List of fictional Medal of Honor recipients (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Page is compromised of WP:OR and does not serve any encyclopedic value. Original AFD survived as most keep votes were because "it's interesting" Article should be deleted --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 19:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - fails the 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information...' test. Utterly unreferenced, too. Terraxos 01:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep under the theory that winning the Medal of Honor is an important plot point within the fiction. But I'm not going to kick my feet and cry if this goes, even if I did work on it. Otto4711 02:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I know there needs to be more of an argument, and that (as set out in WP:IDONTLIKEIT), one needs more than their personal feeling on something like this. As best, it's a crufty list of blue-links and names, with no clue as to what fictional accomplishments earned them a fictional medal of honor, which is dull in any list. Notwithstanding that, however, a list like this cheapens the real Medal of Honor, which has been earned by the recipient the fictional characters have had a Medal written for them as character development. If there was a "List of fictional brave people" that would be bad enough, just for its cruftiness alone. A "List of fictional people who died in Vietnam" would be slightly offensive; a list of fictional Medal of Honor recipients is worst of all. Send this one away. Mandsford 03:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - addressing specifically the "cheapens" aspect of your argument, I find that unacceptably POV here. A list of fictional charatcers who have done or achieved a particular feat has no impact on real people who have done the same feat. Otto4711 03:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • Response You are correct, Otto... as noted in my intro, I concede that I need more than my POV in this one. True, nothing can "cheapen" the Medal of Honor, and that's a poor choice of words. However, there may be others than I who find this particular list offensive. I stand by the point that Medals of Honor are earned, not imagined. Mandsford 12:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC).
• Delete A major publication asserting the notability of the fictional recipients of the Medal of Honor? Anyone? No? Didn't think so /sarcasm-off Sorry, but if it's not notable it shouldn't be noted on Wikipedia Tdmg 03:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The only one that I can see where it is a major plot point is Courage Under Fire; AFAIK, just a minor detail in the rest. Clarityfiend 03:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Raymond Shaw's MOH was definitely a major plot point of The Manchurian Candidate, both novel and film. Otto4711 05:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Rebuttal He gets the MOH. Now, how does that drive the plot? Have you been brainwashed to infiltrate and undermine our bourgeois Wikipedia...comrade?Clarityfiend 07:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• How does it drive the plot? Fabricating his and the squad's memories to support the MOH citation is a major plot driver. The status accorded a MOH winner is a major plot driver. Raymond's specific status as a MOH winner opens doors for him in both the novel and film. Otto4711 21:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Per WP:TRIVIA. This article is full of trivial information, which attempts to document everything that happens in a movie Corpx 07:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as a list, and Categorizize as only fictional characters significant enough to have an article should count. 70.51.10.130 05:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Neutral List of Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients and List of Italian American Medal of Honor recipients exist and survived AfD, so there's absolutely no point of arbitrarily deleting this one, given they're all equally non-notable in intersection. When those lists are deleted, this should go too. Bulldog123 23:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Although I dont agree with the existence of those lists either, they're real world subjects. Categorizing details like this in fiction seems extremely trivial Corpx 01:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I agree with you. I'm just going to make it "neutral" then. Otherwise I might be making a point. Bulldog123 07:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dilemma. Anas ^talk? 12:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Damned if you do, damned if you don't

Damned if you do, damned if you don't (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The page is unsourced, poorly written and does a horribly job of demonstrating the phrase in question. It needs to be deleted, or if not deleted, needs to be rewritten badly The Clawed One 18:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Dilemma. No need to explain every aphorism with its own diagrams when the simple logic mathematics of Dilemma will do. --David Andréas 18:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Paradox. Lugnuts 18:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - there's no paradox here: you're just damned :-) Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 22:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, yep. It was a ref to this Simpsons episode. Redirect to dilemma too! Lugnuts 05:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Dilemma - I don't see it as distinctive enough of one to warrant its own entry, and it's more of a colloquial explanation of a bad situation in the first place. A side note to Lugnuts, this is not a paradox - those are best illustrated thusly: "if you decide to kill yourself by travelling back in time to kill your grandmother before your mother was born, how did you come into being to commit the act in the first place?" What we're looking at here is not a paradox, but just a form of dilemma. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect and selectively merge to dilemma, as above. Shalom ^Hello 22:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to dilemma. Despite what the article claims, this phrase has nothing to do with the excluded middle. Terraxos 01:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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:V; see Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. NawlinWiki 04:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horror Music / Hevanely Beans

Horror Music / Hevanely Beans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability & Unverified; This article seems to be one of episodes in Camp Lazlo. the creator may have had confidence in the information. However it is unknown, and it cannot be verified now. (fake info?) If its infomation is true, its information is too early yet to separate and it can be contained in List of Camp Lazlo episodes at present.--Mujaki 18:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. We don't typically have articles about upcoming episodes, and this is why - the information can't be verified. Terraxos 01:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete ck lostsword•T•C 23:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amir Blumenfeld

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

seems that this page has already gone through an afd in 2005 and has been recreated. Non notable person, no external references apart from his own website. no encyclopaedic article. Possible speedy?. Also picture Image:Amir-Blumenfeld.jpg which only links to this page should be deleted Greatestrowerever 18:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Abstain. I rearranged the AfD because Greatest&c had placed it in the original AfD - this is the second nomination of this article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, poorly written and no independent sources Callelinea 22:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete terrible (likely vanity) stub for nn teenager. Bigdaddy1981 23:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable writer: he wasn't notable back in 2005, and he still isn't now. Terraxos 01:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not Notable. Captain panda 04:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Urban golf. Walton^One 17:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campus Golf

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

Nom - this is just another name for "Urban golf". I don't deny that this activity exists, but the name is just a local variation and isn't significant in and of itself. If not delete, then at least merge this with "urban golf", but that idea has met with unexplained resistance. Rklawton 17:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge or Redirect with Urban golf per nom. --David Andréas 18:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nom - this game is similar to urban golf but not at all the same thing. This game has spread to college campuses across America and is known only as Campus Golf and not as Urban Golf. I believe that you will have several Wikipedia people search out a link to Campus Golf who have never heard of Urban Golf. Please believe me when I tell you that playing in city streets is not the same thing as on a college campus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.114.51 (talk)

Nom - Many years ago, when I was a student at Baylor University, we use to have students travel from universities all across the country to play our course. We even sent Baylor players up to Kansas university for a Big 12 campus golf tourney. This is a game that carries its own traditions and has its own heritage. The only similarities I see to Urban Golf is that it's a form of golf. I think wikipedia would be wise to continue the campus golf page and watch loyal players from across the country fill in its unqiue rules, forms and traditions. I challenge you to google campus golf and see it's many sources. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.114.51 (talk)

• Merge and redirect with Urban golf. If it is in principle otherwise indistinguishable from this, this is where the variant should be merged to. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. Piccadilly 22:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge with Urban golf. Terraxos 01:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. Cedars 10:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete -- we need actual sources, not just a count of Ghits. NawlinWiki 19:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omniglot

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

This is a useful and cool website, but I don't see that it meets WP:WEB. I can't find non-trivial media coverage. The article cites only one review of the site, hosted at Bowdoin College, which seems to be a reprint of material from the American Library Association newsletter. The site has no indication of major awards. Therefore, even though I like the site, I suspect that it doesn't meet our notability guidelines. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per a very thoughtful nom. Alexa rank is about 29,000. Shalom ^Hello 22:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no serious assertion of notability. Terraxos 01:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A Google search turned up more than 300,000 hits. While the article doesn't say a great deal about the site, it can be improved. Lumturo 02:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Since "omniglot" is an English word used independently of the website, I have to doubt that all 300,000 of those hits are relevant here. However, if some of them are from reliable sources, they would be useful. I did a Google search before starting this AfD (as well as a Lexis-Nexis search, and a Google Scholar search), and didn't come up with useful sources. It's entirely possible that I missed something, though, so if anyone can find some independent, non-trivial coverage of the website, please let us know. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep Yahoo! test confirms status of notability here for a search of "Omniglot web site -Wikipedia" returns almost 100,000 hits. Alexa turns up 88,000. Gogle also has many.bibliotheque (Talk) 11:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Search hits mean extremely little. I agree with Akhilleus: insignificant mentions in reliable sources: we can't keep this. Mangojuice^talk 18:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete ck lostsword•T•C 23:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cherry Beach Sound

Cherry Beach Sound (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Blatant COI article was created by User:Guerrieri who's username matches the last name of the studio founder/owner. After that was speedied it was recreated by User:Cherrybeachsound. Appears to be a self promotion article that doesn't provide any proof of notability, and often reads like an advert. Delete Improbcat 17:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable and obvious advertising/self-promotion. -- Hux 18:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable self-promotion article. Terraxos 01:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nice picture of the bus, but clearly spam-ful, no references or proof of any of the cited artists actually having been there. SkierRMH 02:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anthony.bradbury. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Herman goebbels

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

This article looks like a duplicate of Joseph Goebbels. Shalom ^Hello 17:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete G7. Author blanked page, although blanking was reverted by another editor (apparently in error). Deor 17:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete This article does not need to be here - it is a nonsense cut-and-paste from [[Joseph Goebbels. I have deleted it. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and salted. Anas ^talk? 12:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not For Your Ears

Not For Your Ears (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article has been deleted and recreated no less than 4 times (twice as speedy; twice as PROD). Recently recreated, PROD'd, and de-PROD'd, it's time that this had a full discussion. This is a bootleg with no inherent demonstration of notability per WP:MUSIC; i.e. there is not sufficient independent coverage of this to demonstrate that it is any way a notable part of the musicians' discography... I'd say it should be deleted. Isotope23 17:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I am inclined to agree with your assessment. I am not aware of any consensus regarding bootlegs, but this example certainly seems to fail the written guideline. Adrian M. H. 17:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Salt possibly using the protected redirect method (back to Evanescence). Given the history of this article, this needs to end here and now. Absolutely nothing can be sourced aside from lyric sites, fan boards, download sites, etc; I can find no news source which has written about this material. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 21:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. There is nothing on this article which suggests it is in any way notable. Terraxos 01:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This is no more than a bootleg that contains Amy Lee's "You" which, as you all know, is a very personal song to her and shouldn't have been released. Having this article here only informs Evanescence fans about a song which they're not supposed to know is in existance. Also if fans really want to know about it, we could post a link on the main evanescence page directing them to

http://evanescencereference.info/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page . This has everything evanescence in one database including reasons not to download "You". HappiestCamper 11:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, the forbidden Amy Lee song is mentioned, rightly or wrongly, in passing in the Amy Lee article. Extraordinary Machine 18:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete; unofficial bootleg, the existence of which can't be verified through independent reliable sources. This kind of material is more suitable for the Evanescence Reference, which, as mentioned above, already has an article on the bootleg. Extraordinary Machine 18:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It's fine that "You" is mentioned in the Amy Lee article as it is a song by her. But thanks for telling me about it anyway HappiestCamper 18:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 14:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frost Salamander

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

Was Listed as "Too Obscure" in a Prod, but since there's a large catalog of these things that may be affected I think it should go to AfD. IMO this entire category should go into a list CredoFromStart ^talk 21:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I would also support Listifying the more obscure ones, but notable D&D monsters of that type, such as the Tarrasque (Dungeons & Dragons) should retain their articles. I feel I was a bit hasty in creating this article. Accept my apologies. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 22:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete (and/or turn into a list). Unlike some D&D monsters, this creature is not notable in its own right. Terraxos 01:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as trivial -- SockpuppetSamuelson 10:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Magical beast (Dungeons & Dragons) John Vandenberg 03:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nikolai Levey

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

This guy has no kind of notability, he scores 0 on the google test of notability with less than a hundred hits [Nikolai Levey -wikipedia -answers -blog] . He produced an album and doesn't seem to have done much since. The article was prone to all kinds of rubbish and has never been sourced. If it is here to fill a red link from Coldplay a few details can be merged there. I move to Delete Mike33 23:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Bigdaddy1981 02:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unless some reliable media sources have seen fit to write about this person, I cannot see a good reason to keep it. Notability is not inherited, after all. Adrian M. H. 18:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Burzmali 20:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• DeleteUnless some more sources are found. Callelinea 22:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 14:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bif Bang Pow!

Bif Bang Pow! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about a company with no obvious claim of notability. Likely to be spam, as related edits were made by User:65.91.28.130, which is an IP owned by Entertainment Earth, a retailer of the Bif Bang Pow!'s product. This edits occurred just a few minutes before the creator of the article created their account and the creator has edited the same articles [6]. TigerShark 23:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I prod'ed the article yesterday after the same observations, but later retracted the prod. While the sole editor's goal is clearly self-promotion, the article's been trimmed back to mostly factual stuff and it now does at least make an attempt to assert notability. I tried to engage the editor on his/her talk page but got no response, although he or she did appear to try to adhere to the requests I made (e.g. by not re-deleting the prod for example).

Okay, so what's my point in all this? I think notability is borderline, but Seethelittlegoblin seems to be amenable to leaving out the promotional stuff, so I don't see this article as being overly spammy anymore. So I don't think this article really hurts Wikipedia per se (though it's debatable whether or not it helps).

I don't really have an opinion either way on keep vs. delete. I just thought these comments might be useful to other editors in deciding which way to go. --Jaysweet 16:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thansk Jaysweet. I just wondered which parts of the article you feel possibly assert notability. All I can see is that they have created model for notable subjects, and they have shown them at a, probably, notable trade show. I wouldn't consider either of those to make the company or products notable themselves. Is there anything else? Cheers TigerShark 21:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The assertions of notability I saw were: the association with Alex Ross, who is notable; the final sentence of the article proper saying that the Big Lebowski figures were featured at a Comic Con; and the three 3rd party articles in the references section (from IGN, Film Junk, and Action Figure Insider).

Now as to whether those assertions actually prove notability... I'm with you about the Comic Con, probably not. The 3rd party article, well, it's borderline. Action Figure Insider, probably not. IGN, well, I dunno, IGN is a pretty notable publication, but I'm not sure everything they cover is notable per se. I don't know anything about Film Junk.

The association with Alex Ross I think might be the strongest argument they have going. There doesn't seem to be any debate on Wikipedia as to whether he is notable, and if this is what he is doing now, maybe that makes sense. Maybe a merge with Alex Ross then?

Anyway, like I say, I'm definitely not voting keep. At best, this article is borderline. --Jaysweet 18:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not too sure about this, either. It needs better (and cited) sources, rather than just a bunch of links, some of which are a little bit marginal reliability-wise. There is some assertion of notability, granted, but not quite enough. I have to err slightly in favour of deletion but I can envisage this being kept or lacking consensus. Adrian M. H. 18:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - looks just about notable to me, but verification of the link with Alex Ross would be nice. At best, they're a very minor company until some of these toy lines are actually released. Terraxos 01:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Union Party

The Union Party (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced article that may be a hoax (I could find no reliable sources on my own). Even if it does exist, it has no releases as yet so the article is just crystal ballery. Closenplay 07:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable. --Huon 13:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Apparently non-existent or out of business (the domain name is available). Certainly unverifiable and potentially zero notability. Maybe it will get off the ground and become famous one day; then it can have an article. Adrian M. H. 18:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable until references can be provided. Terraxos 01:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^One 17:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Independence Party

Southern Independence Party (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is about a tiny former U.S. political party, which was founded as a splinter group from the very small fringe Southern Party. Its head was a non-notable blogger. It has now disbanded, supposedly. It's unknown if they ever ran anyone for office. The article has no assertion of notability and no sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no indication of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki 18:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge this with the Southern Party article. Failing that, delete it. Adrian M. H. 18:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd be hesitant to merge unsourced material (the only kind in this article). We could include there the mention of the Texas branch of the SIP, which still has a website. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unreferenced article about a minor, non-notable splinter party. Terraxos 01:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Eternal Daughter

The result was keep. ~ Wikihermit 03:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Article gives no indication of notability with multiple independent reliable sources. Whispering 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral. A search brought up some coverage in Computer Gaming World, a real actual print magazine. That alone probably isn't enough to keep by itself, but I'd consider voting to keep if another source can be found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The game was covered in a review by 1UP.com. Combined with coverage by Computer Gaming World, I think that passes for notability. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 15:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Can we get a scan or a link to the CGW article? Whispering 17:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be available online without paying $7.99, but it's the March '06 issue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Nevermind, found it. Here. Looks to be a fairly trivial mention though, in an article with other free games. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• (outdent) Comment That is rather trivial, one good source so far. Got another? Whispering 18:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Seems just about notable enough to me - but needs these independent sources added in the article itself. Terraxos 01:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. It's close, but seems notable enough. It also has an entry in HOTU, which is just on the edge of "reliable", here. More importantly, despite its lack of critical citation the game's had impact. It's the foundation for the notoriety of Derek Yu, founder of The Independent Gaming Source and now a review editor at GameTunnel, and for the anticipation around his upcoming game Aquaria. It also has significant grassroots popularity which is inherently difficult to cite; I'd put it as the second-best known independent exploratory platformer, after Cave Story. If anyone ever makes a Derek Yu page, an Eternal Daughter page will instantly become obligatory; without one, I think it still warrants existence. HypoCee 18:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Pambazuka News

The result was no consensus. CitiCat 03:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Delete - No assertion of notability, seemingly fails WP:WEB, no reliable sources for verification, also suspect a conflict of interest with the article creator. Prod removed without comment by aforementioned COI account. DarkSaber2k 13:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep — Googling suggests that it might just about be notable, but the lack of sources and conflict of interest mean that I wouldn't greatly oppose its deletion. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 13:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'd say there are assertations of notability in the article, but they aren't backed up by reliable sources, and the WP:COI aspect is worrying. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V -- Y not? 18:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - seems notable, at least if the part about having half a million readers is true, and gets plenty of hits on Google. Needs a far better article to prove it, though. Terraxos 01:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  Is there a source for the readership being half a million? I didn't see it with a brief scan of their website, although the scan was just that - brief. Picaroon (Talk) 03:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I find several instances of independent coverage which make its notability clear: [7], [8] (subscription), and [9]. Also, it has won multiple other awards. Picaroon (Talk) 19:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wardrox

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

No sourced claims of notability found; a quick google search shows pretty much nothing but minimal data on open submission sites and forum posts, neither of which qualify as reliable sources. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• The article is on the online game wardrox, which can be found at http://wardrox.com Wardrox 15:23, 28 June 2007 (GMT)
  • Existence of the game is not the issue here; the issue is whether there's enough sources to meet the notability criteria. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, after reading the notability criteria I can see the article should be removed through lack of sources. I can put the information elsewhere. I am a little surprised though at the harshness of the criteria, but I understand why it's there.Wardrox 11:09, 29 June 2007 (GMT)
• Delete per WP:WEB and lack of reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unsourced, fails notability guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable and unreferenced. Terraxos 01:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. There's no referenced information to merge; when verifiable data becomes available it can be added to the main The Sims article. A Train^talk 21:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Sims:The Island

The Sims:The Island (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Reason: No references etc. Turk brown 22:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Doing a very simple Google search shows that the game is confirmed, so the article should be kept, and it can just be expanded. In the future I would recommend doing some research on something before you start nominating something for deletion because it doesn't have sources. This took me 5 seconds to verify that it's in production. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless expanded and referenced using reliable sources. Very little content and since few details are available it constitutes crystal balling. merge and redirect per the below thread. MartinDK 15:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • First of all, WP:CRYSTAL ball does not apply as it has been announced as a game, it's not a "it might come out", it's a "will come out". 2nd, it is not a valid reason to delete an article because it needs expanded. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Then feel free to add the sources as long as they are reliable. WP:N and WP:RS applies no matter how many Google hits you get. Your criticism of the nomination is unfair and at the very least bordering bad faith assumption. The (misleading) external link you provided is a reprint of a press release. Those are specifically not regarded as reliable sources. MartinDK 15:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
      • First of all, I never claimed it to be a reliable source. I just showed you a real easy way to confirm if the game is real or not. With that being said, you could expand upon that, knowing that the game is confirmed, to research and find reliable sources. And how can you say that I'm bordering bad faith? If I read something, and it's fishy, I go looking for more information to see if I can back something up. I don't look at an article and go "well, it has no sources, I'm going to nominate it for AfD". You can't just blindy run around in the dark. Make sure you bring a flashlight or something. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Sorry but that's not how it works. The onus is on the people who want the article kept to provide reliable sources. As I stated above you are free to add those sources if they are so easy find. Your uncivil remarks about me running around in the dark are inappropriate and constitute a personal attack. I am asking you to show me the sources that you claim to have found within 5 seconds of Google searching. MartinDK 16:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• When I said "you", I didn't mean you personally, but rather "you" in the general sense, ie: anyone. ie: someone could easily find sources and add them to the article, and possible add some more information on the game. With the filters that my job put on searches I would not be able to do as much as I would want to at this time. When I get home I could try to help clean it up. The question is this: Is it notable? Well, it appears to be a game for all the major consoles, and it is confirmed, so yes it is. It just needs to be expanded upon. Definitely not worthy of a deletion --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• • It's not clear to me why we need third party reliable sources here. While they're certainly preferable to primary sources, there's no reason to think that the press release is false in any way. After all, the company is in the best position to know what they plan to publish. That's sufficient to meet WP:V. And it's not like notability is an issue. When the game comes out, it will be part of the best selling PC game franchise ever. I'd say that, in of itself, makes the game notable.-Chunky Rice 18:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Not really. Verifiability is not the issue here. Until there are enough reliable sources with non-trivial coverage this should not be a separate article. WP:N and WP:RS are quite clear about these things. I don't understand what the big problem is. It's hardly an article as it is now and given that very little is known beyond what is in the article it should not be a separate article. MartinDK 18:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Why are you citing otherstuffexists? I don't see how that applies here. Further, I don't understand the argument that you're making in general. WP:RS is a guideline based primarily on WP:V. If you agree that verifiability isn't an issue, why bring up WP:RS? Is your argument that this game isn't notable? If that's the case, I'm not sure I understand what criteria you're using. It's true that it probably doesn't meet the Primary notability criteria, but those aren't the only criteria that we use. I agree that lack of content is an issue, but even with bare bones information, we should be able to get it up to stub quality. That said, I have no objections to a merge.-Chunky Rice 19:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I made an honest mistake when I was looking up the wikilink. I corrected it just before you posted your reply. WP:N requires multiple reliable sources with non-trivial coverage. Notability is not inherited. Let's wait until we have some more to say about this game. MartinDK 19:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
        • For those reading this without having read the article yet this is what all the fuss is about:
        • The Sims: The Island is in production for the Xbox 360, the Wii, and the Playstation 3. Not to much has been released so far, but it will be joined with Need for Speed: The Island in which the enviroments will be very similar. There will be offline story mode, offline sandbox mode, and online sandbox mode.
        • That's it! That's all we have right plus a link to a press release and a policy guideline called WP:RS based on WP:V which specifically says that press releases being self-published sources are not reliable sources. WP:N requires reliable sources. MartinDK 19:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Just as a point of information, that's a guideline, not a policy. -Chunky Rice 19:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Also, notability can be satisfied any number of ways. Certainly coverage by multiple reliable sources is the most common one we use, but others have been found to be acceptable. -Chunky Rice 19:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Feel free to cite what guideline or policy you believe should be applied. I'm especially curious because WP:V is also the same policy that tells us we shouldn't use self-published sources. MartinDK 19:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
              • You already said that Verifiability wasn't an issue. But regardless, the policy states, "Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it." A press release about an upcoming game clearly meets all of those criteria.
              • As far as notability goes, I've already said. It's a major release from a major publisher in the best selling franchise of all time. To argue that it's not notable is a little silly, in my mind. -Chunky Rice 20:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
                • So you don't believe that the article needs to meet WP:N and cite any reliable sources with non-trivial coverage as long as it is a future game confirmed with a press release from a major publisher? In other words notability is inherited in your opinion and does not need to be asserted? You haven't cited any policy or guideline that supports this. Are you able to cite anything that supports your arguments in favor of keeping it? WP:N specifically says that self-published sources should not be used to assert notability. This is bordering wikilawyering. MartinDK 20:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
                  • WP:IAR? All joking aside, I never said that the subject doesn't need to be notable, just that it doesn't need to have multiple reliable sources to be so. All of the notability guidelines support this. Also, I've never made an assertion that the article should be kept. -Chunky Rice 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
                    • He he good answer! So all the debating aside do we agree that for the time being this could be merged into the main article, this one turned into a redirect and then when more details and coverage are available a separate article could be created? That would be the ideal solution in my opinion. MartinDK 20:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
                      • I think I did say, somwhere in the thread, that a merge would be fine with me. The reason is that there just doesn't seem to be enough information to support an article. I still think that the game is notable. -Chunky Rice 20:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
                        • I changed my !vote accordingly. As long as this is merged for the time being notability is not an issue and the press release could be used in the main article to verify that the game is in production. MartinDK 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect (or just Delete). This is a couple of sentences about a potential game without any citation at all. Merge a sentence that it's planned (with an actual citation) to The Sims: Sequels and redirect this title there until there's something to actually say about the game. One of the reasons wikipedia is not a crystal ball is that funding for the project may fall through, the company making it could be bought out, the game itself might run into technical problems that cause a company to shelve it indefinitely, etc. At the moment it's something that maybe, possibly, could exist someday. If and when that day comes, I have little doubt someone will write an article about it, with reviews from periodicals that cover the gaming industry. Until then, this entire "article" is an uncited statement of intent. -Markeer 01:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and merge as above. The game has been announced, but there's currently so little to say about it it would be better suited as a footnote in the The Sims article than an article of its own. Terraxos 01:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete ck lostsword•T•C 19:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mofunzone

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

Non-notable website. The website doesn't have reliable sources and doesn't meet the notability guideline WP:WEB. It survived an an earlier deletion discussion a year and a half ago, but all the "keep" arguments were based on Google hits and Alexa ranking, neither of which are indicators of notability and are flawed as described in WP:GOOGLE. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 14:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per earlier deletion failure, plus this site has been around for eight years and is used by millions around the world. It's also one of the earliest providers of online games, casual games, and more. Do a research please, and check the site's stats.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.249.77 (talk • contribs)
  • I did do research, and there's no reliable sources written about this website. You mind showing some? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 17:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Well what type of information would you like? There is the Media Awareness Research, Archive.Org's archive of the site for the past 8 years, and Alexa's rating of the site. Considering how relatively new online games and casual games are on the net, mofunzone.com among a few other sites, is the first site to provide casual games both online and for download eight years ago. Another similar and notable site is Newgrounds and much more on wikipedia. I believe this is a waste of time, especially considering this is the third nomination proceeding the previous two failed nominations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.249.77 (talk • contribs)
      • As I said in the nomination, Alexa rankings aren't reliable sources, nor is archive.org or a listing in a rankings. If you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, it asks for published, fact-checked sources, which none of the sources you gave are. And just because it failed two previous AfD does not mean this result will be the same; consensus can change, and the keep arguments of the previous AfDs were very weak. Unless you can come up with sources that are more reliable, it might have a chance. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
        • If what I have mentioned previously are not reliable sources, then how do you explain entries such as newgrounds? I can list more!
          • If you've got them, then list them. And just because Newgrounds has an article doesn't mean this site should have one, too. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no serious assertion of notability. Terraxos 01:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There aren't any reliable source, even though Mofunzone is my favorite website for online games.--Sbluen 23:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rockin' Squat

Rockin' Squat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Put up for speedy for notability, but did not seem 100% certain of NN status to me. But still, no independant sources are given for his notability. TexasAndroid 15:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, borderline speedy deletable.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Don't delete, same rationale as with the Assassin article. TheAnarcat 00:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as the most notable member, with multiple side projects and other interests, of the clearly notable Assassin (rap crew). Chubbles 22:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Most notable member of a popular rap group in France, various releases independent from the group, recently interviewed by Le Monde http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3246,36-818042@51-921148,0.html and has been interviewed by a major French rap site http://www.rap2k.com/interviews-rap-30769-l-interview-exclusive-de-rockin-squat.html Jayran 21:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - since Assassin (rap crew) is notable, so is he. The article needs a rewrite, though - I'll make a start on that immediately. Terraxos 00:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assassin (rap crew)

Assassin (rap crew) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Band with no sourcing to show notability, but IMHO just does not quite deserve speedy. The band's founder, Rockin' Squat, has been placed up separately for AFD. TexasAndroid 15:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be a shame to remove Assassin from Wikipedia. It is a landmark in French hip-hop, the first french hip-hop band to be self-produced and not signing with the major labels (which might explain the lack of what you call "notability"). It is a reknown hip-hop crew in France and is still producing albums. See also http://www.assassin-connexion.net TheAnarcat 00:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability. Article doesn't assert notability. {{db-a7}} is appropriate. Jay32183 19:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC) A secondary source has been added to the article. Jay32183 20:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Several albums on EMI France, a major label, establishes notability. Article now asserts national tours of France as well. Chubbles
  • No it doesn't. Notability is established by being the subject of multiple, reliable, non-trivial, secondary sources independent of the topic. The sources must also appear in the article, not just exist elsewhere. Jay32183 21:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Point 5 of WP:MUSIC states: "Has released two or more albums on a major label." This group has seven releases on a major label, five on EMI and two on Virgin. Chubbles 21:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The band has charted in France, which establishes notability. http://lescharts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Assassin Jayran 19:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - chart success (one album was up to #11, not bad at all) and substantial body of work seem to establish notability. It's tough to find refs for bands that are focused in non-English speaking countries, I've noticed; the refs pointed out above seem to work for me. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - seems a notable group, but the assertion of notability needs to be more clearly made in the article. Terraxos 00:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was withdrawn - per request on my talk page. De facto creator is asking for time to find sources and add to article. The Evil Spartan 21:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nittwits

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

Another non-notable Penn State organization. While I appreciate all they've done for our university in promoting the basketball team, the fanclub of one of the more non-notable college basketball teams is not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. One previous AFD was closed no consensus. The mentions they have in media are very fleeting. The Evil Spartan 17:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I probably would have said merge, but the school basketball team they support doesn't seem to have an article, and the sources wouldn't cover more than maybe a sentence anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable university organization, with very little external recognition. Terraxos 00:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - It's a real organization (I hope!) with a regular publication and it attracted the attention of ESPN. I think the article needs help but I think it does have a little merit.Fineday 03:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Y not? 18:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project Management Body of Knowledge

Project Management Body of Knowledge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This text sounds like self-promotion or an attempt at marketing a product or concept on Wikipedia. Althena 19:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. This is one of the best references on the Project Management. I agree that the style of the article should be changed and the article itself should be extended, but the article should not be deleted. There is no self-promotion as this book is a collaborative work of many individuals. This book for project managers is like The Art of Computer Programming for programmers. Solarapex 17:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose the deletion. Agree with changing the style. EyeMD ^T|C 03:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, pending a complete rewrite and more sources. Any knowledgeable volunteers? Adrian M. H. 21:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose the deletion, is a must, for the Wikipedia. Agree also with style change and increase extension.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep, needs better sources and I've cleaned it up a bit (incoherent doesn't really start to describe how the article current was). --Fredrick day 19:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the article's not great, but the subject is clearly notable within the field of project management. Terraxos 00:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unless we make a policy decision to include individual articles on all the the tens of thousands of iso, IEEE, ASTM, SAE, and other standards. They are all published separately, they are all needed within their usually small niche, and articles about them will usually be unencyclopedic. This is a larger niche than many, but the content is just the table of contents of a book. If kept, the title should be changed to "standard (IEEE Std 1490-2003" to avoid the false impression that an article on project management body of knowledge as a general subject in addition to project management is justified. The contents, by the way, is strongly POV--the one external reference is a comprehensive attack on the usefulness of the standard.DGG 00:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get extreme. Following this logic, articles like ANSI C, UML, and even HTML would have to be deleted as well, just because we don't want to have ISO standards in Wikipedia. I hear what you are saying, but let's sort out a few things:

• Style and content - it seems everyone is agree that the style and content should be changed.
• Title - not too many people know this standard by its numbers, PMBOK is a much more popular name. I have not seen yet any PM courses without mentioning PMBOK (note, that this courses were not conducted by PMI).

I think the tag 'Article requires cleanup' would be much more appropriate than 'AfD'. With the 'AfD' tag I have very minimal motivation to touch this article. Others may feel the same. It just doesn't make sense to spend time and make any significant changes knowing that the article may get deleted. Basically, the article is locked in a way it is now. In order to cut this knot I think we need to do three steps:

1. Ask ourselves if PMBOK is significant enough to have an article in Wikipedia (without taking into account the style it is written now).
2. If so, remove the AfD tag and
3. Decide what this article should be like and work on improvement.

To me the coverage of the project management area would be weak without this article. Let's not judge significance of an article based solely on the style it is written. It may just need some improvement. Solarapex 23:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The funny thing in this discussion is that 7 wikipedias have an article on PMBOK with no intent to delete it, but some users on this Wikipedia think that this article should be deleted. Solarapex 23:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Seven Wikipedias? do you mean wikipedias in other languages or other wikis? - that's not an argument for keeping it as the criteria for articles varies significantly between wikis. --Fredrick day 23:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant that. Nonetheless, this fact says something. Moreover, I don't think the the criteria for articles varies significantly between English and German (2nd) and French (3rd). Solarapex 23:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep — the PMBOK is one of the definitive references for project management, a foundational work that no serious encyclopedia covering the subject could be without ➥the Epopt, PMP 21:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

we are a general encyclopedia, and the chapter titles simply recapitulate information from the main article. DGG (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that we shouldn't cover a subject as broad as project management because "we are a general encyclopedia"? ➥the Epopt 13:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course we should cover it, and we do; we have the main article, into which this can be merged. I do say that we should not have a separate article about a handbook which provides no additional information, just listing the section headings which of course correspond to the main points about the subject. A reference in the main article would do. By your logic we expand every general reference in every article into a separate article of its own. DGG (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schmutzige Euros 2

Schmutzige Euros 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album. ProD tag deleted with no discussion. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 20:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable album from what looks like a non-notable artist. Adrian M. H. 21:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable album. Terraxos 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. edgarde 12:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as unverifiable in reliable sources. · jersyko talk 18:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Jones (wrestler)

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

Non Notable wrestler Darrenhusted 00:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 00:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP I've created an extensive list of why I believe he meets notability requirements in the talk page when I removed the previous deletion request. He satisifies 4 seperate notability tests when only 1 is needed, what am I missing? Sqweak 02:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC) — Sqweak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Your list basically comes down to four points which you repeat (three of which you repeat), "NCAA California Collegiate Champion" (there are hundreds of NCAA wrestlers without pages, and this alone is not enough to justify his page), Named to Pro Wrestling Illustrated's "PWI 500" from 1998-2005 (500 wrestlers means a lot are not notable), Held titles in All Pro Wrestling and Ultimate Pro Wrestling (A WWE affiliated "talent scout"/development territory) (essesntially winning an indy title does not make a wrestler notable), mentioned in "Beyond the Mat" (being seen in a film nine years ago does not make a wrestler notable, and if he was notable he would have been prominent in the WWE by now). Darrenhusted 10:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Darren, the only thing I repeated was that he was featured in "Beyond the Mat" as that satisfies both "published source" and "enduring historical record" notability tests. While they're similar, the fact he competed in NCAA (satisfying "highest level of amateur sports") and won NCAA California Collegiate Championship ("recognized awards or honors") are different things. I'd agree that individually these accomplishments may not satisfy notability but when combined, and especially his being featured in a major documentary, the page should stay. For comparison, wikipedia features pages on both Arthur Agee and William Gates (from another documentary Hoop Dreams) who had arguably less success in their field than Tony Jones. Additionally, tagging me as a SPA is flash judgement and borders on a personal attack. My first edit was over a year ago in, surprise, a professional wrestling article. I happened to look up Tony while rewatching "Beyond The Mat" and felt motivated to contribute to prevent what I saw as a valid article from being deleted because he's not "notable enough". He satisfies several notability requirements, a lack of success is not a lack of notability. Sqweak 03:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hoop Dreams is a not the same, Arthur and William were the subject of that film, Tony is not. And although Tony has had success there are very few NCAA wrestlers on this site (check the winning teams [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]) and APW is a wrestling school, not affiliated with WWE, and UPW only became affiliated with WWE last year. So if being in a film, being NCAA or wrestling for APW or UPW isn't enough to bring notability then what reason is there for his notability? Darrenhusted 11:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Needs references but otherwise ok article. Callelinea 04:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC) This user copied and pasted this same comment in to a number of AfD debates to make a point.
• Comment, I think you should read WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA, Callelinea. Darrenhusted 12:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Isn't it interesting that we have a biographical article that contains virtually no biographical information? Notable or otherwise, I'm concerened that this article suffers from a severe lack of content. Calgary 04:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, seems notable enough. Should probably have given this the benefit of the doubt rather than relisting. —Xezbeth 21:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't look notable enough to me. None of those 'championships and accomplishments' are particularly significant, and there's a lack of external references. Terraxos 00:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete he's wrestles in A match in the WWE... not notable at all.Balloonman 06:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:V. It also does not prove his notability. Nikki311 01:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Zero VERIFIABILITY from RELIABLE SOURCES. -- Y not? 18:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. per Y: must meet WP:V. And I have a very hard time understanding these minor wrestling leagues, surely, a notable wrestler would meet WP:N's general criterion and this doesn't. Mangojuice^talk 18:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete ck lostsword•T•C 23:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bungee boss

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

This article claims the term was common, but cites no references. I'm not familiar with it outside the comic strip, and I believe it was only mentioned one or two times in the strip. Since this is not a dictionary of terminology, move for deletion. Konczewski 16:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable comic strip terminology. I don't believe this phrase has ever caught on outside of Dilbert itself. Terraxos 00:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above and WP:NEO. No references that assert notability as a neologism. Tdmg 03:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely absurd. Obviously a neologism. DWaterson 23:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Neil ╦ 11:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rami Shalheveth

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

fails WP:BIO. i think this article does about as much as it can to establish rami shalheveth's notability and yet it still fails to establish it, convincingly. Misterdiscreet 18:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- Jacek Kendysz 10:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- Jacek Kendysz 10:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. He has won a Geffen Award for his work, but that in itself isn't enough to make someone notable. Should probably be merged/redirected into the Bli Panika article. Terraxos 00:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I think Bli Panika is fair game for deletion, too Misterdiscreet 04:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. A fair number of Hebrew Google hits [16] but I couldn't find detailed reliable sources about him. nadav (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Neil ╦ 11:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis McCauley

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

Fails WP:BIO. being honored by a non-notable website (Next Generation) does not make you notable. Misterdiscreet 17:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Inadequate assertions of notability for a blogger/writer. Caknuck 20:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and merge/redirect into GamePolitics.com article. Terraxos 00:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was deleted by Rklawton. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hizzoner

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

Previously removed prodded article sent to Wiktionary (wikt:Transwiki:Hizzoner) and currently pending verification there. theProject 16:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete A5. Delete because it's a dicdef. Speedy because it's been transwiki'd already. What they do with it there is their responsibility. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Macauplus

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

No PR [17], abysmal Alexa rank [18] Misterdiscreet 17:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Notability not asserted, zero references. Pagerank and Alexa are not directly indicative of note. That said, no case for notability made in the article, zero citations and references, and almost all of the article is discussing rather generic-sounding aspects of the site in a border-line unencyclopedic manner. MrZaius^talk 15:51, 4 July 2007

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, Traffic Rank for macauplus.com: 1,077,632. Alexa --Voidvector 14:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no obvious notability, insignificant returns on Alexa and Google test. Terraxos 00:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 20:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delta Video

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

Self promotion - deltapike (talk · contribs) - and non-notable. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn, vanity/self-promotion. JJL 02:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - doesn't establish notability, looks like an advertisement, and was created by someone with the suspiciously similar name of 'Deltapike' - probably self-promotion. Terraxos 00:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - unless the article is rewritten to establish notability, seems like an article ripe for deletion.Fineday 03:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Vanispam. Precious Roy 10:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Neil ╦ 11:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cynthia Leigh

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

Non-notable fandom personality DasGreggo 09:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)DasGreggo — DasGreggo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep - Notable in the cosplay world which is very big in Japan and Brazil. Outside of two article talk pages and their own talk page the nom has never made edits outside this topic.[19] --Oakshade 16:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Who cares about her outside of the cosplay world? I have a good friend who I care about as well. He is notable to me, my other friends, and the people who go to our school. Does that mean I should write an article about him on Wikipedia? --Potato dude42 01:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: fails WP:BIO. One would think if she was genuinely notable in the cosplay world, she'd have more than 89 Google hits ("Cynthia Leigh" + "cosplay") [20], where such searches overwhelmingly favor subjects with technological fanbases. She was thoughtful enough to give her deviantART profile, which only has 4,000 pageviews; an astonishingly low total for a three year old DA account, where popular cosplayers with active works routinely reach a hundred thousand page views or more. There are likewise only 96 Google hits for her "clothing line" [21]. I'm sure that there are a couple cosplay boards and conventions where this gal is a Big Name Fan, but that doesn't translate into notability.  RGTraynor  18:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:BIO--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The article fails to state what makes her particularly notable as a cosplayer - indeed, the stated fact that she is apparently only 'semi-professional', and has various other jobs as well, suggests that she isn't. The references aren't particularly useful here - they include her own blog. In the absence of any obvious notability, this should be deleted. Terraxos 00:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep and add cleanup tags. I'd also like to request a checkuser on the nom as it's edit history, or lack thereof, is rather odd. Jtrainor 10:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Just out of curiosity, how do you feel that's pertinent to the nomination?  RGTraynor  12:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Possible sock-puppet, particuarly relavent during AfD debates.--Oakshade 15:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, basically. I could be wrong, but better safe than sorry. If it is a sock puppet, not like the page can't be renomed by someone else, after all. Jtrainor 17:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets aren't illegal, per se; it's the use of them in impermissible ways which is the problem. This isn't obviously a bad-faith nomination, and it isn't as if there's a string of SPAs involved in the discussion.  RGTraynor  17:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Even just one possible SPA should be noted. There doesn't have to be "a string of SPAs" for editors to take note.--Oakshade 18:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, not a sockpuppet. I'm a "big name fan" much like this person, and I've asked the people of the convention where I'm a "big name fan" at *not* to make a Wikipedia entry for me, because I'm not notable. Neither is this person. DasGreggo 06:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)DasGreggo

• Delete Non-notable and fails WP:BIO. --Potato dude42 01:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete ck lostsword•T•C 23:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Vietnamese Youth Organizations

History of Vietnamese Youth Organizations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

this article is a total cut-and-paste of a single section of History of Overseas Vietnamese Youth Organizations, with no new info Chris 09:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It appears this article was created first, then most of the content was moved to History of Overseas Vietnamese Youth Organizations, leaving the stub article we see here. The remaining information should be deleted as well and the page merged into History of Overseas Vietnamese Youth Organizations. Terraxos 23:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination Recurring dreams 13:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 15:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete -- Y not? 18:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quadradius

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

Article was nominated for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G7. It's a reasonably well developed (Start-class), though. Anyhow, I'm nominating the article as a matter of process, as I feel discussion is needed if there were speedy tags on the page. Evilclown93_(talk) 14:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete The reviews are semi-impressive, but I get only 828 ghits for quadradius - pretty pathetic for a supposedly popular game. Out. Brianyoumans 17:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep The article was made by the creators of the game, I think, because it was chock-full of personal biographical info, but that's been (somewhat) removed. The article is altogether not that informative or useful, I guess. But I like the game. --Rebent

*Weak Delete: Isn't notable enough and the article isn't terribly encyclopaedic; it's either this or stubbify. --TheSeer - New statement below. (TalkˑContribs) 10:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: To be more specific, the article is rather self-glorifying (almost like an ad, and it would be worse had large sections hadn't been torn out recently) and for a web based game it's ghit count is very low.
• Comment. I'm unclear on the notability criteria for online games, but this one doesn't seem any more notable than most; having said that, searching 'quadradius' just gave me 15,600 Google hits, so I'm not sure where the 828 figure above came from. I don't know if that makes it notable enough for inclusion. Terraxos 23:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no criteria yet, but because they're online games, I would expect it to have a fairly decent (err... large) amount of Google hits. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 02:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete does not establish notability per WP:WEB. DreamGuy 18:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - based on the present state of the article. Let's see if it improves based on the statements of those proposing it should be kept. It needs attention. Tyrenius 23:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mickey Smith (artist)

Mickey Smith (artist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable artist. Appears to be vanity article, or otherwise overly praising. Sources are all generic links to gallery web sites and such, with nothing on those links to verify author's claims. All other sources are primary. Only a handful of Google hits aside from her own site(s). Delete. Realkyhick 16:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• This entry was created to describe an artist, much like Alec Soth's wikipedia entry. It states facts much like those found on his entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatherever (talk • contribs)

• Comment: "Other stuff exists" is not a valid argument. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Realkyhick 16:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Did a simple google search and it appears there is a lot of information on her. Plenty of sources could be added to this page. Sufficiently passes WP:BIO --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Then add the sources and I may reconsider. I'm actually pretty easy to persuade on matters like this. Realkyhick 23:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless the sources mentioned above are added, then perhaps a weak keep. The artist's statement should be removed. Freshacconci 16:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• FYI the artist's statement is from the 3rd party source, so it can be referenced from there. It appears no one else has taken interest in this article so I will take the time and source the article tonight --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but only if artist atatement is removed, it has no place in a encyclopedia. Callelinea 22:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - could use more external sources, but the subject exists and appears notable enough for inclusion. I agree that the article should be rewritten in a more encyclopaedic tone. Terraxos 23:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Stevens

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. Sources seem to be topic of the Mafia in general. Tried to search for this person on google using multiple different search terms, and could only find maybe one article that just mentioned his name in passing sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, the article is referenced, the historical topic is not one that a straight Google search will necessarily work for, and there are several Google Books results including some of the already-listed references. --Dhartung | Talk 20:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Those books aren't about Walter Stevens, but merely mention him. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 20:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, it is well written and sources. Just by mentioning the subject in the books means he was notable enough, and if he was arrested more then 200 times that also adds to his notability.. I really cannot see why this article was even nominated. Callelinea 22:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep iff sources can be found. Bigdaddy1981

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

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

The result was Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, could have been speedied as empty of content (category a1). NawlinWiki 04:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracies II Soundtrack

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

Yet-unreleased soundtrack to a yet-unreleased game; article doesn't even contain a full introductory sentence; non-existent track listing. The article on Conspiracies II contains more information than this page and even that isn't written in a style and tone befitting an encyclopedia. Cromag ^{talk to me} 18:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Future event fails WP:NOT CRYSTAL BALL Corpx 19:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The soundtrack to a game that hasn't been released yet is about as non-notable as you can get (and violates Wikipedia's policy about future events). Terraxos 23:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train^talk 21:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lone Hand Wilson (film)

Lone Hand Wilson (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

1920 silent film, described as "minor" in Allmovie entry. Orphaned and unimproved since article was created in Oct. 2006. NawlinWiki 18:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Cant find anything that proves notability. IMDB entry is helpless and I cant find anything other than trivial mentions elsewhere. Corpx 19:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep based on starring role of Lester Cuneo; Google results are not unreasonable for a silent movie from 1920. Note: I've moved the article, since there's nothing else to disambiguate it from. --Groggy Dice T | C 12:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Google results are not a reason, IMHO, to keep something on wiki. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to have all the information in the encyclopedia article and to not have to go elsewhere to find out basic info and notability. Since this article has been around for a long time and the article doesn't give me a clue as to it's importance, then I say go. And even Groggy saying here that it is considered notable because Lester Cuneo starred in it. Well sorry Groggy, I have no clue as to who that actor is and even a line saying something like "Oscar winner Lester Cuneo was the lead actor" would give me some indication. But you didn't say that here and NO ONE said it in the article. So, based on the information here and in the article, I stand behind my reasons for prod'ing the article in the first place - based on what is written, it is not notable. Postcard Cathy 16:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OOOPS my mistake. I db emptied it. Also, I don't think an info box and only an info box is reason to keep an article. If it is notable, then someone should have SOMETHING to say about it in narrative form and no one does. Postcard Cathy 16:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a different wikiphilosophy. You focus on the "pedia" half of Wikipedia. The other half is that it is a wiki. The point of a wiki is that it's collaborative, and that all the work doesn't have to be done by the original contributor. So the current entry is just an infobox. It still provides useful links and information, and a starting point. If the article has to be recreated, it might end up with detailed text but no infobox the second time around. Considering the difficulty the average editor is going to have in researching a film that is not available in a modern video format, I think the lack of activity is understandable. Anyway, I've now added a basic narrative, as much as I feel comfortable with for a film I've never seen.

As for the WP:HOLE-ish arguments, brandishing one's lack of knowledge has never impressed me as a debating point. If someone were to say that they were a fan of silent movies, and considered Lone Hand Wilson non-notable, that would be something else. I may be no more knowledgeable about silent films than you, but I don't consider that a reason to go to Category:Silent films and start a deletion spree. --Groggy Dice T | C 14:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, for the exact reason given by Cathy above - the article contains almost zero information about the film. It also has no incoming links, except for a redirect - not even Lester Cuneo's page links here. Appears to be entirely non-notable. Terraxos 23:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  Cuneo's article currently contains no filmography, so it doesn't link to any of his films. I haven't decided how to work this film into his entry so I can wikilink it. Just copying the filmography from the "unreliable" IMDB site would raise RS issues. Adding this film alone, or a random selection of his films, would be arbitrary, since I don't know enough about his career to know which were his most significant films. As for the lack of other links, I wouldn't be surprised if Wikipedia's coverage of the silent film era is weak, and that articles that ought to link to it don't exist yet. We don't have an article for Lafe McKeee, for example, and his career extended into the talkie era. Deleting this article would just reinforce Wikipedia's recentist.shortcomings. However, I have wikilinked a mention of Lone Hand in Annette DeFoe's article, which is a start. --Groggy Dice T | C 14:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, Google News Archives has 19 hits from the 20s; there is no imperative that this article be anything more than a stub until someone has an itch to scratch and wants to expand it. John Vandenberg 03:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  I was going to bring that up, too. As can be seen from the variety of towns in those results, the film was shown in towns all over the United States. Also, although "Lone Hand" is co-director Lafe McKee's only directorial credit on IMDB, he turns out to be a prolific actor who was in hundreds of films into the 1940s. Given the barriers that a film unavailable in today's video formats poses for casual research, it's best to preserve the article until someone knowledgeable in this field can expand it. --Groggy Dice T | C 14:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I am not looking for a doctoral dissertation on the subject or even to unorphan it. I am simply looking for a simple statement of importance and it could be one or two sentences long - such as why Cuneo is important. Postcard Cathy

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice against recreation as premature. Daniel Case 02:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kush (album)

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

Delete - prod removed by anon with no explanation. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. The article is "sourced" by a thread on a message board and a sentence or two out of an online interview that states that the artist is thinking about using this as the album title. Otto4711 19:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for now without prejudice to recreating the article once the CD comes out, unless someone can find information which states when it has been announced to come out. Artist is a member of a prominent hip hop/rap group.--Ispy1981 20:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have added official promotional poster and cites courtesy of artist's MySpace page. Please let me know if this is sufficient. MrBlondNYC 00:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Myspace is not a reliable source. Otto4711 01:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• But does the promo poster with the record label's logo on it at least prove the existence of the album? MrBlondNYC 02:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, because the poster came from a MySpace page and MySpace is not a reliable source. I could slap the Seal of the President of the United States on Bat Boy's forehead and put it up on MySpace, but that wouldn't prove his existence. --Geniac 14:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, because there seems to be pretty widespread interest among readers for information on albums. --164.107.222.23 02:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  The interest level of readers is not a determining factor in whether or not an article should be kept or deleted on wikipedia.--Crossmr 02:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep In response to Geniac's concerns, I understand what you're saying but it's not quite the same thing. According to AllMusic, Havoc does indeed have an upcoming single titled "I'm the Boss" for Nature Sounds (catalogue # NSD):[22] So it's not like he just slapped the record company name on a picture of himself. It does appear to be an official promo. But ignoring the info from MySpace, I believe the MTV link provided in the article plus, the AllMusic link I provided is sufficient enough proof that Havoc indeed has an upcoming album tenatively titled "Kush" with the first single being "I'm the Boss".MrBlondNYC 02:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• The allmusic link does not give an album name. It may or may not be sufficient to establish the notability of the single, but it in no way serves to establish the notability or even the existence of the album. And again, the MTV link is not about an album. It is an interview in which the name "Kush" is mentioned in passing as a possible album title. Otto4711 04:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - for now. An assemblage of rumours and speculation do not form the basis for a reliably sourced article. -- Whpq 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 14:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Arnold

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

non notable Kripto 00:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Kripto 00:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge with the group article. Band looks to be somewhat notable in New Zeland although not sure that the individual himself is notable enough for a proper article and the lack of sources does not help either. Also, to the nom can you add more reasons for your nomination, because it is another reason why I haven't said simple delete .--JForget 00:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

okay, fair point. What I meant to say was: this person is not notable by virtue of doing anything except being in a band that may squeak through notability guidelines, and that band already has a page. Keeping this article makes it incumbent on the authors of this page to create more for the remaining members of the band. Kripto 00:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - the gaynz ref is one reliable source strictly about Arnold, not so much the rest of the band. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 08:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included on the LGBT Studies WikiProject page. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 08:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, he is notable, I would prefer more sources but what it has is enough. Callelinea 22:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• comment I just googled him, and I got this. a bunch of people who aren't him, a press release and some community theatre. In short, nothing much. I'd say that notability of his band (which i still dispute) is non-transferable. Kripto 23:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, even discounting my Delete vote below. NawlinWiki 20:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Pugilist Club

The Pugilist Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• Delete - Non-notable club, possibly a7 with a {{db-club}}. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Don't speedy it because it's under construction, but I agree it's probably not notable. Shalom ^Hello 16:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured not to speedy it. That would've been a bad move. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 16:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless sourced to show notability. Better to delete it sooner than to have someone put lots of time into it and have it be deleted anyway. Friday (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Either a hoax or hopelessly NN: "Pugalist Club" gets no Google hits, the more likely "Pugilist Club" gets only unrelated hits, nothing to do with Purdue as far as I can tell. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Don't DeletePlease don't remove. I am constructing this page based on creditable sources. To learn about the club in the meantime, please go to the list of collegiate secret societies and open up Purdue's Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent and read that group's talk page. There has been much interest about the group even on Greek System talk pages that expressed a wish for an article about PC on Wikipedia. This is no hoax and please be patient while it is under construction. There has even been a posting about the group on the general talk page for collegiate secret societies as well. I thank you for your concern and patience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Tiki-two (talk • contribs)

But here's the thing: we're not discussing the quality of the page, or the amount of information, we're discussing the notability of the subject. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 17:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't DeletePlease be patient. It is very relevant as secret society. Vitus Barbaro of the Barbaro family is a very, very important person. People want to know about it in relation to The Sacred order of skull and Crescent and in relation to Vitus Barbaro. Please be patient. Those that know P.C. know how important it is, and those that don't will be educated with the page. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.98.111 (talk • contribs)

Closing admin please note that this is a !vote made more than once by the same user. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 12:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. University students unable to spell pugilist correctly deserve neither a club nor a WP article. Deor 18:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Don't DeleteGive me a break- give a chance to write in peace and then fine tune and look over any spelling errors grammer etc. Everyone is a critic. I will fix, right now, to please those without patience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.98.111 (talk • contribs)

Closing admin please note that this is a !vote made more than once by the same user. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 12:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

But that's not what we're saying; the club's not notable. It doesn't matter about the spelling or whatever; that's not what we're here for. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Nontability not really established. Comparison with The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent carries little weight since that organisation is much older - but its article is equally unreferenced. (The spelling I have fixed free-of-charge since there was a duplicate article on the correct spelling - sadly even at premier universities spelling no longer seems to be considered important. Anon - a) kindly have the integrity to sign on before editing and to sign your comments, b) instead of leaving "give me a break" messages, why not direct your efforts to actually providing some references.) -- RHaworth 19:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Don't DeleteHalf of what you said is not even true. 1) I referred you to relevant talk pages that express why this article is important. 2) Crescent is referenced- it's info coming from one primary source with all aditional info cited. 3) I already asked for those to out there to be patient. 4) When you replaced my second article with this old one, you have removed half of the valid sources that I added since. I did not ask for your help on this article, I asked for you to be patient while I'm writing it, sourcing it, and fine tuning it. Which no one seems to respect, even after I asked politely many times. Relax my friend- all will be well. I'm also not going to respond to this page anymore- it is taking away from more important writing to be done-please be reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.98.111 (talk • contribs)

Closing admin please note that this is a !vote made more than once by the same user. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 12:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• "I did not ask for your help on this article..." You don't own articles. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Could you please cite the author and publisher, or an ISBN, for The Golden Books of Venetian Nobility for the House of Barbaro, 65.54.98.111 (I can find no record of the book's existence), as well as the pages on which the Pugilist Club is mentioned in Champions of the Ring. Deor 20:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• The Golden Books are the official record of all nobility/royalty under the government in Venice that sources information of noble and royal families. The way I referenced it, is the way historians will write it when it is used as a source. As for the "Champions of the Ring", I'm not using that source to talk about P.C.. I am going to also talk about Sullivan and Corbett that have relevance to this club, and the material that I'm talking about for those bare-knuckle boxers comes from that source. I just have gotten to writing that part yet, but I thought that I would first secure that source at the bottom, even before I wrote the relevant portion- I'm getting to it. P.C. was a really interesting club that had a very sophisticated culture and symbolism pertaining to boxers/information contained within that book. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.98.111 (talk • contribs)

• Also, I may take a little break, and I might not finish the article completely today. Only after I remove the construction tag, will it be your official siginl that I'm done with it- so again, I please ask for you all to be patient. P.C. is very interesting, relevant to Purdue history, directly connected to The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent, and possibly linked to NASA, and Blue Book, and other controversial things.-Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.98.111 (talk • contribs)

• I also want to make clear, since the name of the club might be throwing some people off, This club isn't just a boxing club, it is a collegiate secret society/final club and has relevence to the list of collegiate secret societies. It's isn't just a sporting club, but rather a collegiate secret society that used athletics and boxing imagery as symbols for their society. This group is very significant. Don't let the name throw you as if it is were some typical university sporting club. It is a secret societ just like Skull and Bones etc. that was attached to The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent, and ultimately will lead to Crescent being shut down on campus, so a page on P.C. will fill in the gaps for SOSC as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.98.111 (talk • contribs)
• Comment. I'm beginning to think that this page is only the tip of a more elaborate hoax, involving, at least, the articles The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent and Barbaro family. User:Tiki-two, who created both this article and the Skull and Crescent one—and who has, along with various 65.54.xxx.xx IPs, been practically their only substantive editor—has also made many, many edits to Barbaro family, inserting, among other dubious information, material about one Vitus (or V. V. or Vitus Sebastian) Barbaro, a "very, very important person" also mentioned in these Purdue articles. A Google search for "Pugilist Club"+Purdue yields zero non-WP hits, as do searches for "Vitus Barbaro," "V. V. Barbaro," "Vitus Sebastian Barbaro," and ""Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent." If I'm wrong, I owe this guy an apology; but I think it's about time that we 86ed all this balderdash. Deor 22:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unless reliable sources are provided. Part of a pattern of hoaxes all revolving around List of collegiate secret societies from a group of anons who feel they can slap anything they want in there without sources and then become hostile when challenged. Corvus cornix 22:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This may well be part of a larger hoax, but even if it isn't - the page as it stands fails the notability and verifiability tests. And the other pages created by the author deserve equally close inspection. Terraxos 23:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am Tiki-two- and no respond to this page untill I post because I am trying to respond and keep getting edit conflicts. wait till I post! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.98.111 (talk • contribs)

Please explain how the Pugalist Club, founded in 1991, had anything to do with Project Blue Book, which was shut down in 1969. Corvus cornix 23:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

THANKS ALOT ASSHOLE FOR JUST CREATING AN EDIT CONFLICT- DID I NOT JUST ASK TO GIVE ME THE CHANCE TO POST RIGHT ABOVE SO THERE WOULD NOT BE ONE. WAIT THIS TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And please also explain why a supposed ISBN-less book about Italian royalty, even if we toss logic out the window and assume it exists, would include information about a group of school kids at an American college? You'll be citing The Hobbit and The Big Book of Low-Fat Quiche Recipes next. The more you add to it, the more it sounds like an increasingly-silly hoax, or at best a WP:NFT case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

ARE YOU PEOPLE FUCKING RETARDED? DID I JUST ASK MORE THAN ONCE ABOVE FOR NO ONE TO RESPOND UNTILL I POST IN ORDER TO NOT HAVE AN EDIT CONFLICT FOR THE 4TH FUCKING TIME. IF YOU WANT MY FUCKING ANSWER-WILL EVERONE SHUT THE FUCK UP AND LET ME POST FIRST.

I am tiki-two and if there is any correlation between my work on the Barbaro family, and SOSC, and P.C. and what ever else I fuckin put tons of work into is because I am a historian who focuses on the barbaro family, which is ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ARISTOCRATIC FAMILIES PERIOD WITH VITUS, CALLED V.V., AS THEIR HEAD!!! If you don't know that I suggest that you pick up a history book and learn that all of life's answers don't come from google. Did I fucking make up Villa Barbaro, what about the fellow on SOSC's talk page that told me, not me to him, about the recent auction of the 1992 letter that was just as descibed on the SOSC page, in his own words. Did I not say for % million fucking time to be patient with the P.C. page as I construct it. As for all you smart asses out there,about this ISBN-LESS book about royalty that you won't find, because it is a reasl primary source, what professional historians like myself do. It workslike this, let me teach you a thing or two about being a real historian. It is called fact checking with primary sources, and it works like this. I find out information about the Barbaro family, Vitus etc. and then I actually check the real source that if came from not what some jackass writes in a book. So, I go to Venice, Italy and go to their Dept of Governmental records for nobility that continues to keep updated records of all info about Vitus and others and then I go and fact check it all FIRST HAND!!! so you go the Fenwick High School in Oak Park, IL, one of America's top prep schools and you say, excuse me Debbie Thompson, that is the person you need to talk to at Fenwick, and say did Vitus Barbaro who was called Vito Albergo as a teenager, which you would understand why if you actually read the Barbaro family page, go to your school whomis now the Grand Prince of transylvania and a Ferrari designer. And she will say 100% FUCKIN YES. Then I call Ferrari in Italy, and speak with their design head, Amedeo Felisa- which you will not find listed in Wikipedia either, and i say Seniore Felisa, since you need to know who to speak italian as I do, Did Mr' Albergo actuallt present design work for you company in the 90's when he was barely in his 20's because he is a reclusive genius, and Mr. Felisa will say "Si, Verro" Yes (100% FUCKING TRUE) Then you go to the Art Institute of Chicago and ask their Human Resource Director, is it true that Vito Albergo worked for the museum when he was only 19 years old because he is a Fucking genius, and they will say yes, that is 100% FUCKING TRUE. Now after you do this for 15 Fucking Years as I have, you are then able to write a true and accurate body of knowledge with PRIMARY SOURCES LISTED. Every true historian out there will understand that AH that info can be found at Venice's Government in THE GOLDENBOOK OF NOBILITY SPECIFICALLT FOR THE BARBARO FAMILY. it is not my fault if people are to stupid to knowwhat that is. but that is the way you cite a primary source!!!!!

Ah. Well, even if this supposed books exists, it's a primary source, and therefore not an acceptable Wikipedia reference. Corvus cornix 01:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The individual who you claim verified your claims regarding that letter (myself) has since discovered yet another flaw in it, namely that the seller states plainly it was written to Horace Chase and not Salomon P Chase as you claim in the SOSC article. Your hoax has utterly crumbled. I had to go be casual with you in order to find out whether it was a hoax as a hoaxer can't help but pathologically reveal themself. My casual conversation with you on the SOSC discussion page worked. It ferreted you out as a hoaxer. So why don't you just come clean and explain what this is all about? Is it an ego thing, a fraternity prank, a disturbed teenager's cry for attention, an attempt at falsifying items you purchased on ebay as secret society related, hence fraudulently increasing their value, or a combination of the aforementioned?

hyper_individualist@yahoo.com--76.83.249.234 05:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete One of the references is to the Purdue Exponent of Nov. 11, 2001. The Purdue Exponent is available online from 2000 on, and there was no Nov.11, 2001 issue. Nor is there any story from 2000 on with the title specified. [23]. end of story. DGG 01:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit, you go on line and you check that there is a story pertaining to the match up between Purdue and Navy!!!!. And if you gave me the chance to finish you would have understood it';s significance. I want Barbaro family and SOSC returned immediately before i take this up with wikipedia!!!

All of the screaming and swearing don't help your cause. Neither does the edit history of this page, which doesn't show any examples of edit conflicts. Corvus cornix 01:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

For a professional historian this anon sure does say fuck a lot. Also it is becoming clear that this whole thing is: if we assume good faith this is original research involving calling up the design head at Ferrari (very hard to do), if we don't assume good faith it is a hoax. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - totally fails WP:V and appears to be a hoax. --Haemo 04:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, in case there's any question (which there shouldn't be by now). Apparent hoax, unverifiable. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Clear hoax, part of pattern of hoaxing by primary editor. Edward321 05:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable and unverifiable at best, hoax at worst. NawlinWiki 17:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete totally unverifiable, most information is probably made up. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: I hung about for ages on this trying to find out and give it the benefeit of the doubt - there is no doubt, delete. Giano 10:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 reference more thoroughly. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Kanzius

keep was tested by polymer engineers in akron ohio you can link to tv23.com to see the video of the test

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

This person has proposed a fringe theory not accepted by the scientific community, and the article makes no other claim to notability. I might change my mind if someone can find a source for this theory in a credible scientific journal Shalom ^Hello 16:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep even if the theory is fringe, just the fact that is being hawked in numerous media stories, is notable. It passes the google test with more than 18,000 pages indexed. It think that it is an interesting subject, on the basis of the novelty alone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep but include references to those numerous media stories.DGG 19:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. More external references would be good, but this man appears to be on the cusp of notability: whether his theory is scientifically accurate or not, it has received a moderate amount of media coverage, which is enough to make it notable. The article would benefit from a closer examination of Kanzius' claims, however. Terraxos 20:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This could develop into a big story. Wikipedia needs to un-clench and let things grow, it will be here in 2 years if you want to delete it then.
• Keep. I saw the vid on youtube and came to Wikipedia to find out about the physical processes involved, if any. If the energy comes from the microwave radiation, that's interesting too. If the whole thing turns out to be a hoax, then that's OK too. Either way the info needs to remain on wikipedia.--Ceriel Nosforit 17:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Dan Gluck 13:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment on google test: "Dan Gluck" gets, to my surprise, over one million hits! and my Wikipedia user page is almost top of the list. But that doesn't mean that I'm notable. If you want to keep this one, please make an article on myself too! Dan Gluck 13:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I get 959 matches for "Dan Gluck" and 20,600 matches for "John Kanzius". ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 10:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak KeepMerge. per Jossi. Would like more references. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 10:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Iain. Since he's claiming overunity I'm happy with a move of the article to overunity. I still think it's still notable and the patent should be included in the list of patents on the perpetual motion article and also on the History_of_perpetual_motion_machines. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 03:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep A quick Google indicates that he is getting coverage in the national media, at least for his cancer treatment eg [24]. Obviously he'll never get his burning water into a credible journal, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not notable. It would be nice to find a debunking to incorporate into the article. Iain99 00:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Absolutely Keep. If the science is a farce or turns out to be useless, so be it. The fact that he stumbled upon it and the amount of potential energy that could be taken from this is exciting and I want to see how it progresses, if at all. Atrank 7/11/07

It has no potential as any freshman science student should be able to tell you. He is essentially just another inventor hawking a perpetual motion device. If I claimed that I was going to produce limitless energy by banging rocks together it would be great if it worked, but it wouldn't have potential, nor would it make me worth an encyclopaedia article. Iain99 14:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He isn't hawking a perpetual motion device at all. If you could convince me of that I'd change my vote. You see, here's a quote from a news story, "[skeptics] argue that at best the energy required to burn it would be greater than the energy produced by burning it. Kanzius admits that is the case now in this very early stage of development." ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"...in this very early stage in development" is a big clue - he thinks (or wants us to think) that it's going to change. It has to change for his invention to be of any value - otherwise he's just got an unusual way of electrolysing water, and certainly not an energy source which could power a car as he's claiming. [25] According to some sources he's now claiming that it already has changed - "Since it appears we now have now achieved [an energy yield of] more than unity, I am going to do an embargo on releasing all further information" [26] (sorry for using a blog as a source, but given his iffy notability there aren't many better ones out there - and if he's going quiet there are unlikely to be more any time soon). Iain99 23:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete on reflection and on further reading and searching. His sporadic local news coverage and even more sporadic national news coverage puts him on the fringes of notability at best (WP:NOTNEWS), and the lack of non-credulous, reliable sources makes balanced coverage of his more outlandish ideas impossible. Iain99 14:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The key for me is that his discovery has "lasting...interest" to use the language of the WP:NOTNEWS essay. People are going to hear about, ask about, and try to reproduce this phenomenon when they hear about it, even if they first hear about it years from now. BeeArkKey 03:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• keep move

Two things.

One the "cancer cure" is old stuff. Most of the ideas for this were abandoned back in the ninties. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/news/media/rel05/holt.htm

The free energy looks like an old hat perpetual motion device. Heat from his microwave oven seperates hydrogen and oxygen, then the hydrogen burns. Would probably be cheaper to use gasoline to burn the water apart than microwaves. Either way, it is hardly better than any other perpetual motion machine.

It is worth noting that like most hawkers of perpetual motion machines, he has a history of taking "donations to perfect his machine" from such things as firedepartments and other groups.

I think this page should be combined with the perpetual motion machines page. --John S Burns 19:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep Two observations. This is an excellent article for young physics students learning to use judgment and follow thermodynamics of processes. No perpetual motion. No laws of thermo are in jeopardy and the article as it stands on Wiki does not claim any outlandish violations. Second, this might be a slick way to make hydrogen from electricity if efficiency is high enough and if hydrogen is actually produced. Delivering hydrogen as a commodity makes much less sense than pushing electrons down a wire but with the unholy grail that the high efficiencies of internal combustion might be preserved. What is ruefully missing in this whole mess is enough information to reproduce the effect.

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

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

The result was Merged and redirected to MAYA-II. NawlinWiki 14:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MAYA II

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

prod contested because the person felt I was wrong to ask for a deadline on a merger. This subject has another article on the same topic and even the same name. A dash between Maya and II is the only difference. It hasn't been merged despite the merger tag since April. If the article isn't going to be merged, then it should be deleted as redundant. Postcard Cathy 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and merge with MAYA-II. If no one else is willing to do it, I'll carry out the merger myself. Terraxos 22:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment delete and merge is inappropriate under GFDL. Dhaluza 08:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and merge; a merge is appropriate as they have different information and sources. Afd is not for merges. John Vandenberg 03:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking for it to be merged. I am saying if it isn't going to be merged, it should be deleted as redundant. Postcard Cathy

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat 03:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of towns in Wales by population

List of towns in Wales by population (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

My prod was contested so I am bringing here. I successfully prod'd a list of Metropolitan areas in Arizona as nn and prod'd this on the same day for the same reason. There is no reason that this info can't be incorporated into an article on Wales, which I believe it already is, and then deleted. It doesn't deserve a stand alone article. It is simply taking up space on the server that can be used by a more deserving article. Postcard Cathy 16:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• This appears to be disruption to make a point. This isn't the place to discuss problems your having at the article space. You don't really seem to want the information deleted, just re-integrated into the article. And the space issue is a straw dog. It takes up the same space no matter where it is located. Also, a list has its own rules, they aren't considered articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a waste of resources. Call it a disruption or not. Call it a list or an article or a list that is an article. The point is still the same. It isn't necessary. Other articles/lists of the same type have been deleted. It is redundant. Postcard Cathy

• Keep or rename Keep if "towns" has a meaning versus "cities" or something else, otherwise rename to List of cities and towns in Wales by population. Seems a valid encyclopedic or almanac type data to have at hand, and if the list is too large for inclusion at Wales, have it here.

Carlossuarez46 23:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete C'mon, it's a list of eight cities and their populations at the last census, whenever that was. Worthless. Mandsford 03:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Basic, standard encyclopedic information. I'm staggered to see it here. Casperonline 18:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Expand and Keep A list of towns/cities of countries by population is valuable and within the scope of an encyclopaedia. I stumbled on this AfD whilst looking for such a list for Wales. It badly needs to be lengthened to include all towns above, say 10 000 population and updated with current estimates though. See List of cities in Germany with more than 100,000 inhabitants, List of towns in the Republic of Ireland by population, List of cities in Sweden by population, List of continuously built-up areas in Norway by population. Broxi 12:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or rename; see Carlossuarez46 above. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 21:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 12:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vilayna

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

Doesnt seem notable enough. Only a handful Ghits, that too mostly user generated content. Originally speedied, but restored on request to list for discussion. soum ^talk 09:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: as I think to recall that this model has done more publications and also has taken part in music videos I'll try to find referenced information to update the article. The IMDb resume lists several print, film, video appearances, which of course will have to be sourced. Optimale ^Gu 14:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, needs to be re-written, stating more of her notable achievments. Callelinea 16:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. As an actress, the major roles aren't there. Of the rest, the Muscle and Fitness piece impresses me most, but isn't enough. --Groggy Dice T | C 13:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Although nothing major yet, great variety of appearances in TV, film, music video and printed media. Optimale ^Gu 09:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 15:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Lacks reliable sources. Vegaswikian 02:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - References by secondary sources in the article indicate notablity and passes WP:BIO. --Oakshade 03:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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