Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 13

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

The result was delete and redirect to Volta (album). --Coredesat 01:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wanderlust (Björk song)

Wanderlust (Björk song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wonderful artist; great album and song - but no source whatsoever that this will be released as a single. Per Björk's website only the first three singles have been confirmed. WP:CRYSTAL. - eo 23:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Volta (album) until confirmed.--Phil500 (Talk / Contribs) 02:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no evidence of notability. JJL 03:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment WP:MUSIC#Songs is under discussion. Delete song is not notable, so should redirect to the album the song is on. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or re-direct to the album the song comes from. Acalamari 17:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Faith Leon

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 21:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I didn't know we had a porn guideline, but upon checking it, I see that this apparently fails. Adrian M. H. 15:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 22:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Yep, fails WP:PORNBIO. --Evb-wiki 22:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ford MF 22:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as per WP:PORNBIO.--Edtropolis 15:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable at this point. Tabercil 22:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. My impression is that nobody will shoot me for closing a relisted AFD once consensus is reached, especially since Dhartung's reference resolved one of the initial concerns. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 23:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brendan Croker

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

Delete.Unsourced. Non-notable. No information about (e.g. ) instrument played. Appears to be vanity page. Flagged since Nov 2006 for sources and information Smerus 18:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Granted the article needs references, but I think "keep", especially on the grounds that he was a member of The Notting Hillbillies, which did get attention at the time. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 19:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 22:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per FlowerpotmaN. Article needs expanding, but he's had a pretty notable career. Ford MF 23:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A clearly notable musician who's been in a band with Mark Knopfler and recorded with Clapton as well as releasing his own stuff. Nick mallory 01:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, never a #1 hitmaker, but well-known 1980s Britrocker who traveled in the right circles. Clapton doesn't guest on just anybody's albums. --Dhartung | Talk 01:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • never a #1 hitmaker - according to everyhit.com The Hillbillies' album got to #2 in the UK, so he wasn't far off..... ChrisTheDude 12:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Meets central criteria of WP:Music. A1octopus 12:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tops Diner

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

• Delete article doesn't show notability. Only claim is being listed by the New Jersey Historical Society which just seems to be a list of restaurants. [4] Jersey Devil 21:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable. --24fan24 (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 22:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as insufficiently sourced and non-notable. Ford MF 23:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Misleading as to historical significance (none) and not a notable destination (merely a restaurant not far from the NJHS) Pever 22:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fury (Muse song)

Fury (Muse song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I bring this here with a heavy heart, as I love the song too, but it doesn't qualify for its own article, being an album bonus track and B-side of a single. Contested PROD. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Not enough content for own article and lyrics are a copyright violation. --24fan24 (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough.--Phil500 (Talk / Contribs) 02:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is an awesome song, but alas, that's it. The fact that the article is only three sentences long and one of the sentences happens to be "It's a great song, and an excellent example on the brilliant instrumental skills of the band." is just useless. WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:NN, etc, etc. Also fails WP:MUSIC. María (críticame) 12:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Schrader (writer/director)

David Schrader (writer/director) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nn film writer who fails the provisions laid out at WP:BIO. I nominated this a year ago, which resulted in no consensus (see previous entry for further grounds for deletion). Since then, nothing of substance has been added that would help the subject pass the notability standard laid out for individuals. Eusebeus 21:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The only thing I could really find on him were articles on Wikipedia and Answers.com. They looked a lot like this one. --Evb-wiki 21:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as well. Ford MF 23:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ransome J. (Cy) Thomson

Ransome J. (Cy) Thomson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable. Four of the edits have been from bots, another was adding a no category template. and another was adding a category. This person isn't notable. Wikihermit 21:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This page has been speedy deleted before, or was tagged for speedy deletion. See creator's talk page. ~ Wikihermit 21:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Clearly non-notable. --24fan24 (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Ford MF 23:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stefán Arason

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

Contested prod, main claim to notability seems to be a not very notable prize, Europäischer Komponistenpreis. Falls below the notability threshold in my opinion. Stefán 00:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unsourced, NN --RaiderAspect 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - A lack of Google hits for the prize does not quite confirm its non-notability. I don't speak Icelandic, but the "press" section of his website points to a few blurbs about him in print media. I think the subject does meet WP:V; if you perform a Google search, you'll see a number of reliable sources featuring him (he actually has 1,350 hits, which isn't bad for a new classical composer). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not enough sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I prodded this a while ago and it still seems to me that the article does not establish notability. Haukur 23:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not enough sources to establish notability. Ford MF 23:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Most search engine results are blogs or forums, it seems. The rest are of the composer and probably his record label, hence there are not enough reliable sources.--Kylohk 14:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Art Crews

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

Delete, This article is about a wrestler who never got out of regional competition. Other than being a nondescript wrestler, the individual has done nothing notable. A Google search reveals a single blog entry on him and an old regional program listing one of his matches. This article fails to meet WP:BIO. StudierMalMarburg 20:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete non-notable wrestler--Ispy1981 20:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Tornado DD^eleT^e Unsourced article about a non-notable subject. Caknuck 21:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Uh, what he said and per nom. (Delete, right?) --Evb-wiki 21:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Rule of thumb: When the infobox is 10 times the length of the article, there's probably a problem. JodyB _talk 21:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no notability established. Acalamari 22:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Nikki311 04:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elementie

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

I'm not exactly sure whether this article is an attempt at describing classical elements or whether it's gamecruft or similar, but the classical elements are already covered in far greater detail and clarity elsewhere on Wikipedia and the article title isn't really suitable for turning into a redirect. ~Matticus ^T_C 19:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - the nom would appear to be correct. I didn't see any indication that 'elementie' was anything substantial from a quick Google hunt, nor does 'star elements' get much. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Entirely incomprehensible (game)cruft, without any context; not quite nonsense yet close enough. -- Ekjon Lok 20:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: the author of this article also added a section "Classical Elements in New Zealand" to Classical Element, see this diff. This addition is completely unsourced, and unless someone knowledgeable about these things can confirm it, it should be removed. -- Ekjon Lok 20:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep At first I pretty much agreed with Ekjon Lok's argumentation. Non-sense, literally. The article was created June 13, 13:09 and nominated for deletion June 13, 13:56, not even an hour after creation. I have no clue about the subject matter myself and cannot tell if it might turn out to become a useful article. That is why I argue for keep. Keep and watch! It is too early to tell if the article is notable and useful. If nothing clarifying has been added to the article in a few weeks it can still be deleted. I have put it on my watchlist already. doxTxob \ ^talk 23:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - As the article itself states, these are "fictinal" sic and there is no sourcing given to even tell us what fiction they come from. My suspicion is that they're someone's personal concept they're trying to promote. Trying to WP:AGF, but I've seen a few too many of these types of articles. -- Kesh 02:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fictional? From what source? JJL 03:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 07:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Scary Guy

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

I speedy deleted this as blatant advertising under WP:CSD#G11 because there's nothing biographical in it – no real name, no educational preparation, no life story, nothing but 'watch him here', 'watch him there', 'buy his book', 'buy his programs'. That may sound harsh, but I don't know how else to put it. I've never heard of the guy. Afterward, I was asked to restore the page and list it here instead, so I am. I defer to others to judge its encyclopedic value. KrakatoaKatie 19:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but massively, massively cleanup this page. He's certainly meet the criteria to be notable, being interviewed around the world by various news organizations. The page as it stands now however is nothing more than an advert and dramatically needs to be cleaned. Wildthing61476 19:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - As per nom. Fails to meet criteria of WP:Notability. Not only it doesn't have notability, it's a blatant ad.--Edtropolis 20:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete considering the content and the fact that it was primarily edited by Thescary1, it is a pretty blatant advertisement. IrishGuy ^talk 20:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• It's definitely a blatant ad, but he does seem to have a fair amount of coverage - though I think the cleanup to remove the promo would probably leave us with "The Scary Guy is." Delete until more good sources are available. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

With regards to new info below, I'd be happier if I could actually read those articles and judge if they're actually of substance, but it looks like there are sources there to work with. Weak keep instead. (And obviously my google-fu was weak today too.) Tony Fox (arf!) review? 23:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Topic has enough Wikipedia reliable sources to meet WP:N. This AFD might serve as a good wake up to those interested in the article to add in-line citations. If they are not included in a month or two, then AfD#2 might be appropriate. Until then, I say give it a chance. Here are some sources found via a quick search. I know there are many more, but these all mention his 1998 name change:

• • USA Today (2/2/98) Across the USA: News from every state.
  • Newsday (2/3/98) Double Takes
  • Cincinnati Post (2/3/98) Memory hunters
  • Memphis Commercial Appeal (2/6/98) Tattooer tells truth in advertising
  • Star Tribune (2/23/98) People
  • Star-Ledger (2/23/98) Extreme tattooing gets under his skin Artist calls it a "commitment"
  • Newsday (2/23/98) Double Takes
  • Fresno Bee (2/23/98) The scary guy likes wash-and-wear art
  • Dallas Morning News (2/23/98) Marking his identity: Tattooed man changes name to Scary Guy
  • Los Angeles Daily News (2/23/98) News lite: 007 stays on her majesty's blacklist
  • Contra Costa Times (2/23/98) Scary guy displays his art on his body
  • The Charlotte Observer (2/23/98) The scary guy stares down a tattoo taboo
  • Cincinnati Post (2/24/98) Hi - I'm the scary guy
  • The Times-Picayune (2/26/98) The scary guy uses tattooed body as his canvas
  • The Wichita Eagle (3/1/98) On the side
  • People (UK) (3/1/98) Strange's World ,Every week the enigmatic Mr Strange brings you tantalising talesfrom around the globe. So step into Strange's World...
  • New York Times (3/1/98) Questions for: The Scary Guy
  • Times Union (3/1/98) Fame is skin deep for "The Scary Guy"
  • St. Paul Pioneer Press (6/11/98) Tattooist sketches art of living the scary guy - comedian, businessman, philosopher - takes on new mission: Ethics coach for kids.
  • Los Angeles Daily News (8/31/98) Odd-mongering wild bunch has far-out cookout
  • Star Tribune (9/1/98) The Scary Guy brings a message of the spirit
  • Syracuse New Times (4/7/04) Back on the Right Path; After a seven-year furlough, local hardcore supergroup Path Of Resistance returns to the stage
  • Know Your World Extra (11/19/04) You can call him scary: this guy is helping to stamp out anger and hatred.
  • The West Briton (3/31/05) A scary guy who's not so scary afterall
  • Arizona Daily Star (1/18/06) Guy may be scary, but his message is hardly sinister
  • Torquay Herald Express (4/19/07) TV 'scrapheap' Dick's green homes message.
• And here's some with his name in the title of the article (some might be duplicate from above):

• • Scary guy's message on self-respect. Torquay Herald Express (4/24/07)
  • Learning to live in peace and harmony the Scary Guy way. Liverpool Echo (UK) (3/19/07)
  • Das schreckliche Gesicht der Liebe "Einer wie ich ist in den Augen der Leute ein Verrückter" - ein Tätowierter namens The Scary Guy kämpft gegen Gewalt und Intoleranz. Sueddeutsche Zeitung (Germany) (8/3/06)
  • Scary Guy Not Answer To Problems. ThisisLancashire.co.uk (12/15/05)
  • The Scary Guy beats bullies with love, peace and understanding. Times (UK) (11/18/05)
  • No need to be scared of the Scary Guy! Harrogate advertiser. (10/28/05)
  • A 'Scary Guy' who wants us all to hug. Northern Echo (UK) (10/11/05)
  • Scary Guy's Mission To Bring Peace. ThisisTheNorthEast.co.uk (6/8/05)
  • Scary Guy on loose. Daily Star (UK) (4/28/05)
  • A scary guy who's not so scary afterall. West Briton (Truro, UK) (3/31/05)
  • Scary guy carries friendship message. Aberdeen Press & Journal. (12/4/04)
  • Scary Guy visits Alford. Aberdeen Press & Journal. (12/1/04)
  • Not so scary guy. Newcastle Evening Chronicle. (11/18/04)
  • Scary guy helps fight the bullies. Liverpool Echo (UK) (5/1/04)

-- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I've removed a lot of the adverspamcruft, though the article still needs a lot of work. Rklawton 21:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, it needs to be cleaned up. There was no intention to self promote – lack of awareness of New Users to Wikipedia. KRAKATOAKATIE: Thank you for reinstating the article to here. You say "no real name" ... The Scary Guy is his legal name. It is on his passport - changed by deedpoll. There was a link to that reference/ public records on there. What do you mean educational preparation? Help me to understand. And there is a very detailed life story about Scary that can be referenced through newspaper stories and films worldwide. Please indicate how this should be done, in a manner where we are not self promoting. We do not wish to self promote. This was never our intention. And never will be. Regarding 'Buy his ... ' We do not wish to promote or sell books or film through Wikipedia. The Scary Guy focus is not on selling products. It is on creating Awareness. That is what The Scary Guy is notable for. Endlessly interviewed by thousands of newspapers and radio and TV around the World in the last seven years.Whatevernext 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  There may be endlessly interviewed by thousands of newspapers and radio and TV around the World in the last seven years, but none of them were cited in the Wikipedia article. Even if there is a very detailed life story about Scary that can be referenced through newspaper stories, they were not in fact referenced in the Wikipeida article. The best way to avoid self promotion is to only use information from the newspaper stories and then put a footnote at the end of each sentence that references the newspaper story where you received the information. I placed some more instructions on the article talk page, here. Also, take a look at Tony Robbins. You may want to try to make The Scary Guy article look and read more like that article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You. will use that as a model. Whatevernext 08:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep for now. The stub-ified version of the article looks much better, and at least has a few sources cited that seem to show notability. -- Kesh 01:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep news coverage satisfies notability. ~ Infrangible 02:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep inspirational and motivational person for the contemporary generation; can never ever judge a book by its cover (what's inside the person counts); he has positive goals per the references now presented on the restored article.Dragonbite 05:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • How positive he is has not relevance to the AfD. The only concern is if the article meets Wikipedia's policies, which I just barely think it does. --Kesh 20:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The page is being tidied as I speak and is well on it's way to becoming a decent article. Notability is well taken care of. This article has the thumbs-up! Bennyboyz3000 09:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of cover versions of Kim Wilde songs

List of cover versions of Kim Wilde songs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - another list of covers. As with all the other such lists that have been deleted, it is not notable simply that one artist played another artist's song. Notable cover versions belong in an article for the cover artist and/or in an article for the song. Otto4711 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - As per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory.--Edtropolis 19:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as the tag suggested to the parent article orand/ the individual songs or albums that have articles.--JForget 23:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - the merge tag has been on the article for two months without so much as a word of discussion being engendered by it. Otto4711 03:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. All lists of artists who have covered insert artist here's songs or lists of cover versions of insert artist here's songs automatically fail [WP:UNENC]] as far as I am concerned. A1octopus 18:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agnes Carpenter

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

Fails WP:BIO. Being the mother of the Carpenters isn't enough. Clarityfiend 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete — Non-notable per WP:BIO. I also had no search engine hits. *Cremepuff222* 20:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - as per CSD:A7.--Edtropolis 20:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral but don't speedy because being the mother of the Carpenters is a remotely plausible assertion of notability. I get 2440 G-hits. Morgan Wick 20:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no notability established for this person. Acalamari 20:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No independent notability. I just noticed Gladys Presley has an article, which may also be a candidate for deletion for the same reason. Masaruemoto 03:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing to sustain notability apart from her children. JodyB _talk 19:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Her children alone aren't notable enough to make her notable. --Android Mouse 04:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of cover versions of Kate Bush songs

List of cover versions of Kate Bush songs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - although this was nominated once previously and not deleted, recent AFDs which have resulted in the deletion of a dozen or so of these list of covers articles would seem to demonstrate that consensus has changed. As with those other lists, it is not notable that an artist played another artist's songs. Notable covers can be noted in a discography article for the cover artist and/or an article for the song. Otto4711 19:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is NOT a directory. T. Moitie ^[talk] 19:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - As per CSD:G4 and A7.--Edtropolis 19:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment G4 is for recreated material, which this isn't. A7 doesn't apply here, either. Still, Delete per WP:NOT. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Much as I like the woman's songs and would consider covers of her work interesting, this article clearly falls under WP:UNENC. If the song and/or the performing artist is notable then there will already be a mention of the cover exisiting on the artist's or song's pages. A1octopus 22:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge the info to the appropriate articles in concerns.--JForget 23:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Option on the product of two asset prices

Option on the product of two asset prices (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Reads like an essay. Recreation of deleted article, contested prod. John 19:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. As per CSD:G4.--Edtropolis 19:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I hear repost doesn't apply to speedy, and I know it doesn't apply to prods. Morgan Wick 20:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unattributed original research, and arguably indiscriminate information. YechielMan 20:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment What a long winded way of saying "thanks for your money, sucker" ~ Infrangible 02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless the author can provide reliable sources to show this is not pure WP:OR. -- Kesh 02:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep This article is neither original research nor indiscriminate information. This is a product that is widespread in the investment banking world and numerous users would want documentation. The fact that most of you don't have a clue about derivative products does not mean that the thousands of people that work in the City of London would not be interested in this article. --Tedblack 10:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep an article. Please provide reliable sources in the article which back up its content. If this is as widespread as you claim, they should be easy to find. -- Kesh 16:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:USEFUL seems more appropriate. Morgan Wick 17:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Six of one, half a dozen of the other. :) I find they both stem from the same desire. -- Kesh 18:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • The only reason for which there are no sources is because most sources are proprietary and cannot be published. The author has over fifteen years experience in this. This article will prove very useful to practitioners in the City of London.--Tedblack 16:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
          • In other words, you admit that there are no reliable sources you can cite so we can read about it ourselves? Your point boils down to "it's useful", which is not a valid reason to keep an article on Wikipedia. -- Kesh 17:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Pending rewrite in encyclopedic terms. And just for reference, comparing two derivatives of assets usually is done by converting both derivatives to cash equivalents using Black-Scholes model. It appears that this is just an analytic solution of the Black-Scholes p.d.e. for European style options (fixed sale date). If this is different, it needs a reliable source to explain how it is different and what it's impact is. --Tbeatty 04:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Good analysis. Basically it is complete original research then; I should perhaps have been bold and redeleted and salted it, but I'm glad to have had a consensus emerge. --John 04:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nom withdrawn, redirected. Sr13 07:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] N202LF

N202LF (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An imporant helicopter because of its role, but not notable in encyclopedic terms. Thanks for trying to honor these lifesaving machines, but I'm afraid this just doesn't belong at Wikipedia. FWIW, the crash info also doesn't meet our in-development air crash notability criteria. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nomination, and concur on crash notability, interesting as it is. - BillCJ 18:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as an accident article. - BillCJ 18:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Helicopters of that type meets criteria of WP:Notability. Needs improvement.--Edtropolis 19:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Which criteria? There's not even a third-party source to establsih notability! The service the helicopter provides IS notable, and is covered in the Air ambulance and MEDEVAC articles. This individual aircraft, as the aritcle currently relates it, is not. To be notable, it would have had to have been involved in an icident or performed a service that was covered by major news orgs for an extended period of time, which at this point it appears it has not. - BillCJ 19:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tragic and all, but this doesn't really seem to have any notability. A check of Google shows no news coverage. OSborn 19:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: this is not correct, see below. Dhaluza 18:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No less important, but this is like including peoples' ham radio callsigns, or license plate numbers. Sorry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, while echoing the comments above about a noble job and tragic circumstances, I'm forced to the conclusion that this helicopter does not individually meet our notability requirements. - Philippe | Talk 22:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete while I'm sure there will be local coverage of the accident (there was of a local crash here), I doubt most people will focus on the helicopter as the grounds for notability, and it's likely this crash won't get past the new news criteria on WP:NOT. The best I can suggest is covering this helicopter on the hospital's page. FrozenPurpleCube 00:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Salt - can we not chop these choppers. They seem to keep coming up. There must be hundreds of air ambulance services in the world. We cannot have articles on them all, and certainly not in each choopper they use. Peterkingiron 23:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Hawaiian717 21:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as an accident article. -- Hawaiian717 17:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Rename to "Crash of Eagle III" (or merge with Eagle III) — I agree that most of the N-number articles are a bit over the top, but this Afd goes too far, because this one has special circumstances. The statement above about no press coverage is demonstrably false. A simple web search turns up this photo archive: [8], plus a news archive search for that local paper turned up several stories over a period of more than one year about the crash: [9] so this demonstrates continuing interest, not to mention the ongoing NTSB investigation, which shows more than just local interest. It was also covered in the Air Medical Journal, Volume 25, Issue 4, Pages 152-157, but that content is restricted. Dhaluza 18:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - of the suggestions, since there's refs, I'd support the merge into the Eagle III article. I don't think the crash really is notable on its own, but put into the context of the program and its service to the community, it is appropriate. By the close of this AfD, if no one has already done that, I'll be happy to do the work.AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • comment - Unless you intend to significantly expand the Eagle III article, I think the better option is to keep the crash info in a separate article for context. Otherwise the crash content will be overwhelming and the article will lack balanced coverage. Dhaluza 23:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Does this mean we're converting the page to a full accident article? If so, then I would probably support keeping it, assuming notability is established. (And judging by Dhaluza's previous work ont he SW runway incident, it will be.) But again, it's up to those creating and editing the article to establish notability, not the nominator of the AfD. (And as much as I wish that was the rule, it isn't!) If not for the crash, then this one would have already been deleted along with the other 2 Eagle III helicopter pages. - BillCJ 00:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, it is already done. But I disagree with you slightly in your interpretation, because we are all editors, and improving articles to meet WP standards is a shared responsibility. This shows you still need to do research, to make sure you don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Dhaluza 01:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I agree with you that that is the way it should be, but the AfD rules currently stand, it is not. If it were, I would have filed alot of RFCs agianst a number of editors for frivo;ous AfDs on several articles I contribute to. If you want to try to get the AfD rules changed, I'll back you on it. But as for now, an AfD nominator is free not to try to examine or improve an articel first, especially if it's a type of aritlce (ie. pop-culture) that they feel should not exist on Wiki at all. - BillCJ 18:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm invoking my right to be wrong in life, and given Dhaluza's improvements and argument above, I'm withdrawing my initial deletion endorsement that was implied in the nom. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, the content has been moved to 2006 Eagle III accident, cleaned up, and referenced. I suggest that this article remain as a redirect. Dhaluza 01:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Concur. - BillCJ 03:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of OVW Television Championship reigns by length

List of OVW Television Championship reigns by length (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A page about how long someone held a barely notable professional wrestling title, which is a predetermined event. A similar page about OVW's Cruiserweight title was deleted. Biggspowd 17:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - listing the holders of a fake title by how long they fakely held it? No. Otto4711 19:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Good grief, this is ridiculous. WP:NOT#INFO. YechielMan 22:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - OVW is a notable enough promotion. It's a short enough list it may be mergeable to the title page.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 02:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge, I'm kind of torn on this one. There are precedants for pages that list reign lengths, but I'm not sure this title is notable to have one. I'm not opposed to a merge, if others think it is info worthy of keeping. Nikki311 03:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete OVW may be a notable promotion, but that doesn't make extrapolation of data relating to fake titles in the promotion notable. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unlike those who thinks that "fake" justifies deletion (imagine what the film section would look like?) I think it's just a trivia addition to the main title page, list longest & shortest reign on that page and be done with it MPJ-DK 07:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I can't speak for anyone else, but I can possibly see the merit of say a similar list regarding boxing titles, which are legitimate. But wrestling titles are not the same, they are not won or lost in real terms (unless you're Bret Hart....) so there is no real merit in such a list. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete you already got this page (OVW Television Championship) which should be classed as a list. So this article is just a copy in a way! Govvy 16:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this is. --Coredesat 01:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Divided I Am

Divided I Am (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Hoaxish. I can find no Google hits for this supposed album. Created by the same editor as the hoaxisher It Was Already Done 2wice. The artist doesn't seen to exist, either. Corvus cornix 17:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete with Comment Possible failure of WP:N, and the article links to JC too much, which is a disambaug that doesn't appear to have any rappers on it. OSborn 18:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Further information: The only Google hit for "Da Quick Entertainment" is to a myspace page. Corvus cornix 18:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per this: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Also nn artist and label. Goodnightmush^Talk 18:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. As per CSD:G1 and A7.--Edtropolis 19:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete, "album" by made-up band. tomasz. 10:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. See also I'm Back...On Da Track. tomasz. 10:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Artbox

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

This is a procedural nomination, article was renominated for deletion, nominator had posted original afd template. No vote, again simply procedural Wildthing61476 19:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I really have nothing to add to the previous AFD discussion. Though technically it meets WP:MUSIC, there are no reliable sources, and it comes off as just another nonnotable band. My opinon. YechielMan 20:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails Notability test. Article written in puerile language.--Tovojolo 00:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Inconsequential band.--Caprisa 00:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per arguments of YechielMan. Also as WP:Music itself states, technically meeting some of its criteria still doesn't autmoatically dictate notability. A1octopus 18:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOX (rapper)

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

Has yet to release an album. fails WP:MUSIC. Corvus cornix 17:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - currently fails WP:MUSIC and is sort of WP:CRYSTAL. Page can be created once notability is gained. Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 17:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Fails criteria of WP:BIO. Never mentioned in Give It To Me.--Edtropolis 19:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. --Evb-wiki 21:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now - is signed to a label and contributed to Scott Storch's albums. As he has his own album coming out in a month or two, perhaps we should delay deletion and see what reception that gets. Seems strongly related to Scott Storch, so alternatively we could merge there. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • One album not yet released fails WP:MUSIC. And there are no reliable sources that anything in the article is true. Corvus cornix 18:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Doesn't meet WP:Music at present. May do so in the future but keeping the article on that basis would be crystalballery. A1octopus 12:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Never Again (2009 film)

Never Again (2009 film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prod removed by author. Article is crystal balling about a movie that cannot be verified. Cannot find any sources or any information on movie. Wildthing61476 16:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, "Never Again is a 2009 film based on Kelly Clarkson's song and music video Never Again (song)" - who says so? --soum ^talk 17:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 17:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. As per WP:CRYSTAL.--Edtropolis 17:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:CRYSTAL is not a speedy deletion criterion. Morgan Wick 20:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Okay, slow Delete as quickly as possible. How about {{db-nocontent}}? No WP:RS. Probable WP:HOAX. --Evb-wiki 21:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete while too early, this should be mention in the 2009 films article--JForget 23:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Only if there's evidence that it even exists. Morgan Wick 23:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Considering it's one sentence, I'd be inclined to say {{db-nocontent}}. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The movie ends up getting really bad reviews. ~ Infrangible 01:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per article title (Never Again). JJL 03:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, it's only 2007, no need to see into the future or have speculative articles about unverifiable subjects. --Kyoko 17:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Software companies in India

Software companies in India (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

While an analysis of the software companies (which I presume must have been the original intent of the article) would have been great, it has turned out to be mainly a directory listing, outweighing any analysis that might be present. Wikipedia is not a directory. If indexing all the articles is the point, it is better achieved using a category (or category tree). Removing the listing and leaving the article also runs the risk of developing into a directory yet again, thereby making it almost impossible to maintain. soum ^talk 16:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This reminds me of a list of law firms that got deleted because it had no criteria for inclusion. I have no idea how many of these exist, but it clearly has the potential to balloon indefinitely. If some way of restricting this to the top 100 firms were proposed, it would be more maintainable, but it would probably still be better to start from scratch.--Chaser - T 17:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Weak Delete with Comment, the article seems to branch out and such and doesn't seem to be focused on the list in the first place as it has that other junk near the top like "Indian IT majors". OSborn 18:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Update: Yeah, it'll just reform into a list. Doesn't really seem to be a needed list, is there a list of software developers with a "Country" heading on Wikipedia? OSborn 19:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, after 6 months, the list has grown (ballooning as per Chaser above), but no clear rule for inclusion/exclusion appears to exist. The sole reason for the list appears to be to validate the opening sentence - that there are a lot of software companies in India. Pever 01:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. All of the "don't delete" arguments are from the same editor. --Coredesat 01:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rex Tomb

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

Rex Tomb is an FBI official who has been cited in a few news articles about Osama bin Laden, but otherwise is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article and does not meet WP:BIO. There are very insufficient reliable sources to create a biographical article about him. --Aude (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As per nom. 604,000 google hits.--Edtropolis 16:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I get 805,000 Google hits without quotation marks, but most are irrelevant. Only 875 hits on "Rex Tomb".[16] PrimeHunter 02:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delelte, per nom. Just a press release does not make him notable, nor does working for FBI. --soum ^talk 16:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also, Tomb sounds like an FBI spin doctor, and the article is more about the FBI's Most-Wanted list not connecting bin Laden to the Sept. 11, 2001 attack than it is about Tomb. When he personally locates and catches bin Laden (or does some other notable act), he can be included on Wikipedia. --Evb-wiki 16:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• I added the entry because he's been made infamous for his quotes that under-scored of the fact that bin Laden has had no formal charges laid against him. If you want to flesh out the article go ahead, but everyone knows who he is,so why delete the entry completly? how is he not notable if he gets 836,000 google hits? My Machinima series Fire Team Charlie is less known than Rex Tomb , but it is allowed an entry?--Bennyxbo 17:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This article is a coatrack for trying to spread the word about bin Laden not being connected to 9/11. Is he the subject of reliable secondary sources where he's the subject? Also, please don't hold up WP:GHITS as the holy grail. Morgan Wick 20:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/partial merge The subject of the article does not seem to have notability by itself. For the article my opinion is delete per nom. For the information about Bin Laden my opinion is that it can be merged into the Bin Laden article's section about his criminal charges. There is some talk about the charges already, by whom and what for as well as Bin Laden being in the FBI's Top 22 list. The information itself is useful and would fit in there well, especially as it is sourced. Parts might go to the article about FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives as addidtional sourced information. doxTxob \ ^talk 00:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The guy's not notable and the article's just an vapid excuse for more retarded conspiracy peddling bollocks. Nick mallory 01:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Tomb is just a spokesman advancing the FBI's official position on issues. No individual notability here. We have Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks for discussion of that issue. --Dhartung | Talk 01:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Don't Delete I started the Rex Tomb article because there is no information on wikipedia article that explains why bin Laden has not been formally charged for 9/11. This information is not present in FBI Most Wanted Terrorists or Osama bin Laden or anywhere.

Comment That was why I suggested to delete the article and to move usable, verifyable information to these articles. And you argue in this direction, too. Yes, you are right, verifyable information should not get lost, it should be in the spot where readers of Wikipedia look for it most likely. If it is verifyable information about any one from the most wanted list it should be there, if it is about Bin Laden it should be there, all well sourced, of course. As it is described in the article, he is the PR person of the FBI, some kind of spokesman. The messenger is not so important. He spoke for the FBI. And the message is the important information here. What is verifyable, and only that, should be merged into the corresponding article. Rex Tomb is in itself not notable enough to be encyclopedic. doxTxob \ ^talk 04:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Rex Tomb is spokesperson for the FBI's most wanted posters, The top 10 list is as old as the hills. The program was created in 1950 by J. Edgar Hoover...and it's known world-wide.I added the Wired News article in as an additional reference to add a little more credibility, however, the teamliberty.net quote is 100% in step with what Rex Tomb has been saying all along, therefore i dont feel the entire article needs to be deleted on the basis that it can't be varified.--Bennyxbo 16:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives is a featured list. If Tomb is known for work on that then he might be mentioned there. PrimeHunter 16:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Don't Delete I added the Fox News .com article as another reference. He has worked on the X-Files apparently too. --Bennyxbo 15:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Don't Delete I added the bit about the Oprah Winfrey connection, and the fact that his part of the site gets the 2-3million hits a month. Notability is there, and every bit of information has solid sources from CNN to the Washington Post.--Bennyxbo 23:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This person is not notable. Having said that, the unit he works for may be notable based on the references. So maybe an article should be created for the unit. Rex can receive a mention in the article if appropriate. Vegaswikian 23:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fire & Ice (Retail)

Fire & Ice (Retail) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Advertising page, possible conflict of interest with author as well. Not quite sure if the store meets WP:CORP as well. Wildthing61476 15:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, its only advertising. Neither does it assert notability. --soum ^talk 16:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:CORP (no independent, reliable secondary sources). The result is an entirely promotional, non-encyclopedic article. MastCell ^Talk 16:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Blantant advertising. Fails WP:Notability.--Edtropolis 17:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This page is just blatant advertising. I recommend the creator reads WP:CORP.
  • Comment This sounds fishy. If you go to User:Fireandiceretail it will rederect to the article. I think this is the company's work. J O N J O N B T
    • Nevermind.J O N J O N B T
    • The creator's been indefinitely blocked for inappropriate username. Wildthing61476 18:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That cross-namespace redirect should be nuked too? DMacks 20:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Done. I went ahead and removed the redirect. Wildthing61476 20:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Very close to G11. Morgan Wick 20:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced and promotional. --Dhartung | Talk 01:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete blatant WP:COI case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not only is the chain non notable, the whole article reads like something one would find on a promotional leaflet.--Kylohk 14:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete.It is an advertisement for a store and nothing more. archiemartin

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Get Rendered!

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

Local school contest, non-noteable, does not cite references, no secondary sources or independant coverage. ^{SkyIsFalling 15:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)}

• Weak Delete. I got 7.8 million hits on Google.--Edtropolis 15:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Only pertinent ghit is for the event's homepage. Fails WP:NOTE--Ispy1981 15:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the event doesn't seem to have had a significant coverage and reliable sources associated with it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN local school contest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 02:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duncan Campbell (revivalist)

Duncan Campbell (revivalist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable, scottish preacher. ornis 14:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. as per nom. 846 hits on Google.--Edtropolis 15:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Even ignoring the silly notions that someone who died two decades before the World Wide Web was invented will necessarily be widely documented thereon, counting Google hits is not research. Research involves actually reading the articles that the search engines turn up. Uncle G 17:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Aside from the various things on the World Wide Web, including this biography, that Edtropolis overlooked above when counting hits instead of searching for sources, this person is the subject of a 17-page biography in ISBN 0310246636. He is also discussed on pages 177–178 of ISBN 0310362717. The PNC appears to be satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 17:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep assuming Uncle G adds what he found.DGG 20:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep - The British do not use the word "revival" for every minor evanglistic campaign, only for events involving a mjor turning of peopel to faith in Christ. The last such in Britain was the Hebrides Revival. This covered a smaller area than the Welsh Revival, the previous event about whcih the word is used. Duncan Campbell was the principal leader of the Hebrides revival and is most certainly notable. I have added a further reference, a paperback biography of 190 pages, with an endorsement on the backcover from Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Certainly not a mere NN preacher. I will try to expand the article when I find time, but will have to reread the book first, having not read my copy for a well over a decade.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  15:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Week keep per Bsnowball, preferrably along with creating of a notable and referenced Lewis Awakening article. -- Futurano 09:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note - I have today substantially expanded the article, and in doing so, I have removed "notability" and two "stub" tags. I have included a section on the Lewis Revival, and would suggest that it should for the moment (at least) be created as a redirect to Duncan Campbell. Peterkingiron 15:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A well researched article that clearly shows the subject's notability Jack1956 20:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this please, good referenced article on important religious figure.--Sandy Donald 22:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Having seen the expansion made by peterkingiron, I withdraw my vote to delete.ornis 00:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M.W.A.

M.W.A. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Written as dicdef, and appears to be a neologism. Only Google hit for "my wallet's allowance". Unint 14:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete db-nonsense--Ispy1981 15:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, dicdef neologism. Does not meet the definition of patent nonsense but arguably a WP:SNOW candidate. Morgan Wick 20:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete -- pure, concentrated rubbish.--Mike18xx 06:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of New Order covers

List of New Order covers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - I was hoping that someone would in the last week take a look at this list and clarify what information it's trying to convey, because the bulk of it I have no idea. Regardless, a number of recent AFDs has pretty clearly established that the fact of one artist's covering another artist's song is not in itself notable. If the cover version is notable it can be addressed in a discography for the cover artist and/or an article for the song. Otto4711 13:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above, and the fact that we don't need yet more listcruft. Pedro |  Chat  14:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete [sarcasm] Wow, if this can be made, I'm gonna rush right out and create a list of Jethro Tull covers [/sarcasm]. Seriously, listcruft. Some of the examples (not all) may be placed in the New Order article. --Ispy1981 16:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As above, plus it's WP:OR and appears to have become a place for everyone to list their mate's band who happened to cover a New Order song in their garage once. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As almost all the artists in the list are not notable (in the Wikipedia sense), there isn't really a case for including them in any of the song articles. Pedantic note: And Ceremony was technically a Joy Division song, although N.O. recorded it. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 02:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. "The following is a list of cover versions of New Order songs." Yes, and...? WP:NOT to the nth degree. María (críticame) 12:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 02:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Torrens-Spence

Michael Torrens-Spence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Captain is not a notable rank and there is nothing else in the article which shows that this person notability. Vintagekits 13:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

• Keep. In a country that is notoriously stingy with its military decorations, being decorated three times is notable. As far as I'm concerned, any British person who has received three military decorations is inherently notable for their actions. In addition, he later became a Lord-Lieutenant, which also makes him notable. -- Necrothesp 15:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, Everything you said is pure WP:OR and the last thing the British establishment is "stingy with its military decorations" - infact they hand them out like confetti, also the decoration he got wernt exactly the Victoria Cross. Finally, he was not the Lord Lieutenant he was the Lord Lieutenant of Armagh which is about as notable as being the man with the biggest toe in Ballymena!--Vintagekits 15:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is one Lord Liuetenant per county, he was the Lord Liutenant in Armagh.--Counter-revolutionary 22:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As, Lord Lieutenant, he takes precedence over all other officials in that county. Astrotrain 16:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Go on give us all a laugh - tell us what he does.--Vintagekits 17:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. If you had bothered to read my post before you responded in such an unpleasant manner you would notice that I said "as far as I'm concerned". In what way is expressing an opinion in an AfD original research, any more than "Captain is not a notable rank and there is nothing else in the article which shows that this person notability"? Try reading the policy before you sling links to it around. "They hand them out like confetti" is utter insulting drivel and merely shows your complete ignorance of the British military and honours system. The DSO was at the time the next highest combat decoration after the VC. I said he was a Lord-Lieutenant, not the Lord-Lieutenant - I am fully aware what a Lord-Lieutenant is thank you very much. Finally, (particularly re your comment on my talk page) try a little civility. -- Necrothesp 16:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Did I say you said he was the LL, I was simply pointing out that he wasnt because by linking directly to the LL article you could have given the impression that he was.--Vintagekits 17:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep- All Lord Lieutenants are notable as they hold a position of honour and represent the monarch in their county. Astrotrain 16:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, please remind the readers what power that ceremonial position of Lord Lieutenant of Armagh confers!?--Vintagekits 16:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Power has nothing whatsoever to do with notability. Notability is just that - whether someone's been noted by reliable third-party sources. It has nothing to do with "power". There are many, many notable people who have/had no power whatsoever. --Charlene 20:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep One newspaper article is presented with a detailed writeup of his career and accomplishments, a refreshing change from articles only supported by directory listings of peerage genealogy. There appears to be another source, but unclear what it is purported to show. A nice military career is described in some detail. Better than a "born, got married, inherited title, died, preceded by, succeeded by" article. Possibly one sided and POV, since a good encyclopediarticle might include criticisms. Smacks of a memorial article. Edison 16:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep, anything else he might have done, being Lord Lieutenant of Armagh is notability, pure and simple. Corvus cornix 17:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a successful attempt to improve the standard of these articles--& glad that we have at least established that LL are notable. DGG 21:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - notable for mililtary career and Lord Lieutenancy, and the sources are there.--Counter-revolutionary 22:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - there was also no attempt to discuss notability before nominating for AfD.--Counter-revolutionary 22:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment !voted Keep above because he did something signiicant in his life and it was adequately referenced, not because he was granted a title some claim to be ceremonial. Inherent notability of Lords Lieutenant is not really established by this AFD, but if one is otherwise notable he should certainly have an article. Edison 23:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Some say the Queen is ceremonial. Ceremony has nothign to do with notability; whether it is, or isn't. --Counter-revolutionary 23:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment It is quite a leap to compare this LL title with the Queen, who is a constitutional monarch, and a head of state. It seems a bit of a Straw man argument and still does not establish that this afd shows a particular title makes the holder inherently notable. Edison 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - notable both for military career and Lord Lieutenancy. Does it matter that he was "only" a Captain? For example, nobody suggests that Winston Churchill's page be deleted because he was not of high military rank. All Lords Lieutenant are notable by definition, surely. TamB

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 23:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Well sourced and notable for the military decorations, (openly contemptuous though Vintagekits may be of those who fought for our freedom not all Wikipedians share his disdain for such things), and for his rank as Lord Lieutenant. "During the Swordfish attack in Taranto harbour, he torpedoed one of Italy's newest and largest battleships, the Littorio, sinking her in shallow water. He was awarded the DSC for this action." If that's not enough to make him notable by Wikipedia guidelines then it's the guidelines that are wrong. Nick mallory 01:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think it's contempt for "those who fought for our freedom"; it may be that an Irish Wikipedian may feel that a British functionary who served as a British government official in Ireland before independence is not notable solely by virtue of being British. If so, it's not a neutral point of view. --Charlene 04:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. And who on earth said he was notable just for being British? He's notable for his achievements. What Vintagekits actually did was express contempt for the British honours system and by extension the British military and their courage, falsely (and insultingly) saying that military honours were handed out "like confetti" (thus implying that Torrens-Spence's honours were worthless and irrelevant). Can you really blame British editors for being unhappy about such an uncalled-for anti-British POV statement? In addition, note that Torrens-Spence was an official in Northern Ireland, which is still part of Britain, so Irish independence is irrelevant. -- Necrothesp 19:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - certainlyn notable. Peterkingiron 00:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Snowy Keep Nomination is so inaccurate that it leads one to question if nominator even read it. Article subject was Captian of several different vessels, including an aircraft carrier. Recieved multiple military decorations, as a pilot sank a battleship and crippled a cruiser. Squadron commander, test pilot, part of naval staff. Commandant of the Ulster Special Constabulary. Commanded County Armagh Battalion as a Lieutenant Colonel. Lord Lieutenant of Armagh. High Sheriff of County Armagh. (I could go on.) Edward321 21:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - maybe you should have read the article when it was nominated!--Vintagekits 22:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Dorney Park & Wildwater Kingdom. Existence is not notability, and this is not a speedy keep candidate. There's no mergeable information that would be worth mentioning in the park's article. --Coredesat 02:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wild Mouse (Dorney Park)

Wild Mouse (Dorney Park) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Appears to be an non-notable roller coaster. Almost every amusement park has some sort of wild mouse coaster and there's nothing here to suggest this stands out as a notable coaster. Metros 13:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. This roller coster does exist.--Edtropolis 15:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That's not the point of this nomination. I'm not saying it doesn't exist (I've actually ridden this coaster before) but it's not very notable. Metros 15:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something is "true" does not make it encyclopedic. Morgan Wick 20:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• "Speedy" Delete. Nothing special about this roller coaster. (Love the way the trivia section repeats what the rest of the article says.) Clarityfiend 15:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dorney Park & Wildwater Kingdom. Existence is not notability. Corvus cornix 17:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge does not deserve its own article.IP198 14:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of artists who have covered ABBA songs

List of artists who have covered ABBA songs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - as with many deletions of lists of artists who have performed other artists' songs, it is not inherently notable that an artist did so. If a cover version is particularly notable then mention may be made of it in a discography article for the artist and/or in an article for the song. The notable information from this article, on tribute bands and tribute albums, has been preserved at List of ABBA tribute bands and List of ABBA tribute albums. The remnants should be deleted. Otto4711 13:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up.--Edtropolis 20:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Worth mentioning in discography articles, but a little bit pointless as a separate list.--Phil500 (Talk / Contribs) 02:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. All lists of artists who have covered insert artist here's songs automatically fail [WP:UNENC]] as far as I am concerned. A1octopus 18:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete 'em all before they breed.--Mike18xx 06:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Jihad Foundation Organization in Mesopotamia

The Jihad Foundation Organization in Mesopotamia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced, badly-done conspiracy article for al-Qaeda in Iraq built on weasel phrases and hate and extreme distrust of mass media and official statements (appeareantly, all mass media are part of the "corporate media's" disinformation campaign) HanzoHattori 13:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The guy's attitute is:[21] Quote: "The associated press is a huge corporation, they can easily propagate misinformation" (it's Reuters and AFP too, and all major newspapers and TV networks as well).

If you look on his talk page,[22] he was warned several times to stop vandalising al-Qaeda-related articles, but he just did not.--HanzoHattori 13:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if he reverts the proper AQI article again: it's this one.[23] --HanzoHattori 13:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Nick mallory 13:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• (Speedily) redirect to Al-Qaeda in Iraq (plausible rendition of the group's name), and protect. - Mike Rosoft 14:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is the group's official name. There is no "al-qaeda" in "Tenzheem Qa'adah al-Jihad fi bilad al-Rafidayn." If you want to see a non existant "al-qaeda", go right ahead, but the official name should be used for the title. Those who ask for deletion are motivated by their biased non neutral point of view over FACT. Also this thing is not a vote. - Lft6771

I'll thank you not to second guess my motivations, pal. Nick mallory 14:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Provide justification for deleting this article, you provided none. So your recommendation is based on your personal point of view. This is not a vote, but contribution of ideas of what should be done based on fact, logic, and reason. -Lft6771 14:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect/Merge: per Mike. It's a longstanding naming convention that we call things the names by which they are most popularly known in the English-language world. You don't see the main article being named "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations," but that is the legal name of the state.  RGTraynor  15:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As of protecting the articles, take a look at this[24] too (very related). "There's-no-al-Qaeda" stuff + bunch of quite unrelated (and misleading: "himself was never Al Qaeda", to quote) stuff on Zarqawi and also the war in whole for some reason. I'm kind of tired of playing with our friend Latuff. --HanzoHattori 16:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I think "TruthSeeker777"[25] may be related to "Lft6771": [26] - he has the same obsession (before his move, there was a page on AQI alright, covering also it's origins as Tawhid) "ThruthSeeker" had the original page renamed to Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad. (Also, it would be nice if someone explained me the mystery of what and from what article did I appearently "COPY AND PASTE" there exactly, because I don't remember anything like that.)

• Delete as a blatant WP:POVFORK, riddled with original research and unattributed synthesis. If there are reliable sources which dispute the attribution of the name and administration of this group, they may be placed on the existing article page. --Dhartung | Talk 02:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the original article the other is the POV fork. This is the older article. -Lft6771 16:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Dhartung. It seems that such organization simply does not exist. This article is misleading.Biophys 02:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah - I just did the google check[27], and it's true. This name is not used AT ALL. --HanzoHattori 06:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Search for the Arabic text version of the name, NOT the english translation. [28] This group does exist and does not call itself "al-Qaeda" but the Arabic version of the title of this page. -Lft6771 16:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This is English Wikipedia. No one ever used this name. In the entire world. Only you. Can't get worse original research than this - it's impossible. --HanzoHattori 17:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - POV fork, one and the same organization as Al-Qaeda in Iraq; they should be one article, and this is a POV fork, so there's nothing to merge. The Evil Spartan 17:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  Changed to Strong delete - per link by Hanzo. The organization name doesn't even exist. At very least, this brutally fails WP:V. The Evil Spartan 17:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This article exists at Arabic wikipedia: [29]

Should that article be delted? Of course not. That is what this group is called and all content related to it should be added to this article. This article has been in existence since May 14. HanzoHattori began the POV fork on June 12 over a preexisting disambiguation page. -Lft6771 17:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me guess: you wrote this Arabic article too? "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" search returns 591,000 hits and "al-Qaida in Iraq" further 317,000 (for example, phrase "Al-Qaeda in Iraq claimed" 13,600[30]). Other names (all listed in the article alright) much much less - for example, the Arabic version of "Tanzim Qaidat Al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn" only 142, and "Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers" (the correct literal translation) only 196. Which is thousands time less. And yours - literally no one, just you and you alone. Latuff: People are telling you how the Wikipedia works, can't you really stop ignoring everyone? Are you unreformable, really? When I tag the article with "citation needed" and "original research", your acts of simply removing all of them won't make this problem go away - you HAVE to provide sources for all your claims when needed. What kind of sources? Listen to what people tell you: yes, the dastardly "corporate media" and such. Same thing about tags, and all other things I'm really tired of telling you by now. --HanzoHattori 18:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork. --MichaelLinnear 22:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Timeline to show and prove that this page is not a POV fork and that there is no jusftification for this page to be deleted:

24 June 2004: The "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" Page Created [31]

19 July 2004: The "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" Page is Developed [32]

24 October 2004: The "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" Page Before Tenzheem Qa'adah al-Jihad fi Bildad al-Rafydayn (Organization Foundation the Jihad in Lands of the Two Rivers called "al-Qaeda in Iraq" for some reason) Appears [33]

10 December 2004: A picture of a group standing in front of a banner with the words "Tenzheem Qa'adah al-Jihad" (Organization Foundation the Jihad or The Jihad Foundation Organization) is added to the "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad Page". (New Page is not created for this new group, but content for both began being added to the "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" page) Also, the unsourced statement that the group "Jama'at al-Tawhid al-Jihad" has changed its name to "al-Qaeda in Iraq" has been added to article. [34]

23 August 2005: "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal Jihad" article moved to "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" [35]

27 September 2005: "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" renamed/moved to "al-Qaeda in Iraq" (note: justification for page move is based on an unsourced statement. Content for two groups begins being added to the same article.) [36]

14 May 2007: After the "al-Qaeda in Iraq" (formerly Jama'at al-Tawhid al-Jihad) Page being developed for about two years with content for three different groups being jumbled into the same article, "al-Qaeda in Iraq" Page is moved back to "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" with goal of seperating the content into 3 different articles (with 1 new one being created) [37]

14 May 2007: A new page "The Jihad Foundation Organization in Mesopotamia" is created with content taken from the original "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" relevant to the group "Tenzheem Qa'adah al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafydayn" ("Organization Foundation the Jihad in Lands of the two rivers" or "The Jihad Foundation Organization in Mesopotamia" and also called "al-Qaeda in Iraq" for some reason which makes no sense to me.)

13 June 2007: HanzoHattori marks the "The Jihad Foundation Organization in Mesopotamia" Page for deletion. [38]

14 May 2007: A disambiguation page for the term "'al-Qaeda' in Iraq" is created for "al-Qaeda" linked or associated groups operating in Iraq. [39]

31 May 2007: The "Al-Qaeda in Iraq (disambiguation)" Page is renamed "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" because the"(disambiguation)" part was considered superfluous. [40]

12 June 2007: HanzoHattori blanks out the "al-Qaeda in Iraq" (disambiguation page) and begins adding content for "Tenzheem Qa'adah al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn" ("Organization Foundation the Jihad in Lands of the two rivers" or "The Jihad Foundation Organization in Mesopotamia" and also called "al-Qaeda in Iraq" for some reason which makes no sense to me.) which already has an existing page for it called "The Jihad Foundation Organization in Mesopotamia" which he marks for deletion (the page this AfD is for). [41]

-Lft6771 00:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• I do believe you have said it yourself up there: this page was created from the content of another page, directly (which is a violation of GFDL). There should only be one article: the original. We can deal with the misuse of the Al-Qaeda in Iraq page separately; don't you agree? The Evil Spartan 01:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Queer Pagan Flag

Queer Pagan Flag (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A symbol for GLBT pagans that seems to have been designed by the creator and only substantial contributor to the article. There doesn't appear to be any verifiable evidence that this flag has actually seen use as a notable symbol by any groups, unlike the Rainbow flag and company; the article states that it was "first flown" at a 2006 parade, and the article was first created in early March of that very year. A Google search reveals only 7 unique mentions aside from Wikipedia and mirrors, suggesting that this may be something made up at the pride parade one day. Krimpet (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:COI and because Wikipedia is not for things I made up before a parade one day CitiCat 13:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:N; never heard of it and cannot find any sources for it. Carlossuarez46 01:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No reliable sources to establish notability? Delete it. -- Kesh 02:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate info.--Edtropolis 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included on the LGBT WikiProject talk page. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• HangOn. Found one source, an English (and Queer Studies) professor that has the flag on his university website. [42] Most likely doesn't establish notability enough for WP:N, esp as a separate article, since he's not a group. Also agree with possible WP:COI issue as above. However, lets not be hasty. There are Queer Pagans, there should be a flag. Somewhere. Possible include as an external reference in Sexual orientation and Wicca with that source, rather than as a separate article? Becksguy 09:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It would be wise to check that this isn't known by some other (more notable) name elsewhere. - perfectblue 13:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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