Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 14

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

The result was merge. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joe the Bartender

Joe the Bartender (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Minor character - see WP:FICT#Fiction in Wikipedia. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into the "Recurring characters" section of List of characters from Grey's Anatomy, along with the other separate articles for characters in that section. (The information in these articles isn't significantly more detailed than that provided in the list for recurring characters that lack their own articles.) I have to say, before I looked I assumed that this was going to be about the old Jackie Gleason character. Deor 00:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into the list. Although I have some reluctance as we have articles on characters even more minor to their respective shows, like Frank Grimes and Sneakers O'Toole. Still I'd ultimately say "merge those too." Lastly I favor keeping the articles on the main characters, even Burke.--T. Anthony 05:04, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holkan

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

What is this??? It's nearly incomprehensible to me. YechielMan 22:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete Incoherent article which is in need of serious overhaul before it's even possible to tell if it's encyclopaedic or not. At the moment it's bordering on patent nonsense. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 22:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Explanation - it appears that this is an article about a "fantasy-science fiction comic and novel created by mexican authors Mardoz Lule and Hector Murguia in 2003" that gets its title name from Holkan, mayan word that means "Fierce" or "Warrior" . Guroadrunner 22:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete - per nomination. Incoherant and incomprehensible. May be worthy of an entry if rewritten. Victoriagirl 23:20, 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 no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of characters in Commander in Chief

List of characters in Commander in Chief (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fancruft for the political series. A list of the main characters already exists in the main article; this is a list of the full fictional Senate and Congress, among other ficitonal politicians on the show. Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. Guroadrunner 22:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete particularly since a list of the main characters already exists. No reason that can't be added to. Edit, drag the cursor down the list, copy; edit the other article, paste. Voila. Mandsford 23:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment -- the list is very long and would severely damage the main article to do a copy-and-paste job. Basically, it's a question of whether the information is notable to begin with. I say no. Guroadrunner 23:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC) (original nominator)

Weak keep as per parent comment. east.718 00:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into the series article. 132.205.44.134 02:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete there is already a section for main characters on the show's article. If there's anything worth saving (it doesn't look that way from me) move that over to the main article then delete this. Radagast83 03:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Maybe a rename to "List of minor charachters in Commander in Chief" but I see no compelling reason to delete this. It needs some clean up, but the information seems relevent to the show and this is a relevent fork from the show article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:55, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Evans (British writer)

John Evans (British writer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Doesn't meet WP:BIO; 2 published works, article claims unverifiability, author's site is the only ref. Grease Bandit 22:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Authors site is not only ref - also refers to information on the authors books, presumably cleared by the publisher - Publication dates and book details can also be found at Amazon - links to be included presently Ophiicus 00:42 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. Clarityfiend 06:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of notability. Yes, the books are listed at the British Library but so what? Eddie.willers 12:04, 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 redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Quintus

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

• Article about a minor character in the film Gladiator, which supplies no significant information beyond that supplied in the main film article's plot section, and is padded out with historical information about the character's position in the Roman government, which isn't particularly relevant to an article about a fictional character. The topic is not notable enough for a seperate article. SGGH ^speak! 22:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• If/then - if character is purely fictional, then delete. If character is based on real person (research needed), then rewrite. Guroadrunner 22:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Google hits turn up nothing unrelated to the film aside from references to Roman individuals with Quintus as a first name, mainly one "Quintus Fabius Maximus" who is also the only one mentioned when using google book search. SGGH ^speak! 22:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Looking for a Roman called "General Quintus" is like looking for a modern American military officer called "Centurion Fred". They didn't have generals per se back then, and Quintus was one of the most common men's names. --Charlene 01:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There you go then, unlikely to be based on a historical character. SGGH ^speak! 09:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- Jacek Kendysz 14:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gladiator. -- Whpq 16:17, 19 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 merge. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philbert

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

Not notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It certainly isn't asserting any significance. 650l2520 16:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/move to Wizadora article. Guroadrunner 16:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:53, 10 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 22:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Um...why is this important? Delete and maybe toss a sentence into the main TV show article. YechielMan 22:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• merge into the Wizadora article. GwenW 06:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect - there's no sourced information here so it doesn't seem right to merge. -- Whpq 16:19, 19 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 08:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Ryan

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

WP:NN radio personality, does not meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Leuko 05:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:55, 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 22:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - dude's only part-time and doesn't seem that notable. Guroadrunner 22:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It fails to meet WP:BIO. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 20:42, 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. Sr13 07:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copland PPC

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

Non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 00:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete possbile assertion of notability, but no independent sources to back it up. My own search didn't turn up anything special. Someguy1221 15:24, 14 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 22:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This article appears from review of Ubuntu forums to be part of an honest effort to develop support for a product that may become notable. The entry is merely self-validation at this stage. It can be recreated if it does reach that threshold for notability. Pever 12:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The article is spam intended to promote product through link to vendor's website. --Gavin Collins 13:55, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UNSC Iroquois

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

Contested prod. Article is about a fictional ship. It is a plot summary but doesn't say of which game/book/show. Does not assert its notability per WP:N's "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." 650l2520 16:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Part of the Halo universe (key word Covenant, and per category.) AFDs tend to appear around articles missing context. --Sigma 7 09:55, 10 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 22:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:FICT, and I swear this is G4-speedy since we had an AFD about 6-9 months ago on the same topic. --Dhartung | Talk 23:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• If there's no context being added, Delete. --Sigma 7 10:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no context, no sources. -- Whpq 16:20, 19 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 06:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ivor Talbot

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

Questionable notability; article written like an autobio almost Guroadrunner 16:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• weak keep based on the fact that the band has a page Corpx 18:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• delete nn Avalon 13:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Deleteper nom. Flubeca (t) 21:38, 13 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 22:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Not notable per WP:BIO, is not sourced reliably, and also smells of WP:COI. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Random. He's been involved with a few notable projects, but I can't find a source, other than his school bio, that discusses him as anything more than a sidenote. That, and the COI concern, are enough to make me support deletion at this point.--Kubigula (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not appear to have enough source material to write a non-stubby article about. Any info about him can be put in the band article, or in relevent other articles about projects he has worked on. I can't see enough independant material existing to make this a stand-alone article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per The Random Editor. Eddie 20:41, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Sackett

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

NN university sports coach in cross country running who is not even mentioned in the article for the school he coaches at. The sport he coaches is not discussed in-depth at that university's page either. Also, article is an orphan and uses peacock terms Guroadrunner 22:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't think notability has been established and there are no sources. If notability was established using sources it would be worth keeping.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - unable to find any reliable sources. A google news search seems to have a couple of offline articles from a local paper, and its unclear whether he is the focus of the article. -- Whpq 16:24, 19 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jerald F. Dirks

Jerald F. Dirks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Absolutely no proof of notability in the article. The article lacks reliable sources completely. sefringle^Talk 21:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. If one of his books was "award-winning," which award did it win? YechielMan 22:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for failure to establish notability. Yes, his books are listed at the Library Of Congress, but so what? Eddie.willers 12:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The only reference is to his own website.Proabivouac 01:50, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Widows sons

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

This is a nn group, and there is nothing in the article that asserts notability. MSJapan 21:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• delete - orphan article for a NN organization Guroadrunner 22:09, 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 06:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aric Gilinsky

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

Likely to be a hoax, Only returns 21 hits on google, with the majrity of those being from wikipedia and wikipedia mirrors [1] Exarion 21:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• weak delete as per Exarion. Guroadrunner 22:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced and total WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers 12:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Light Fisking. OK, the article claims that 'Gilinsky's' family included an architect with unknown lineage (possibly American born, possibly Byelorussian) and a businessman of Besserabian descent - yet Gilinsky's family are supposedly Polish and Lithuanian. Secondly, he goes to study theology in 1992 and joins a radical Jewish/Zionist organisation (which he leaves in 1996) but doesn't actually 'find religion' and begin attending temple until 1996. Thirdly, he is supposedly becomes a rabbi within three years of his becoming religious, even though the Wiki article says a man obtains semicha ("rabbinic ordination") after the completion of an arduous learning program. Fourthly, googling 'Newsnight' or 'BBC' with 'Gilinsky' turns up nothing that supports the claim of there having been an interview on said BBC program. What else? Eddie.willers 19:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC
  • Comment Actually if you read it it says he refused the Newsnight interview.
• keep It's all true. CicDog 12:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Snowball delete as hoax.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete 7 ghits when you filter out wikipedia. JodyB _talk 21:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete above reasoning. Acalamari 22:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• keep I have some knowledge of these events but I can't understand the low press cobverage - it was a big story at the time... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.185.226 (talk • contribs)
• Comment Same author as of Star of Poland. See my comment there at about new historians. greg park avenue 22:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• keep it seems too detailed and rings so truly that I doubt it's a hoax. Jimmy Deleter 10:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• keep as per above StOfPo 20:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced hoax. Edward321 23:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• keep it's perfectly true 212.219.250.5 09:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the purpose of the article is to incite hatred towards Islam. Jackaranga 09:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment All the people who have voted keep so far are either unregistered or just registered today, and their only contributions are voting on this, with the exception of CicDog who is the one having created the article. Also it is not a hoax but more like political propaganda. Jackaranga 09:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Appears to be an elaborate malicious hoax. Huwlepolonais2 18:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Pancakes Why would this article incite hatred towards Islam? If anything it would spark a negative reaction against radical zionism. MetricMilitia 22:38, 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 speedy delete, author request. Sr13 06:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Superman III: The Junkyard Cut

Superman III: The Junkyard Cut (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A non-notable fan film that was in fact canceled. The article gives no director planned and only links to announcements on a forum (which isn't a reliable source) from an anonymous editor saying that he created the film. The article gives differences from the real Superman 3 film and the fan's reason to make it because of unhappiness with the real movie and nothing else. Delete. Phydend 21:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Superman 3 with only minor details retained for addition to article. Guroadrunner 22:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fan edits with concrete avaliablity would be better argued, not ones that have since been cancelled and it's better aspects put into other fancuts (such as "The Smallville Cut")

Besides, I was the editor, so delete away, I had actually brought the issue of deleition up on Fanedit.org, but was'nt sure how to do it myself here

Dr. R.KZ. 01:26, 15th June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete No reliable sources, no assertion of notability. --Phirazo 03:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this sourceless article about a nonexistent film. Doczilla 09:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Christ, even when the bleeding editor of the film is telling the mods to delete the article, they wait for "other opinions". Just sodding delete it already.

Dr. R.KZ. 21:49 PM 16th June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete does not assert it's notablity. Lacks any reliable sources. The Filmaker 23:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- These fanedits are coming one a day now. Yeah, computers are that fast...--Mike18xx 07:27, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle

Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable publication. there seems to be nothing in terms of reliable secondary sources covering the book from a quick google scan (virtually all are retail websites), and as such appears to fail WP:BK. article survived a previous AfD, but no rationale was offered as to why the book was notable. ITAQALLAH 20:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 20:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 20:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 20:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Plain POV by a Christian 'Messianic Jewish' organization that tries to convert both Muslims and Jews to Christianity. The guy's history is probably a lie, considering his refusal to publicize his real last name. See the article on him. --Rabbeinu 21:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Since he hasn't been murdered or put on a talk show, the author must not be that controversial, let alone notable. Maybe the info can be incorporated into the article about the organization described above. Mandsford 21:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per previous Afd's--sefringle^Talk 21:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, there is nothing in the previous AfD establishing notability of this book. ITAQALLAH 22:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, I'm not sure how to 'vote' on this... what exactly makes it different from Jerald F. Dirks or any of his books? Charisma House just seems like a Christian version of Amana. gren グレン 06:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Nom. Previous "keeps" mainly argued it should be kept because the author is notable and not the book. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable book. The author appears to be notable, but not the work in question. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the last AfD. -- Karl Meier 06:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. We do not create article on each and every book.--- A. L. M. 08:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Doesn't appear to satisfy notability guidelines. The Behnam 18:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• weak delete origional research should be deleted from wikipedia.--Sefringle^Talk 07:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Mark A. Gabriel or Weak Keep. Edward321 23:36, 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 no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Samurai Shodown characters

List of Samurai Shodown characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a placeholder I created for a bunch of non-notable characters to be merged into. After two months, nothing has changed. The characters themselves have no possibility of having any view on them beyond the games, so this is about the peak of their existence. The character entries are only a retelling of the various games of the series, so all of the information can easily be covered in those articles. TTN 20:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. QuagmireDog 20:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete. Hooray! A list of video game deletions. Hopefully, overly voluminous articles about TV episodes and songs off of an album are next. Mandsford 21:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: I don't see a reason to delete the list. Given the length of the list if the main game articles contained the same information it would probably be split out to slim down the articles in question. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no way to cover it in an encyclopedic manner. Keeping it just for the reason of keeping it doesn't really help us. The information for each game pretty much takes up the normal length of a story section for a video game anyways. If it does become too large, all we have to do is trim it. We really don't need to cover each character's full story in the games. TTN 23:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, and wasn't this an anime as well? 132.205.44.134 02:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That implies that some sort of cleanup method has been found. At this point, not one single person actually wants to work on it beyond doing minor things. TTN 14:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as marginal-interest cruft. Or move to games-wiki -- SockpuppetSamuelson 08:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - If it were multiple articles, I would urge delete, on the basis of WP:NOT#IINFO - However, this is, explicitly, a list - Tiswas^(t) 09:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It originally was a bunch of articles, but I don't see how that matters. Lists must also conform to our writing and notablity guidelines (WP:WAF and WP:FICT in this case), so the fact that it's a list shouldn't make a difference. TTN 14:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - WP:FICT#Fiction in Wikipedia#2 covers the list format. If the list were substantially shorter, it would be perfectly at home in the parent article. Which part of WP:WAF do you consider relevant? It is, after all, a long article in itself. - Tiswas^(t) 14:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• That doesn't automatically mean the we just shove all characters of every series onto a list. A topic needs to show relevance outside of the series to be covered here (as shown in WAF). Every single fictional topic has characters in one way or another, but unless they can be separated from the plot, it is pointless to mention them. TTN 14:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• No, it doesn't. But neither does it preclude the creation of such a list, however much it is to your or my chagrin. Unfortunately, there are no clear guidelines, but there is clear precedent. I can't say that it give me much cheer. - Tiswas^(t) 14:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, the Pokemon test page is used against that argument, not for it (They are also going under a large reconstuction, so it is best not to even talk about them). We cannot say there is a precedent just because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. We only have two featured character pages, and both have at least a little bit of real world information, so that would be the precedent. TTN 16:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sentiment that I have expressed myself on more than one occasion. However, in this instance, we are considering a list that contains in-universe information, as opposed to multiple in universe articles. I'm not expounding a "better here than there" argument, more that WP:FICT and WP:WAF allow for this sort of cruft, and, whilst it would be best kept to the parent article, it is too long a list to be kept there. - Tiswas^(t) 18:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That isn't the guidelines allowing these (hopefully the rewrite of FICT will help in the future). Fans of fluffy fiction articles and people that don't believe in notability expressed by non-trivial sources allow them. If this were actually a true discussion instead of a vote as we claim they are, stuff like this would be quick. It's just an annoying flaw in the site's system. Anyways, the list won't be kept anywhere. The characters can easily be split off between the series article and the ten separate game articles. All of these paragraphs are just small parts of the overall story, so most would be trimmed to a sentence (not that they would actually be merged.) TTN 18:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not a vote, but there are legitimate arguments against your position simply as for what Wikipedia should be. I for one take the "comprehensive" part of Wikipedia seriously, but also think that proper writing style means that minutiae shouldn't be endlessly harped on in the main article. Hence, daughter articles with the details and summary style. That said, if this article is kept, by all means go ahead and clean it up and chop it down, if you think redundancy can adequately be reduced. SnowFire 06:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Child articles are created if they are a suitable sub-topic that has enough information to write about. If not, the main article is usually trimmed (This isn't how it happens, but that is the actual way that it should be done.). This article is going to be kept because people are ignoring the whole "These have no out of universe information, thus fail the criteria to be covered here" bit, and replacing it with "This is good information." TTN 12:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) I'm not familiar with Samurai Shodown, but "enough information" strikes me as a WP:V issue which is easily dealt with by using the games themselves. Obviously sourcing could be better and any speculation should be sourced or removed, but those are vanilla cleanup issues. More out of universe information would be good of course, but that's more the difference between a Start or B class article and a GA/FA article; if this information is adequately sourced, it would be proper to have in a comprehensive article on an individual game if it wasn't for clutter issues and summary style. SnowFire 15:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are completely irrelevant when dealing with fiction articles. They will always be there, so they are not part of the equation. Real world information must be present to assert the need to cover it. We can be lax only up to a certain point with these kinds of articles. This has become more than a simple split off or "It can/will get better" thing. If an article cannot even show the ability to meet the fiction guidelines, they should be merged or deleted as needed. After two months of sitting, nothing has been found, and even after searching a good while by myself, I found nothing. TTN 15:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

They are irrelevant for proving notability, but not for verifiability. Which is what I was referring to, and what (I believe) your earlier argument was getting at. As for notability, my thoughts are that a "daughter" article generally shares the notability of its parent article; it's just in a separate Wikipedia article for purely organizational reasons. And I fully agree that there is definitely a limit to "how far" this can go, but a single characters article for an entire series seems reasonable enough to me.

Honest question, just to get a feel for your position: what do you think of the Pokemon articles? I've been trying to avoid a "other crap exists" argument here, but I think this is on point. I'm not overly familiar with it, but my suspicion is that there isn't much strictly defined *individual* notability on 98% of Pokemon... but the Pokemon franchise itself is notable with scads of sales, newspaper articles, etc. and it's reasonable to think that people interested in the topic in-depth might be interested in the actual characters. I'm not referring to organization here (whether they should be merged or not, etc.), but simply whether the content is worthy of keeping on Wikipedia, which you don't seem to think it is in this case since you don't even want to merge. SnowFire 16:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Those verify the in-game stuff, but that doesn't really matter. We need to verify real world information, which has been my argument the entire time. If the sub-topic is not large enough to stand on its own (notability), it doesn't need to be split in the first place, so just shoving a bunch of junk isn't going to help us organize anything. That information needs to be trimmed instead. In this case, a main character section in the series article can cover them in general, and more specific section in each game can cover the specifics, so there is no need to even split in the bad way that we do it. If this article could possibly look like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, it would be worth keeping. There is not enough information for that to happen.

Most of the Pokemon should be merged into lists, and the major ones like Pikachu can keep their articles. As a whole, they have enough information to warrant lists and stuff, just not articles. The Pokemon project is trying to accomplish a pretty large merger, by the way. TTN 16:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I actually enjoyed reading it. I don't see any reason to delete it. And Samurai Shodown is quite a notable and popular series of video games, manga, and (if I remember correctly) anime. It's not trivial. --Melanochromis 00:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate to comment on every keep, but WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep it. The series is notable, but that doesn't extend to the characters. TTN 00:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. If moved to articles on the individual games, it'd clutter them up horribly. Plus, I'm going to presume that at least some of these characters span multiple games, making a merge tricky? A giant merged character article is the best option here. This isn't an issue of notability so much (any reasonable article on an individual game would mention the characters in it) as proper organization of content. SnowFire 06:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

They aren't going to be merged. Each game has its own story that can be beefed up to like three paragraphs by including these. That is a fine length for a story section. Its also very possible to include a couple paragraph characters section. We aren't going to cover each character separately because they are not notable enough. TTN 12:01, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yellow car

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

PROD was removed without comment. This is a completely unsourced "game". Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. I suggest deletion. Isotope23 20:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Actually seems like a variation of the old classic Punch buggy. Merge and redirect as appropriate. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Was just thinking the same thing, Tony Fox. But is this really an actual variant more than a made-up-one-day game among a few friends? I'd say delete per nom. DMacks 20:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• I considered a redirect, but I didn't see any evidence this was a known variant.--Isotope23 20:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per DMacks. The rules are very similar to punch buggy, but it just seems like some minor made-up playground thing.--Ispy1981 20:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Yellow car, black car, car with white stripes. Nothing to merge. Pavel Vozenilek 23:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Punch buggy - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:03, 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 06:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's Dance (Vanessa Hudgens song)

Let's Dance (Vanessa Hudgens song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-article. No sources, no info. WP:CRYSTAL. - eo 19:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete, obvious crystallization here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete--Svetovid 19:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect. to High School Musical 2.--Edtropolis 20:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete in accordance with WP:CSD#G4, as it's recreated material. Acalamari 22:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment -- is Vanessa Hudgens even that notable ? Guroadrunner 22:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy it, WP:CSD#G4. east.718 00:13, 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 redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sir James Stronge, 10th Baronet

Sir James Stronge, 10th Baronet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Redirect to Stronge Baronets. Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO - titles do not confer notability - Tiswas^(t) 19:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as WP:BLP violation; unsourced living person bio with contentious claims; even if that were cured; notability is not inherited at this level. Carlossuarez46 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Try reading BLP first. It says that an editor may "remove any contentious material that is unsourced", not speedy delete the whole article. That means one sentence should be deleted, not the whole lot. His notability is a separate issue but please don't use policies to "support" your opinion that actually don't support your opinion. -- Necrothesp 00:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your uncivil comment; I have read BLP. How other than deleting the article (which we ought to do anyway because he's not notable) do you propose to remove the crap from our "history"? Carlossuarez46 20:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Nothing uncivil about my comment, other than you not agreeing with it. I'm simply tired of people claiming that policies or guidelines justify their deletionist opinions when they actually don't. All that was needed was the deletion of a single sentence (which has now been done). It no longer fails BLP. Simple. Is your comment about "deleting crap from our history" supported in BLP? I don't think it is, otherwise it wouldn't be worded as it is (and as I just quoted it). It would instead say an editor may "delete any article that has any unsourced contentious material in it whatsoever". It doesn't, whether you want it to or not. And as I said, his notability is a separate issue and not one I was commenting on. -- Necrothesp 23:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Think as you wish, you're wrong. I didn't suggest the mere appearance of an unsourced BLP issue leads to the deletion of the article, here, however, the only possibly notable thing about this dude is a BLP violation and that violation dates to the earliest formation of his article. Carlossuarez46 21:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I think you'll find that your comment was "Speedy Delete as WP:BLP violation", so that's exactly what you suggested. -- Necrothesp 14:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect as nom suggests - this definitely seems to have BLP issues, and there's not much notable about the subject even if he does have a title. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep re notability as Baronet, SqueakBox 21:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, turns out that he is not actually a Baronet at all! For this reason I am changing my !vote to a straight delete - what say you?--Vintagekits 02:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Stronge Baronets. According to that article, this guy's baronetcy is "unproven"; and if one follows the link on that word, one finds that the Stronge baronetcy has been officially vacant "dormant" for about 25 years and that he is not therefore a recognized (by whoever officially recognizes such things) baronet. Deor 22:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete: There is nothing here worthy of retention, merge on to a general page for the holders of this baronetcy. In fact I think the information given is intrusive into the life and privacy of a person who has clearly neither sought nor earned publicity or notability of any kind. Giano 22:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect per Deor. Agree that the article contains definite privacy problems as it stands. JavaTenor 23:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)|
• Redirect or merge, since he should be mentioned in the article--but the present article has a simple and clear BLP problem paragraph that I have just deleted from the article. Why didn't anyone delete it before, instead of just talking about it? I don't think there's enough for an article in any case, with or without it.DGG 00:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - notable given what he succeeded in the wake of, i.e. a double murder. --Counter-revolutionary 01:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Redirect This was really unnecessary as it has already been determined in numerous afds now that Peers, Baronets or any other type of noble who have very little notability except their title should be redirected to the relevant page for that title. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 02:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete if that is the standard for this level of nobleman. Being an American I have no idea what a baronet is, except it must be somewhat lower in importance than a baron. Steve Dufour 04:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

* Concur -- the baronetage was a fund-raising stunt of James I and since then has provided a classic example of self-perpetuating parasitism. Not worthy of the Wiki, nor, in fact, of real-world surivival. Let us begin here, with one individual, then remove all holders of this title, then all baronets, and finally every article dealing with the anti-democratic English aristocracy -- SockpuppetSamuelson

Well I think that comment just speaks for itself! No reason actually given except a clear anti-aristocracy bias!--Counter-revolutionary 09:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have nothing against baronets and I didn't mean to imply that I did. Steve Dufour 15:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. A baronet is basically an hereditary knight, and is superior to all but one level of knighthood, but is not a peer and was never entitled to a seat in the House of Lords (which is what makes British peers inherently notable as members of a national legislature). Therefore the person actually created a baronet is notable for being given the honour in the first place, but his successors cannot really be classed as inherently notable (although some obviously disagree). SockpuppetSamuelson's comments are not worthy of comment, of course, except to say that people created baronets in the last two centuries have predominantly been deserving of the honour. -- Necrothesp 16:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Counter-rev. Notable and referenced. This is not a paper cyclopedia. - Kittybrewster (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Since you appear to know something about baronetcies, could you provide some clarification on the status of his claim to succession? (i.e. what is the meaning of unproven in this context)? JavaTenor 06:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It implies that although his lineage is clear (set down in Burke's Peerage online, Cracroft, Debrett's, etc), he has not gone to the expense of proving his rightful claim to his cousin's baronetcy by formally proving that Sir Norman predeceased Sir James (who had no opportunity to lay formal claim) and that there are no intervening entitled potential claimants. It is relevant in Court circulars, London Gazette, etc. Another example of an unproven baronet is Jonathon Porritt. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete not notable Trugster 09:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Nothing really notable about this individual. No achievements or even anything of minor public interest. Kitty, Jonathon Porritt is not really a valid comparison as he is notable in several ways and just also happens to be a baronet. Galloglass 09:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect, the position of a Baronet is notable.--Vintagekits 14:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, so why delete?!--Counter-revolutionary 14:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Can you clarify the question please.--Vintagekits 15:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If "the position of a baronet is notable" why delete this article? --Counter-revolutionary 15:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My mistake obviously it should say it is NOT notable.--Vintagekits 15:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I have changed me !vote to a straight Delete from Delete and merge because it turns out that he isnt even a Baronet at all! How embrassing!--Vintagekits 02:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and merge the info here could be merged into the Sir James Stronge, 9th Baronet of Tynan article, seeing as there is no proof to the claim of title. Either that or delete.--padraig3uk 14:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Sir James Stronge, 9th Baronet of Tynan or Stronge Baronets article. Currently, he appears to only be claimant to the title and there no indication of other offices, actions, or writing that would assert notability. Edward321 23:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- notable as a Baronet of the United Kingdom Astrotrain 08:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - go one Astrotrain - even if a Baronet got automatic notability (which it doesnt) but it turns out this guy isnt a Baronet at all - almost laughable!--Vintagekits 02:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Prove he isn't. That remark could be anti- WP:BLP. --Counter-revolutionary 02:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Lol, the burden of proof it not on me - the burden of proof is on those that wish to claim he is something he isnt.--Vintagekits 02:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We've provided the sources; Burkes, Debrett's &c., the say he's a baronet! --Counter-revolutionary 02:43, 20 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 no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Annie Dale Biddle Andrews

Annie Dale Biddle Andrews (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Claim to notability is that she was the "first woman to receive a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of California at Berkeley" in 1911. Beyond that she was a university math instructor and got a paper published in the journal of the American Mathematical Society in 1933. [2] Is this sufficient? 650l2520 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and improve. - Notable.--Edtropolis 19:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep and improve per above. "First woman to receive a Ph.D in Mathematics from UC Berkley" may be a bit awkward, but it does at least hint at notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• very weak keep per Ten. Female mathematicians were very rare at the time. JoshuaZ 19:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with University of California at Berkeley.--Svetovid 19:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep or find somewhere to merge I added some more information; There is probably some further historical information, which would certainly help. But I really have doubts about notability for WP purposes: 1/she's probably somewhere like the 20th or 30th US American woman with a PhD in math. (the 1st was Winifred Edgerton Merrill in 1883 at Columbia 2/ there were a number of American universities where women had previous received PhD's: Yale, Chicago, Illinois, Cornell and especially Bryn Mawr; 3/ Many of the other women from that year and before had a considerably more distinguished career, either as a mathematician or mathematics educator, eg Christine Ladd-Franklin. 4/most of the ones with distinguished careers do not yet have articles.

So, do we make an article for the first in each school? We certainly do not merge the hundred of people each year who get phd's from berkeley into the main article, whether or not they are notable, not even the first man and the first woman in each subject--this has been done for no other subject.

What we should probably do is start making pages for major math depts-- & for the major depts at univs. like Berkeley--no US dept now has its own article, but Cambridge & some russian ones do--but that s a long-term project. I can see making an article for 1st women phds in general, but this would be a major project that would amount to OR, unless there is a good source. DGG 03:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I don't see how that would amount to OR as long as each was sourced as being first for something. JoshuaZ 14:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think this is a special individual given the difficulty of obtaining the degree and especially pursuing that course as a female in an all-male world. I would certainly think that it could be expanded. Maybe the folks at Gender Studies WikiProject could help. JodyB _talk 21:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 00:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as not sufficiently notable by WP:NN for a standalone article; in particular, she is noteworthy for only one thing. I'm against merging into Berkeley's article unless every school has such information included. One might consider merging her into List_of_female_mathematicians, but her mathematical work is not sufficiently notable for that (poorly maintained) page. In summary, not every local first achievement is encyclopedic.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 16:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Notable for only one thing is still notable, though the article definitely needs work. Edward321 01:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily so. From WP:PROF: Note that if an academic is notable only for their connection to a single ... event ... it may be more appropriate to include information about them on the related page, and to leave the entry under the academic as a redirect page.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 04:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete. per above arguments. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UnityLink

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

Fails WP:ORG criteria of notability. —Visor (talk · contribs) 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Blantant advertising.--Edtropolis 19:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Visor, no claim for notability, Wiki is not a YellowPage.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Visor, WP:ORG Marcin Suwalczan [our talk] 19:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, local ISP. Jacek Kendysz 19:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, needs some independent reviews, customer poll results or surveys, newspaper or business magazine articles about the service, etc. Since the company is neither a public service nor it ever went public, more information about its owner would be appreciated - what he did before and where the money came from? See Optimum Online. greg park avenue 01:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. --  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:58, 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 no consensus its clear from this discussion that they do need to be expanded, whether some should be merged into broader scope articles (aka Indian cricket team in Australia) or deleted is indeterminable given the sheer volume and variance in both subject matter and potential sourcing. Gnangarra 03:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003

Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Borderline speedy candidate as there is little to no context to this article. I am also including the following in this nomination (apologies in advance for the huge mass nomination):

Okay. All of these articles are identical - a generic template, a couple references, and the body which states "The (country) cricket team toured Australia in the (years) season." No additional content, context or information. Perhaps there is a better solution to this problem, like merging this information into a single list, but I'm not sure. In any case these articles are superfluous and ought to be purged.

Note : I am in the process of tagging these articles with AfD headers, but it may take a while.

Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I STRONGLY OPPOSE this mass deletion because they are notable articles and even though they are short they should not be deleted as they will be expanded in the future. Each article is fully referenced and do believe that in the future these articles will be expanded so it wastes the time of the people that created these articles. I do not know if you are a cricket supporter but I hope if you are you re consider this mass deletion and appreciate the time and effort that fellow cricket lovers have spent their time creating

I hope you re consider and remove the deletion tags. I would like you to respond on this matter to my talk page. 02blythed 19:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Actually since the information is germane to this discussion, i will reply here instead of your talk page. With all due respect to yourself and all interested cricket lovers, I cannot reconsider this nomination at this time. You say the articles will be improved in the future - I look at the entire batch, created over 4 months ago, and the only edit to them has been to add a stub categorization. This does not indicate to me that these are a "work in progress". These articles have no useful content and all they do is repeat the information available in the included template. I do not believe that creating "placeholder articles" for future improvement is appropriate. Stub articles are fine, but these aren't even stubs. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. As per Comment. Nominator has bad nom faith.--Edtropolis 19:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pardon? What is "bad nom faith"? Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Whilst the events themselves are notable, the articles contain practically no content other than a repeat of the title. I'd much rather they were left as red-links in the hope that someone might write a proper article on the tours down the line. Andrew nixon 19:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. If anybody really wanted to expand those articles, they have had 4 months.--Svetovid 20:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Andrew nixon. While international cricket tours may or may not be notable; there is no context or real content in these. I also question whether a cricket tour is really notable; most other sports we handle in the main article, or rarely by season (year) but not by each tour or part of the season, for example at the article Bangladeshi cricket team, the team seems to have gone to Zimbabwe and Trinidad, and played lots of other countries at unspecified venues; I would not want there to be an article about each road trip or each match. Carlossuarez46 20:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Definitely fails context criteria. Whilst I have started expanding some of these, there is definitely no need to keep them in their current state: although it would be useful to have a record of where these were, for recreation *with* context at a later date. {{International cricket tours of Australia}} fulfills this for the articles in question, but in case any further articles are brought to AfD I'd like to make sure there was such a record made before deletion.

I do think these should be allowed to be re-created and kept at a later date, provided they're throughly expanded. I don't see any issues on notability grounds, however: cricket tours are a very important part of both of the year in cricket and of the history of two teams' relationship/rivalry/etc. AllynJ 20:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Have added some content to the Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003, just because they are stubs does not mean they should be deleted. A national cricket tour is notable enough to deserve an article. Davewild 20:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether they're stubs, if they do not have sufficient context then they fail WP:CSD#A1. Notability is not *really* in question here, someone simply mentioned it in passing. AllynJ 20:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete with the exception of those articles that have now attracted some expansion: Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003 and West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1960-61. Johnlp 20:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Have now expanded Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 2004-05, Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 1999-2000 and New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 2004-05 as well and will expand some more. Davewild 20:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have substantially expanded West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1960-61 and intend to expand it further. JH (talk page) 21:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Have now expanded Sri Lankan cricket team in Australia in 2004, Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 2002, South African cricket team in Australia in 1997-98, South African cricket team in Australia in 1993-94 and West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1992-93. Davewild 21:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge With all due respect to everybody, I'm sure these are appropriately sourceable, but I can't support a year by year history of cricket teams. Year by year for the sports? Maybe. Teams? It would be better to cover their history in one article. FrozenPurpleCube 23:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete except for those articles which have recently attracted attention. east.718 00:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep them all with the exceptions outlined below as they are all notable and sources exist for them all. I really dislike mass nominations of articles. The 1960-61 tour of the West Indies to Australia is one of the most notable in cricket history featuring the first Tied Test and the record attendance for a test match for the Melbourne test. The Bangladeshi tour referred to featured the first tests played in Darwin and Cairns. Each of these tours has sources and is capable of being improved by having notable events added. However, the New Zealand tours before 1974-75 are the exception to the rule as no tests were played. Capitalistroadster 02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, notability is not in question here, and is not a suitable reason for suggesting keeping these. Questioning the sources is not why these have been nominated. Nor is disliking mass nominations. These are up for lacking context, and failing WP:CSD#A1. AllynJ 03:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this mass of contentless articles . Wikipedia is not a mass of indiscriminate information per WP:NOT. Fail WP:N and WP:A as well. Edison 03:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Bangladeshi cricket tours of Australia, Indian cricket tours of Australia, etc. Most seasons are individually not worth individual coverage, I agree there are exceptions and those individual seasons can be recreated (it doesn't seem anyone has been in a hurry for the last four months). If multiple independent sources cannot be found for each tour than the tour wasn't notable.Garrie 03:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment CricketArchive and other official websites already provide excellent hosting for statistics and match results. If the most that these articles are going to offer is trivial cricket scores then they are not providing encyclopedic content. How about some analysis of who the tour was a milestone for? Were there any major events (Bodyline)? If nothing happened except people playing cricket then it was not a notable tour.2006-07 Ashes series is an example of encyclopedic content that is pretty much "English cricket team in Australia in 2006".Garrie 04:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Garrie.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeti Hunter (talk • contribs)

Perhaps I should elaborate: Merge ALL articles into a single "Australian Tours" article (or perhaps "Bangladeshi tours of Australia" etc), but keep any articles which might survive AfD on their own merits.Yeti Hunter 07:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: merging does not work as explained below. We have tried it and had to undo it. Each of these articles is notable in its own right but simply needs development and there is a mass of data out there. The problem is that it takes time to get through so much material. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. These are mostly likely to become paraphrased summaries of better quality info elsewhere on the net.--Limegreen 04:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: You must be joking. Can you give an example of better quality info on the net re some of the cricket project's fully developed articles, such as the 2005 series in England, for example? Believe me, you cannot. The only contender is CricketArchive in a purely statistical sense and by definition that doesn't have the narrative or description that we have. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong KEEP These are notable tours between international cricket teams. The wikipedia cricket project is one of the best developed sports projects here but not everything can be done by magic. There are plenty of sources for each of these tours but it takes time to write them up. If an editor is embarking on a project to do so, and he's already doing a lot of work on writing up Bangladeshi first class players, then he should be allowed to do without the constant threat of his work being deleted. These are valid stubs and will be expanded over time. It's a lot harder writing articles than it is to glibly delete them. Nick mallory 04:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 2004-05 and any other which has been expanded significantly beyond the original stub. Delete any remaining as a single line stub, but if anyone is willing to commit to expanding them, they should get more time than a week to do so.-gadfium 05:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All, properly referenced articles detailing international sporting tours at the highest level. Lankiveil 07:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC).

• Keep (for the time being!): I think that all these articles are valid stubs. Give a fortnight and delete any article that is at current state. --Kalyan 07:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. International tours are certainly notable, and all those that are nominated are simply those that are still stubs, and haven't been expanded. There are tens of thousands of stubs on wikipedia, and they aren't deleted simply because it is hoped that eventually the article will be expanded. I believe those wanting deletion must give some reason besides "there's no context." Look at those tours that have received some attention:
• English cricket team in Australia in 2006-07
• English cricket team in Australia in 2002-03
• West Indian cricket team in Australia in 2005-06
• South African cricket team in Australia in 2005-06

Sure they tend to be the most recent tours, but isn't that the case for everything on wikipedia? Should we go around deleting all the old State and Federal election pages dating back to 1901, just because they're still stubs? Please give these some time. Recurring dreams 10:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per Andrew Nixon. I will never understand the rush to fill redlinks with one line stubs. If there is not the content, time or inclination to create a decent stub (i.e. at least three of four sentences with some meaningful content), rather than a one line restatement of the title, it is better to leave the redlink alone. If we are to think of the reader, the redlink at least tells the reader upfront that Wikipedia does not have any content on the subject. With these one line stubs, we force the reader to move to a new article to then tell them we have no content worthy of the name. These one line stubs are not just useless to the reader, they are harmful to the project. Better to be upfront and admit we don't have have an article rather than create a mere placeholder article. Of course, I would keep those articles that have been expanded since nomination and have no prejudice against recreation of any of the other articles pending creation of a decent stub. The subjects are clearly notable and should not be difficult to source. But, please, wait until you have the time and sources to create a decent stub. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 11:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Excellent points in the last two sentences. With hindsight, this is what should have been done and is what we will surely do in future if we have a similar "series scenario". --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep That other sources retain records does not seem to be a good rationale for deletion of stubs that hold at least a promise of being properly developed by a clearly interested party. Time could be given to enable meritorious stubs to be more fully developed and then the remaining entries can be individually assessed. Pever 12:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep for any that are beyond one-line stubs (such as Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003) - Cricket series are inherently notable. Delete, with no bias against recreation, those without worthwhile information that are just rephrased titles. -Halo 15:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to one decade to a page. There would be insufficient information to warrant each season having an individual page. Perhaps, for example, West Indian cricket team in Australia in the 1960s 리지강.wa.au 19:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: You have only to look at West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1960-61 to see how much information is available about each tour and the potential that each one of these articles has for development. The fact that the cricket project has not yet had time to develop these articles does not mean there is a lack of available data. The issue for the cricket project is the availability of time and resources. Merging articles does not work and we end up splitting them again: we've been there and done it. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - Merge it into its respective country pages - PokhranII 19:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment by original author. I created these items with the intention of developing them but there are too many to do in the short term and I do have other work as well, so they haven't been taken forward. I agree with Andrew and others who have said the topics should exist as redlinks in a templates until someone has time to develop them to a reasonable level of content. I do not agree with the non-cricket people who question the notability of the tour articles. They are all notable as they involve Test cricket and / or limited overs international cricket, which is the highest tier of the sport. Merging them into collective articles about cricket in one country will not work: that idea has already been tried with The Ashes and it doesn't work. I'm not going to vote but I will be interested to see the outcome. If the items are deleted, I still have them all in offline text files so I can easily recreate them if and when I have time to develop them; or if anyone wants me to provide a template for one they have only to ask on my talk page. I would ask Arkyan to modify his list given that some of the articles are being developed and I would make a special plea re the 1960-61 West Indies tour of Australia. All the best. Enjoy your discussion. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd normally be amenable to the idea of striking from the nominated list those articles which have undergone some measure of expansion since I brought them up, as my original contention was that the articles lacked sufficient context. However as other editors have also expressed reservations regarding both the notability of the subjects and an interest in performing some kind of merge, I can no longer withdraw articles from the nomination. It will be up to the closing admin to choose whether to remove them all based on notability concerns, just the ones without improvement due to lack of context, or keep them all per consensus, whichever outcome proves to be the best. For what it's worth I do appreciate the effort some editors are making in trying to better the articles, in particular 1960-61 West Indies tour of Australia as you mentioned has been heavily improved. However most of the improvements still consist of mere statistical figures without additional context, which really doesn't satisfy WP:NOT#INFO, specifically item 9 regarding statistics. Again, for the record, my nomination has nothing to do with notability, just lack of useful context. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"However most of the improvements still consist of mere statistical figures without additional context..." Rome wasn't built in a day. As the person who has taken on the task of expanding the article, I began with the basic statistical information, but have now expanded the introduction and the section on the First Test substantially beyond that. Descriptions of the remaining four Tests will follow as time permits, though probably not at the same lenth as the first.

I think those who have suggested that a single tour is not notable, and should be merged into some overarching article don.t realise (a) the importance that tours by Test-playing sides have long had in cricket history and (b) the amount that can be said about a sinle tour, which would make detailed overarching articles very long. And there is no shortage of sources, both reputable online sites and books (most notably Wisden, the annual record of the game, which has been going for well over a 100 years). JH (talk page) 20:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I said that West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1960-61 was undergoing significant expansion (which is good), it was the other ones that have only been expanded minimally with statistics (such as New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 2004-05) that I mentioned as still not satisfying criteria. Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Arkyan, it's your nomination and you can withdraw anything you want from the list. Your nomination is based on a sound premise (whether I agree with your view or not) and you should not be swayed from that by people who try to introduce their own variations to your purpose. The choices are simple: delete these articles because they lack content or keep them for a period to be agreed (indefinite or otherwise) to allow the cricket project to develop them. If other people start chucking in ideas about notability and merging which divert your purpose then it is up to them to propose their own nominations. Otherwise no one is going to understand what the nomination is about. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete those which are just a one-sentence restatement of the title (plus some boilerplate templates and/or categories). But they should be recreated when someone actually wants to write some content. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as empty. These articles for the most part have no content. If the result here is to delete, the template also needs to go since it is only a what links here mill. Merge would have been an option, but without content there is nothing to merge, in most cases. Vegaswikian 05:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: You clearly do not understand the purpose of templates which are a useful guide for readers. If a tour template is placed in a developed tour article it provides the reader with useful, quick information about other tours and if some of those are redlinked then he knows there was a tour that year but WP hasn't got an article yet. Please remember that everything the editors do is for the benefit of the readers and templates do help the reader. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Mass delete; such esotera belongs on a dedicated sports site.--Mike18xx

Comment: phrases like "such esotera" do not help the discussion and your suggestion makes no sense, especially in the light of the stuff about stub deletion on your user page. You need to read WP:NOT wherein you will see that even secondary levels of domestic sporting competition are accepted as notable. The subject-matter of these articles is international competition at the highest level of a major world sport. Can we therefore please drop all this rubbish about notability? If an article about a Test cricket competition is not notable then neither is one about the Superbowl or the "World" Baseball Series or the European Cup or the Olympics: we would have to delete every single article on the site about sports competitions. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply 50 "from" countries x 50 "playing at" countries x 100+ years x every sport under the sun = how many bazillion articles? While the internet is indeed theoretically infinite, there is a limit to how much a generalist site is willing to indulge; the criteria for exceeding the limit may be vague, but some things are arguably a lot more excessive than others. Mass compilations of sports trivia really do belong on a site devoted to it, and would be especially better served on a site where users are able to perform complex statistical comparison analysis of the sort just not possible with mediawiki. ... But this is all beside the point that the items being AfD'd here aren't even articles; they're just nearly blank pages awaiting the arrival of statistics. If I create a hundred articles which are all templates of each other, and then don't put anything in them, they're going to disappear on me. If I were to hazard a guess, I don't think their creator realized how big of a chore this was all going to be -- the poor guy would be typing for MONTHS.--Mike18xx 07:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete those that exist purely as one-line stubs per CSD A1/A3, Keep or Merge (depending on notability consensus) any that have been developed beyond that for now. Stubs are fine, but these are simply a restatement of the title. Orderinchaos 16:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Have reorganised the list into two columns which are the above one-line stubs, and a third which has undergone development. I hope this in some way helps the process of resolving the fate of these articles. Orderinchaos 16:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - I like the reorganized list, it should be a little easier on the closing admin depending on how it goes down. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: yes, it's a very good idea that reinforces the point of the nomination which is about level of content and not about notability or any other vague issue. All the admin has to decide is if the under-developed articles should be set aside for now until the cricket project has time to reintroduce them as developed articles; or if they should be retained to give the cricket project time to develop them as they currently stand. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Precedent? This case was exactly the same as the one here and the verdict was keep. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:36, 19 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 06:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yo Chomsky!

Yo Chomsky! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC; band has not recorded an album, and is not the subject of multiple non-trivial sources. Prod removed without comment by anon editor. -- Merope 19:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As per nom. Wikipedia is not MySpace and Fails WP:CITE.--Edtropolis 19:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 19:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, of course.--Svetovid 20:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Rather surprising: a Google for "Yo Chomsky" gets 71,000 hits. ... wait, the "unique" hits ended at 76. Google messing with my head today. I scanned through a few pages of them, and the reliable sources are still a touch thin - we've got a BBC Nottingham interview, a mention on Drowned in Sound[3], a lot of club and blog chatter... They seem to be edging upward, but right now delete as not quite making WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn despite ghits. JJL 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• I say leave it, they're on the up swiftly, if the NME are talking about them then give them a chance surely... to be honest someone will only have to make the page again later when they get bigger so what's the point!! People look at it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.168.217 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Notability first, then the article. Besides, it'll be a better article with lots of good sources to work with. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 22:54, 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 06:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Blow

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

I can't find any references to an individual by this precise name involved in the Dred Scott case. Could this refer to Henry Taylor Blow? If so, and if he was indeed called "Harry" at some point, I'll withdraw the nom and redirect; if not, probably better to delete. JavaTenor 18:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Never heard of him. Fails criteria of WP:BIO.--Edtropolis 19:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably a mistake; Scott's lawyers at various points were David Hall, Alexander Field, Charles Edmund LaBeaume, Roswell Field, and Montgomery Blair.[4] --Dhartung | Talk 00:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Dhartung that the article's author was probably confused. The Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford says that his case was argued by attorneys named Blair and Curtis. Deor 00:45, 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 06:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brandon Sloan

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

If Wikipedia documented the death of every soldier killed in action in every war there would be hundreds of thousands of articles that would pose no real significance to the encyclopedia. While the sacrifices by soldiers should not be forgotten they do not all need an article on Wikipedia. This soldier does not meet the notability requirements and for this reason I am nominating this article for deletion. --Joebengo 18:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per A7: Nonnotable biography. 24.182.11.247 18:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)(My userpage is SuperDT)

• Delete I greatly appreciate his heroism and sacrifice, and sympathize with his family, but the article is a memorial, and Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Edison 18:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As per WP:MEMORIAL.--Edtropolis 19:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, of course.--Svetovid 20:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. As a vet myself, I have unlimited respect to those that have fallen in defense of my country. That does not change the fact that the article fails to stand up to policies outlined under WP:N and WP:NOT. Trusilver 01:05, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helicopter Sunday

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

Article details events which are best suited to being included in more encyclopedic articles, for example Scottish Premier League 2004-05, or Rangers F.C. season 2004-05. WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 18:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wow, that's an amazing story. As the nom suggests, it can be trimmed and merged into the respective club articles, but it doesn't deserve its own article IMO per WP:NOTNEWS. YechielMan 18:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 18:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, per above.--Svetovid 20:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or clean up. It sounds like a significant event, a Scottish version of "The Giants win the pennant!" but I've read it several times and I still can't figure it out. The significance of the helicopter in this isn't clear-- at all. Maybe it was bringing a trophy, and had to change course when Rangers lost and Celtic won the title, or the other way around. Difficult to read. Mandsford 22:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the helicopter refers to the helicopter that was used to transport the trophy, and due to the late nature of the change in scores had to change direction - "The helicopter is changing direction" is an often-used phrase by Rangers fans, coined after radio commentary that day. WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 22:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The article is poorly written, somewhat like the "Immaculate Reception" being described without mentioning the NFL playoffs. Since it's a memorable incident (and added a phrase to sportscasting lore), maybe someone can clean it up. Otherwise, delete it and let someone else try again. Mandsford 23:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, seems to be no or very few reliable sources using this term to describe the game. --Dhartung | Talk 00:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This football match had no notable implications, such as those of the England 5-1 Germany game.--Kylohk 16:38, 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 no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Journey into the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist

Journey into the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable publication. No citations. A quick google shows an extreme lack of coverage in secondary sources (the only hits seem to be retailers). It's been a stub since its creation sixteen months ago, with zero content edits made on it in all that time, outside the creation of the article itself. Furthermore, there is no encyclopedic content here, just a TOC. Ford MF 18:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, notability not established. I am also suspicious of Mark A. Gabriel and his other two books, Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad and Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle. Our article says his identity has not been "independently verified" and relies on an abundance of primary sources. It survived AFD in 2005, when standards were not so strict. --Dhartung | Talk 18:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, quite honestly there are a lot of articles in (and around) Category:Books critical of Islam that need to go for exactly the same reasons this article needs to go. No encyclopedic content, no secondary sources, &c. But taking that on is a serious project that I don't think I'm quite up for at the moment. Ford MF 18:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: That category isn't going to be particularly useful to anyone browsing Wikipedia for things to read if half or most of the books are removed from it. (Not to mention any names, but I've no doubt there are plenty of people who'd prefer it that way.)--Mike18xx 12:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- Jacek Kendysz 18:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- Jacek Kendysz 18:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ITAQALLAH 20:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete does not look notable, hence delete. We do not create article about each book. --- A. L. M. 08:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: I am in the process of researching and improving this article, and have found references to the book being cited as a source in journals.--Mike18xx 12:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: I've now fleshed out the entry with quotes and references, and thumbed-down the formerly huge picture. While I'd still prefer to have better sources for positive and negative reviews of this relatively new book, I believe they are at present sufficient in conjunction with the journal cite, as well as the fact that the author has other books, in addition to himself, listed at Wikipedia.--Mike18xx 16:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Better than before but, I feel, still does not meet WP:N for the following reasons:

• In Touch magazine lists a number of books. It is not the subject of the review and the mention is trivial. In fact, the review actually emphasises Gabriel's notability and not the book's.
• The Quarterly Journal, again, is not discussing the book and makes only two trivial mentions of it in the footnotes citing 8 pages of the book.
• Future Islam (is this a reliable source?) does indeed cover this book but the reviewer appears to be non-notable too since there are 0 ghits.
• Based on this, I'd still say it does not meet the notability guideline of "significant coverage" and should be listed in the article of the author as recommended here. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. The sources that Mike18xx has now added makes it obvious that the book is notable enough to have an article. -- Karl Meier 19:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per recently added sources.--Sefringle^Talk 00:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep since there are two adequare references, (Reference 1 is amazon: not a RS for anything beyond the fact that it's been published. Ref 2 is "In Touch Magazine" is [6] "A Magazine of People and Possibilities A FREE Self-Help, Inspirational, Holistic Publication " I cannot tell if it's a RS in whatever its field may be, but it is not a RS for Islamic terrorism. JB, of the MB school of theology, who wrote there, doesn't exactly seem qualified either). But 3/ Connections, however, is very substantial: [7] , from ETH Zurich, as solidly academic & respectable as you can get. The cite is a section of an article "U.S./NATO-Russia and Countering Ideological Support for Terrorism: Toward Building a Comprehensive Strategy." 1-25 by Sharyl N. Cross" and does make reference to the book and praises it . "For an excellent summary of the contributions of the influence of these writings in the development of Islamist radicalism see Mark A. Gabriel, Journey Into the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist (Lake Mary, FL: Front Line, 2006), 20–26. Future Islam seems a high quality liberal Islamist online publication, & has an extensive review. . Seems OK after all, despite most of the article being a quote from that well known RS, the book jacket. Good NPOV overall. DGG 06:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: There are enough 3rd party non-trivial reliable sources now. Thanks to the person who added them. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:12, 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 keep. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pete Hurd

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

NN Bio Pete.Hurd 17:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• note appears to be disruptive creation of an article as part of the continuing (?) Patrick DeMeyer/Patrick De Meyer/Curious Gregor/Mad kemist/Timothy Boyle nonsense, see 128.40.76.3's contributions, etc. Boring. Pete.Hurd 17:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 17:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a blog.--Edtropolis 17:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Doesn't this argument apply only to articles created by the subject of the article? Pete's only edit to this article has been to add the AfD banner. —David Eppstein 00:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Doesn't hold a very flashy title or affiliation, but has attracted international media attention for his research as demonstrated by the sources cited in the article. (Sorry, Pete, for disagreeing with your nom, but that's how I see it.) —David Eppstein 18:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  I understand your position completely, no need to apologize. The media attention was about my work (or more properly my grad student's work), meaning that *I* was not the subject of the media attention, per Pan_Dan below. That's my disagreement with the translation of WP:N to biographies, especially academic biographies, on WP. I think that my biographical details, my musical preferences and handsome features (or lack thereof) just aren't the sort of material that people look to an encyclopedia for. I don't see how it, and the other like it, impart any understanding of the world of knowledge. That's just my view on WP:N applied to this case (where think I can nominate without being accused of bad faith). Pete.Hurd 21:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Unless Pete feels very strongly about this, I think he's notable, and I don't see any BLP problems. I removed some of the more ridiculous content. See also Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles. YechielMan 18:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  Just apply WP policy. I don't think whether I feel strongly about this or not ought to matter. I brought it to AfD, I didn't take it to OFFICE. Pete.Hurd 21:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. First, as Pete notes, this article was created as part of a (malicious?) campaign to create Wikipedia articles about Wikipedia users. Second, in response to David, every source cited in the article is about a study conducted by Pete—not about Pete himself. Those sources would support a small expansion of Aggression, or Hand perhaps. But they would not support an entire Wikipedia article on the topic of the study, let alone an entire Wikipedia article on Pete Hurd, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about living people notable only for one event. Pan Dan 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  I think the digit ratio article covers whatever need to be kept about that study. Pete.Hurd 21:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep Not sure what all the drama between the subject of the article and others users was. Looking at the present version of the article purely as a question of meeting WP:PROF it appears to just do so, based on his 29 or so publications in refereed journals (in addition to theses, letters etc). The one finding of finger length as an aggression index gained quite a bit of popular notice, and is the deciding factor in judging that the subject satisfies WP:PROF. If a few active Wikipedians watchlist the article it should be simple enough to revert any vandalism or attacks which persons might add to it. Edison 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Given the article subject himself has calmly nominated the article for deletion (which of course, has no impact on his notability per se), I would rather support his request than make any comments evaluating his work with respect to WP:PROF. I think he has taken the correct course of action given the suspect motivations of this article's author.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. While some of the subject's research may have received media attention, he personally was not the subject of the media attention. --Metropolitan90 07:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• NOTE-I did not create this article as some form of malicious campaign (Come on, that would be really petty, and assuming bad faith). I created the page to collect, preserve and acknowledge the work of Pete Hurd, which is the purpose of wikipedia (preservation of information that is). If the article does not meet WP:PROF, then delete the article. The argument that Pete Hurd is not notable but the research findings are notable, is rubbish. For example, Christopher Columbus discovered America and is notable for doing so. The significant finding is the discovery of America, but Columbus is still notable. Pete Hurd gained as much recognition and media attention as were the significance of his findings, therefore he is notable. R:128.40.76.3 09:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It is difficult to take you seriously given your history of deleting warnings from your talk page [8] and your activity leading to those warnings.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 05:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• (Conditional) Keep passes notability requirements pretty easily (independent interest in his work is crucial here). But I think for non-crucial articles, we should take into account requests from the subject--obviously we couldn't delete "Colin Powell" if he asked the article to be removed, but I think cases like these are borderline--so I'd like the closing admin to look at precedent, and if there is a precedent for deleting articles based on the subject's request, please do so. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Changing recommendation to Merge with digit ratio -- but I actually mean merge and not just redirect. When a person is mainly notable for a single concept, it is better to have information there--that is true--but information about the authors of studies can be appropriate to have on a topic page. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep with apologies to Pete at not following his wishes. There are two types of academics & other people with respect to their articles--the ones who think they are more important than they are, and the modest ones who are surprised to be considered encyclopedia-worthy. (I've never seen anyone in the middle). For the vain ones, the job is to see what lies underneath, for the others, it's to see what there is that they don't put forward. Frankly, the vain ones are easier to deal with--one just has to cut, with the general skepticism that affects all COI. The others, you've got to find the stuff. (and, sometimes, negotiate with them asking them not to request deletion). Here, 27 papers, with citation counts of 77,75,68 for the most cited, in a small field. Definite specialty of his own. Attention for the general media as well as citations--work interesting to the public. Meets the normal standards. Agreed, we don't want to look like we're paying special attention to out own people. But it's even less suitable to pretend we don't know them. DGG 04:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- Sorry, dude; you're notable! (I'd do something about that pic, though...unless you really like that shirt.)--Mike18xx 08:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

comes from his user page.DGG 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, and there's no independent verification that that's really Pete Hurd. There's not even any verification that User:Pete.Hurd is Pete Hurd. Not that I doubt User:Pete.Hurd, who (implicitly) claims to be Pete Hurd on his old userpage, but the point is that Wikipedia content must be independently verifiable (ya know, WP:V and all that). I'm glad to see Yechielman already removed the content from Pete Hurd claiming that he edits Wikipedia, and we should remove the picture from the article also. Pan Dan 17:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Changing my recommendation to merge to Digit ratio, per the same reasoning that I already expressed, plus Pete's reply to me.

  I note with curiosity that no one recommending "keep" has either explained how a list of citations and publications makes an encyclopedia article or addressed Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about living people notable only for one event. Pan Dan 18:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Delete it or don't, but please don't merge any of my biography into Digit ratio! Pete.Hurd 19:18, 19 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 06:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Consciacratic Party

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

Non notable organization that by its own admission is an "unoffical" US political party. Seems more like a vanity page than anything else Rackabello 17:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up to annoy a teacher one day. --Charlene 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per Charlene. Eddie 18:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- Wikipedia is not a democracy.--Edtropolis 20:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per ↑. Founded in "early June 2007." Wikipedia is not for things made up yesterday. --Evb-wiki 21:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The party does not appear to be an actual organization yet. --Metropolitan90 07:40, 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. Sr13 06:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of books and films about hobos and freighthopping

List of books and films about hobos and freighthopping (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Further WP:NOT issues. Amalgamation of books and films that have absolutely nothing to do with one another. I especially like how it says in the header that the list features films in which hobos and/or freighthopping exists. Big Fish is on the list because "Edward Bloom mentions how he once hopped three trains" Bulldog123 17:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete as nom Bulldog123 17:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as per WP:NOT#DIR.--Edtropolis 17:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per Edtropolis. Eddie 18:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. What, no The Flim-Flam Man? Deor 18:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:IINFO. Far too vague of a category, and quite possibly hard to verify too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep the reason given for deletion is that the "books and films...have absolutely nothing to do with one another". I think this explains why there are 400+ articles based on a TV show like "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (not to mention hundreds on other TV shows) while lists are frowned upon. In the case of, say, Buffy episodes, there is not a problem of the episodes being unalike, since they all have Buffy and her friends. Is it a valid reason for deletion if the books and films aren't part of a series of related works?

As I've said, lists didn't start with Irving Wallace. Back in the old days, I could find, if I wanted to, a "list of books about hoboes" -- it was at a public library, in the drawer of a card catalog and each card was like a blue -tag, linking up to a book on the shelf. It was actually very convenient and quick, having all those cards next to each other. Sure, the article can be strengthened, and some stuff doesn't belong, such as a person saying that he once rode the rails; but the list of the books alone is worthwhile. I think Wikipedia has way too many articles on childish topics like TV episodes, video games, album tracks, superheroes, etc.-- and not enough on things like homeless people. I don't think that was the original intent, but that's the downside to Wikipedia. Mandsford 22:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete its about time we got rid of this stupid artical!!! XNYTV 23:29, 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 06:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of films about trains

List of films about trains (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT violations. The list also seems to think that every movie with a train featured in it is about trains. Bulldog123 17:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete as nom Bulldog123 17:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- Jacek Kendysz 17:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory.--Edtropolis 17:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete what makes a film "about" trains seems to be entirely subjective and hence POV and OR. E.g., Murder on the Orient Express (I'm an Agatha Christie fan) is about a murder with a contained group of suspects a scene à faire in Christie's writings – there are at least three other stories about murders on trains, The Mystery of the Blue Train, 4.50 From Paddington, and The Plymouth Express, some of which have been made into films, and plenty of others on isolated islands, archaeological digs, on planes, or in closed rooms). In any event, whether its "about" trains is in the eye of the beholder, about as much as the movie Titanic is about cars because the steamy love scene occurs in one. Carlossuarez46 18:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 18:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete due to omitting of The Station Agent. I mean, per above. Propaniac 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete insubstantial list. Like I've said in previous list AfDs, the role of trains in films would be more appropriate as prose with real-world context, as opposed to a list of trivia. There is no definition for what films would be appropriate to list, so the list is entirely subjective. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft per above. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Indiscriminate list, apparently just featuring an appearance by a train is enough for a film to be included. Masaruemoto 00:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Notwithstanding the fact that this is actually a list of any film at all in which at least one train appears, List of Films about x articles are inherently going to fail WP:UNENC unless x is something absolutely extraordinary. Trains are not. A1octopus 18:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOT and WP:OR. Since when are films like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind about trains? Since never. Indiscriminate list of every film that even shows a train = not fit for an encyclopedia. María (críticame) 15:25, 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 06:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eco-Index

Eco-Index (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN website, no sources. Corvus cornix 16:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB: "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers." Does not meet (or even assert) WP:Notability, and provides no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 17:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like an advert.--Edtropolis 18:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 18:20, 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. — Ocatecir^T 01:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laura Mongan

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

Non notable horse jockey. Search engine reveals no reliable sources besides her official website. Other Laura Morgans are mentioned, but they are researchers and doctors, but not jockeys.--Kylohk 16:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn. JJL 17:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable as mentioned above. Searched as well and got same results as above. Xtreme racer 20:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO and has no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 21:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. The nominator seems to have looked for Laura Morgan, not Laura Mongan. (Also, Laura Mongan is a horse trainer, not a jockey.) See [9] and [10] for references to her in reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 07:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That was an erro on my part. I did type (Laura Mongan, -wikipedia) on the search engine. And I see her site, and the page of her stable.--Kylohk 15:41, 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 keep. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sterling Commerce

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

No evidence of notability for this company. Only external link is to their website, hence no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to meet WP:CORP. Walton^talk 16:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete. This company is a large international organization with thousands of employees. The reason they're not well covered in third party sources is that their focus is on Business to Business sales. The kind of promotion or advertising done is therefore rarely seen by the general public. Additionally, there is only one external link because the page is complying with external link guidelines. Any other links would likely be considered spam.--Analogue Kid 16:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• keep and cleanup to make it less ad-speaky. There are over 500,000 Ghits for "sterling commerce", even removing all of their international websites and Wikipedia mirrors. The death of their CEO made CNet: [11]. There are lots of other third party hits: [12], [13], [14], [15]. Corvus cornix 16:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It's a subsidiary of AT&T, and AT&T is certainly notable. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Nomination withdrawn. Request speedy closure per WP:SK. Although notability is not inherited (hence it isn't notable for being an AT&T subsidiary), the sources provided by Corvus cornix above adequately demonstrate notability. Walton^talk 17:16, 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 05:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Terrorism Battalion (Reserve)

Anti-Terrorism Battalion (Reserve) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not provide a reference or sufficient context. I think it may be the same as Anti-Terrorism Battalion. Can anyone make a case for the article? 650l2520 15:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Jacek Kendysz 16:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The only hits are Wikipedia or mirrors. --Dhartung | Talk 18:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per nom. Eddie 18:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Wikipedia is not a mirror.--Edtropolis 19:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomTaprobanus 20:01, 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 delete. Sr13 05:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polar Paradise

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

Completely non-notable fanmade expansion pack, no reliable non-trivial secondary sources to allow any verification. Prod was contested by article creator (and 'studio' founder I should point out.) Delete. DarkSaber2k 15:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. DarkSaber2k 15:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep Polar pardise is NOT made-up, it is REAL. It is going to come out later this August. Us designers can create actuall animsl and objects for ZT2, and this is no exception. Blue Fang has also stated, that they are happy to see that we are creting things for ZT2, and giving up our time. After all, if EA is gonna be the last XP, all we are doing is helping Blue Fang out. Redpanda REX 15:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting, and yet at the same time completely unrelated to any of the reasons I've given for this article to be deleted. DarkSaber2k 15:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

*Comment As compelling as the argument to keep is, this smacks of fancruft to me. Also spamming for a product that hasn't come out yet. I'd like "more experienced in AfD" editors to weigh in on my comment before I decide. --Ispy1981 16:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strike my last comment and delete No outside reliable sources other than the studio for this article. A search of Polar Paradise turns up a whole lot of hits, none of which pertain to the article. Zoo Tycoon II:Polar Paradise turns up 0 hits.--Ispy1981 16:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep We ARE making this. This isn't official anyway, so it wouldn't turn up on google. Panda-Baiji 17:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:ATT, WP:NOT, WP:NOTE, and even W:COI. Wikipedia is not for drumming up publicity; it's for things that are already noted by independent non-trivial third parties. It doesn't matter if it's real or not: if it's not NOTABLE and ATTRIBUTED per the specific contents of the above policies, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Charlene 17:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per above. Wildthing61476 17:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Existing is not enough. You need coverage from independent sources. Wickethewok 19:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - and add spam to the reasons.--Svetovid 20:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per creators comments. Sorry folks, but Wikipedia isn't your free webspace. Try one of the many hosters for your content like Geocities or Myspace or whatever. FrozenPurpleCube 23:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• delete obviously, but I sure do love that cover art. — brighterorange (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Stong delete - This should have been speedy deleted in the first place. Turlo Lomon 08:38, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MC Vittumeitsi

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

Laaaaaadies and gentt-lmen. May I present you the equivalent of GNAA in Finnish Wikipedia (think of "clearly more notable/less notable than MC Vittumeitsi"), finally deleted after three highly sparky deletion debates. However, I'm kind of hoping deleting this article here would not be quite as controversial as in fi.wikipedia; how this artist fulfills WP:MUSIC is somewhat shaky indeed. There's precious little online coverage; I get 173 distinct google hits for "MC Vittumeitsi" and 150 for "MC Vittumeitsi" -wikipedia. There's one single and one album, both from (what appears to be) very minor label that has a dead web page. Official home page appears dead as well. Online reviews of the music appear rather slim; Google-cached version of fi.wikipedia article didn't have print mentions and only mentioned four shows where this artist appeared, between 2003-2004. I admit I'm doing this on a kind of hokey grounds in that I haven't checked the offline availability, but the online presence seems extremely minimal and it doesn't appear to reliably confirm notability as per WP:MUSIC. wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, and for the record, I argued for keeping the article in fi.wikipedia but after researching its visibility further, I'm not so sure anymore. Besides, en.wikipedia supposedly calls for much more verifiability. I'm not so sure it will materialise in this case; the claims of fame would be pretty weak if sources would materialise. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. as per nom. Rather than a transwiki, this surely fails to meet criteria of WP:CITE, WP:MUSIC, and WP:Notability.--Edtropolis 15:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - articles are not deleted on the basis of styrl guidelines, surely - Tiswas^(t) 15:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The question of notability can be answered by whether or not the artist passes WP:MUSIC (or even WP:BIO). Chart success is the only apparent criterion that might be achieved. Otherwise, delete - Tiswas^(t) 15:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment MC Vittumeitsi has not charted on the Finnis charts [16]. Finlux 20:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Not very well known but verifiable and notable enough. --Zzzzzzzzzz 22:28, 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. Sr13 05:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs covered by Dream Theater

List of songs covered by Dream Theater (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - as with the many recently deleted lists of cover songs, an artist's covering a song, especially "in part" as some of these songs were apparently covered according to the article's lead, is not in itself notable. If Dream Theater performed notable covers of any of these songs then they should be noted in a D.T. discography and/or an article for the song. The "semi-official bootleg" information may be notable as a separate album article or as part of the aforementioned discography, if there is the requisite reliable sourcing for it, but in looking for such sourcing I was finding nothing but blogs, fansites and MP3 download sites, which don't satisfy sourcing requirements. Otto4711 15:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete Poorly sourced list of songs which, while notable themselves, most aren't notable in the Dream Theater discography.--Ispy1981 15:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - This is listcruft. Unless there are criteria denoting notability (e.g. songs covered whilst curing cancer) - Tiswas^(t) 15:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Violates WP:LC and Wikipedia is not a directory.--Edtropolis 16:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nonencyclopedic. JJL 17:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:UNENC. A1octopus 18:38, 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 05:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Area 51: My Version!

Area 51: My Version! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Unverifiable, no sources, reads like a piece of fiction instead of an encyclopedia article MisterHand 14:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No assertion of notability & no sources. Also noting that there is no talk page rationale contesting deletion. I would note however that being written in an in-universe style is not a sufficient reason for deletion. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 15:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - Possible Hoax - Possible Patent Nonsense. Agree with nom. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete per above. WP:SNOW? Propaniac 15:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete -- No assertion of notability. Along with that, no sources. I don't get it...so it's supposedly a game. Alright. What system? When was it released? Mmhhmmm. Yeah. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read the very first iteration of the article it seems the system it's being created for is "Computer". Very precise. ChrisTheDude 15:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...very precise. C'mon now get real. Computer eh? Ok...PC? Mac? Linux? Tandy? IBM? Any screen shots? Reviews? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete It's yet another encyclopedia article about a video game. Mandsford 15:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Made up one afternoon. Possibly {{nonsense}} - Tiswas^(t) 15:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article is fictional. The actual Area 51 game article would be upset. ;_; Deletion Quality 16:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Unverifiable, unsourced, speculative. "Area 51: My Version! Is a game scheduled to be completed mid/late July 2007; based on the game Area 51" was the original claim. Unreferenced crystalballery without any sort of source. If it comes out in Mid July, or it appears in gaming magazines etc., and becomes notable and verifiable, then a proper article with screenshots etc. can be re-created. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 18:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per violation of WP:RS. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 14:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete for obvious reasons. ...what? It's not gone yet?--Mike18xx 08:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete... I too am surprised it's not gone yet.--Iknowyourider (t c) 15:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Provides no information. ~ Wikihermit 15:44, 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 05:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buckfenhaim Park

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

I can't really find much to suggest this book is notable. The fact it's in Hebrew doesn't help, though noting that the author is a redlink is suggestive. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not-notable. Fails WP:BIO.--Edtropolis 14:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't even come close to satisfying WP:NOTE for books. Only ghits are Wiki, answers.com and Wiki mirrors.--Ispy1981 15:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Nothing notable about the book - Tiswas^(t) 15:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: 68 Ghits for the Hebrew version of the title, though I have no clue as to whether any of them are reliable sources. Corvus cornix 17:00, 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 05:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of superheroes who wear suits in their secret identities

List of superheroes who wear suits in their secret identities (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Author pretty much admits this is a case of listcruft and WP:ILIKEIT on the article talk page. DarkAudit 13:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete completely ludicrous indiscriminate list, as surely any superhero whose secret identity isn't a hobo will wear a suit at some point.....? ChrisTheDude 13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Listcruft, indeed, but I'll be mirroring this into my user-space, in case it is worthwhile info. Is it against policy to make this a redirect to the copy in my user-space? It's at User:JNighthawk/Deleted Pages/List of superheroes who wear suits in their secret identities. - JNighthawk 14:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 14:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly non notable. scope_creep 14:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:NOT#IINFO. Yes, cross-space redirects are disallowed. (edit) Oops, didn't sign. Otto4711 16:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It is probable that most superheros wear suits, depending on the circumstances. And what kind of suit? Bathing suit? Business suit? Leisure suit? Clown suit? Birthday suit? --Evb-wiki 15:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy to JNighthawk, since said user has expressed interest. Note that simply cut-and-pasting a page which is then deleted leads to a GFDL violation because the history is lost. -- Visviva 15:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Understood. If the article is to be deleted, I'd like to have it moved to my userspace instead. If allowed, I'd also like to keep the redirect from WP mainspace to my userspace. If not, that's alright, but I'd definitely like to keep the article around. Is it against WP policy to have a mainspace article redirect to a userspace page? - JNighthawk 02:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is ChrisTheDude 07:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Alrighty. If it's to be deleted, can it instead be moved to my userspace with the mainspace article then deleted (so the link from WP main space will be removed). I guess I'm actually requesting a new WP feature, "copy," so maybe I should post in the village pump. - JNighthawk 13:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really. If you move the article to your userspace, all the history is preserved. And then we just delete the redirect link. Shall I do it for you? --Tone 21:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Add to the "List of articles deleted for being a collection of indiscriminate information." Violates WP:NOT. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Because after this, it will be superheroes who wear blue jeans, superheroes who wear hats, superheroes who wear jewelry, etc. Mandsford 15:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT Rackabello 16:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as per WP:NOT#DIR.--Edtropolis 16:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. JJL 17:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & most of the above; what's next boxers or briefs or going commando? Carlossuarez46 18:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, and I'm waiting for List of superheroes who wear spandex costumes as yet another example of sprawling list-building. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft. This is not a notable criteria. --EMS | Talk 20:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Who cares? —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 21:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for sexism; what about tasteful pants suit and pencil skirt wearing super-heroines? J/K, delete per nom, WP:NOT, etc. María (críticame) 17:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for all the reasons mentioned above. Useight 00:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy (as requested above) and Delete. I think the author says it all on the talk page. -MrFizyx 16:02, 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 05:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colonization of Thebe

Colonization of Thebe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No evidence that the idea ever been considered by anybody. The article says nothing about the colonization, describing the physical conditions instead. No souces supporting the idea exist.--Dojarca 13:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - probably could be speedy as nonsense. -- BPMullins | Talk 15:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 15:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Entirely lacking in astronanotability - Tiswas^(t) 15:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The editor responsible for this article has created a substantial number of these for outer solar system moons. Many have one-off mentions in science fiction sources, and thus may need to be considered on their own merits. Serpent's Choice 16:19, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of passwords used in fiction

List of passwords used in fiction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. The listed items, indiscriminately drawn from multiple forms of fiction, have nothing in common in terms of genre, theme or style beyond the happenstance of using a password for something at some time for some purpose. A similar list, of films in which an attempt is made to guess a password, was deleted a few months ago and this list is broader and more indiscriminate than that one was. Otto4711 12:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Bleh. I can't believe this list lasted for a year. María (críticame) 12:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is one of the best examples of an indiscriminate collection seen in ages. --Charlene 14:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep After I read it, I can see that it has a place. It's just as valid as a list of current slang terms, and a bit of an etymology for words that are widely known among certain groups. "Caput draconis" apparently is a reference that Harry Potter fans all understand right away, but not the rest of us. "Swordfish" is apparently an inside joke that is understood by a legion of password fans. The only time I was a Password fan was when Allen Ludden (GRHS) was still around, but they apparently exist. Mandsford 15:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment List of slang terms and List of current slang terms do not exist, and if they did, they would likely be deleted as being indiscriminate. Whether any other article exists has no bearing on whether this list is appropriate for Wikipedia. Otto4711 16:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable, indiscriminate list of passwords that are the same as the combination on my luggage. - Tiswas^(t) 15:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - As per WP:LC.--Edtropolis 16:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep This list is tightly focused on one thing: passwords in fiction. It's the very opposite of "indiscriminate " or "loosely-associated." Passwords are central to modern computer security. Wikipedia has over two dozen articles that deal with aspects of the topic. Password use in fiction is both indicative of social attitudes and helps form those attitudes. I can easily see a security researcher finding this article helpful. Please explain why this article has less merit than List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck", which has survived AfD 6 times, I believe.--agr 16:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• You have made a lot of blanket statements, but do you have proof to support them? What are your reasons, based on Wikipedia policy, to keep this list? As it stands now, the list is a repository of loosely associated topics and therefore violates WP:NOT. I could see having a list of passwords in fiction that play an important role in theme or plot, and therefore lends to the importance/notability of the work itself, but listing things like "one of several passwords spoken to the Fat Lady portrait to access the Gryffindor dormitories" is very much indiscriminate and overwhelmingly unimportant. Also, please remember that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. María (críticame) 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Which statements would you like me to prove? That passwords are central to modern computer security? That should be obvious, but I'd be happy to dig up a reference or two. That Wikipedia has over two dozen articles that deal with aspects of the topic? See Category:Authentication methods. That the way something is treated in fiction is indicative and formative of societal attitudes? Opinion, to be sure, but one I think is widely held. As for Harry Potter, I invite you to peruse the Category:Harry Potter and its 12 subcategories. In particular, take a look at Spells in Harry Potter and Non-canonical spells in Harry Potter. The later, of course, covering those spells in HP movies and games that are not in the books. If there are too many Harry Potter passwords for this list, they can be broken out into a separate article Passwords in Harry Potter which would fit right into the in-depth Wikipedia coverage of Hogwarts culture. Tell me again why you think passwords in fiction is less worthy of coverage than all the Potter material???--agr 18:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• The reason why lists about spells are found to be notable are because spells are widely accepted to be crucial to the Harry Potter universe. I can promise you that passwords are not, as they are not notable in a variety of other examples of fictional works. I agree with Otto4711 below that "Fiction" is too wide a reach, and it allows many trivial instances of password usage in any form of fiction to be listed. I ask again, are you able to provide, with Wikipedia guideline and policy, why this list should be kept? María (críticame) 18:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've pointed out that passwords and public attitudes toward them are an important area of academic research. See the refs section of password for several papers on the topic. I'm not aware of any serious academic work on spells. Yet you argue that spells in one fictional work are notable. So passwords in fiction are at least as notable. Since verifiability is not an issue here and there is no more original research in this article than most other lists on Wikipedia, QED.--agr 10:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Magic (Harry Potter) exists. Passwords (Harry Potter) does not, but you're getting off topic. The fact that passwords are an area of academic research is irrelevant, since we're discussing this article in particular which deals with passwords in fiction. My point is that this list and its examples are trivial. You have still yet to provide Wikipedia guideline and/or policy that backs your claims, so I'm guessing you cannot. María (críticame) 12:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As i pointed out several times, password use in fiction is reflective of societal attitudes and therefore of interest. You asked for proof and I tried to provide same. "Proof" assumes some set of standards, consistently applied. Otherwise we just have a popularity contest. Harry Potter and scatological words in film have strong constituencies and are therefore safe. A serious topic like password use doesn't and can be hooted off Wikipedia.--agr 15:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You're implying some sort of bias against your topic of choice, which is not the case. This article violates several instances of WP:NOT, as stated in the nomination, and has a lack of encyclopedic value. That's what it comes down to, not comparisons to Harry Potter, which is frankly getting old. Passwords =/ HP; I merely used the example on the List of passwords used in fiction article, and now I'm regretting it... ;) María (críticame) 15:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting bias, just arbitrariness. If you disagree, please explain why Non-canonical spells in Harry Potter and List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" have encyclopedic value while this list does not.--agr 16:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. María (críticame) 17:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument --Kickstart70-T-C 18:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• As the nominator of one of the "fuck" AFDs, I would agree with you whole-heartedly that this list has exactly as much encyclopedic value as that one, specifically, none. Regardless, as noted, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:WAX are not compelling keep arguments. And naturally I would strongly dispute the notion that this list is tightly focused. "Fiction" is an enormously wide focus and this list currently draws together instances from four different forms of fiction with the potential for who knows how many more, which are widely disparate in topic, style and genre, united only by use of a password by someone to do something. Otto4711 18:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Yes, the list is well-defined. No, its content is not significant. I could also make a reasonable argument for original research because nobody else has compiled such a list AFAIK. YechielMan 18:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NOT#INFO as well. However I do recall a similar list that survived AFD a couple years ago that listed fiction with things hidden in boxes. Apparently there's some sub-genre of academic literary study that actually gets off on that, so maybe someone can make a good case from an academic basis to keep this list. Otherwise I see WP:SNOWBALL happening. If there are WP-notable works that have significant use of passwords, create a separate article discussing them. If a password itself somehow becomes independently notable, then it can have its own article and if there's enough of them, a category. 23skidoo 20:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Violates WP:NOT#IINFO. Masaruemoto 00:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The format of the page may violate WP:NOT, but the topic does not necessarily do so. Unless List of sex positions, List of rail accidents, and more similar pages also qualify under this. WP:NOT, as I understand it, refers to avoiding having pages for every non-notable person, place, and thing under the sun. Lists have always, and will always be considered differently. Disclaimer, I started the page...I hope that that in itself does not factor into the argument. --Kickstart70-T-C 06:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Your examples are lists of notable events / article worthy subject - each elements in each list have their own articles. Lists must be discriminate to that degree. - Tiswas^(t) 08:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Each work cited in List of passwords used in fiction does have its own article.--agr 10:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Each work cited has its own article, each password does not. The is a fundamental difference in that the works are not the subject of the list - The analogue would be an article entitled List of fictional works with passwords - Such an article would in itself be unmaintainable listcruft, and no doubt deleted. - Tiswas^(t) 10:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - That's not true for either of the articles I presented. Neither one is comprised of list items each with their own article. In the password article, each entry should cite the page for the work of fiction. --Kickstart70-T-C 14:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I'm unable to comment on the List of sex positions article, due to somewhat restrictive internet filtering - The List of rail accidents, however, does link to articles on the individual list items in many cases. The existence of those articles, however, is moot. If the article in question were worthy of inclusion, each constituent, i.e. password in fiction, would have its own article. Such as 12345 in the film Spaceballs. A subtle, but distinct, difference - Tiswas^(t) 14:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Spells listed in Spells in Harry Potter and Non-canonical spells in Harry Potter generally do not have their own article.--agr 15:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And? Your point is? The two list articles that you cite are in-universe style forks, as recommended by WP:FICT#Fiction in Wikipedia#2, minor treatments. This article would at no point have been part of a parent article, and is merely a loosely associated collection of trivial plot devices. - Tiswas^(t) 17:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a style fork. Of course. How could I be so stupid? I think we need a List of spells in Wikipedia. --agr 20:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Indiscriminate junk, what encyclopedic purpose could this possibly hold? This is nothing but trivia. Until(1 == 2) 13:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--JayJasper 20:44, 19 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 04:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tubman's law

Tubman's law (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Describes a "law" much along the lines of Godwin's Law, but appears to be largely original research and POV-pushing with nothing reliable to back it up. Has not reached anything like the level of recognition of Godwin's Law (compare 85 GHits for "Tubman's Law" with 269,000 for "Godwin's Law"). ~Matticus ^T_C 11:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete While I'm sure it's entirely possible that this is a well known term/phrase to many people, this article as it exists is a clear delete. 1) No assertion of notability, 2) No citation of any kind, 3) Awash in nearly the definition of original research (specifically that the article states which applications of the "law" are fallacious or not). That third is something that of course could be cleaned up but is currently intrinsic to the entire article (for that matter if for some reason this article were kept, it would need a complete rewrite anyway if only to make it clear what exact the law is). There is no evidence in this article that Tubman's Law exists, no assertion or evidence that it is prevalent in any society and no given reason why there should be a wikipedia article on it. If this can be strongly improved before the end of this AfD debate I'd be happy to change my opinion, but as it looks today I find that unlikely. -Markeer 12:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Quite aside from the above, a turgid mess that has the feel of having been made up in school one day.  RGTraynor  13:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Screams original research. No sources, basically what was said above. Turlo Lomon 13:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not attributed and likely not attributable. Appears to be verging on an attack page against certain non-conservative beliefs; incredible (and I'm guessing to many highly offensive) POV that, if removed, would leave the article roughly ten words long. --70.73.252.78 14:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry, that was me. --Charlene 14:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Looks like stream of consciousness, badly written, no sources... scope_creep 14:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Made up, unsourced, nonsense. It could be worse - Tubgirl's law anyone? - Tiswas^(t) 16:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. As per CSD:G1 and A7. Has no sources.--Edtropolis 16:57, 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 no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sonia Noemí

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

non-notable actress jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Extremely weak notability and few references to diversify bio. Appears to me more like a vanity page than anything else. --XLR8TION 10:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Rename. Her last name is González. She is notable. Starred in Creature From The Haunted Sea.--Edtropolis 14:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Edtropolis. Creature from the Haunted Sea is a Roger Corman film. I wouldn't mind removing a lot of the redlinks in the article, though. Corvus cornix 17:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because I can't find her in es.wikipedia.org. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The Spanish Wikipedia only has 100,000 articles. Corvus cornix 20:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not notable enough for the English Wikipedia.--Svetovid 20:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, I'm a native Puerto Rican, and Sonia Noemí is one of the pioneers of Puerto Rican television. She was the star of one of the first television shows broadcasted in Puerto Rico in the 1950s, called: "El Show Ford", with Tito Lara, and famous voice quartet: Los Hispanos. She was the host of a famous television game show called: "A Millón" in the 1980s with Hector Marcano, and Rafael José, among other notorious achievements as a singer and actress. Currently she's had leading role appearances in Telemundo's dramatic series, Decisiones, and has performed important roles in famous Telemundo's soap operas, El Cuerpo del Deseo, and "Tierra de Pasiones". Her maiden name is Sonia Noemí González, but her artistic name is Sonia Noemí, and it's specified along her stage name in parenthesis. It must be kept and not deleted.--Entre-Nos 09:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've edited, cleaned up some redlinks and wikilinks, added important information and re-arranged some informations too. Check it, it's worth it. Best regards. --Entre-Nos 10:41, 19 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kym Wilde

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 09:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Well, any day one learns something new is a good day, I had been unaware that editors has discussed and agreed on some criteria for adult actors, but WP:PORNBIO seems to be a good set of guidelines to me, and this article clearly does not pass under them. Beyond that guideline though, this article makes no assertion of particular notability and has no secondary sources, so fails under the more general guidelines of WP:BIO anyway. -Markeer 12:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as per nom.--Edtropolis 14:42, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Melanie Jagger

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 09:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - As per nom.--Edtropolis 14:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - As per nom.scope_creep 14:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: does the 189 movies (SFW) sound as too low? I am aware that the required movies # was moved up an down and finally removed but if nobody cared nobody would produce the movies. Is the porn crusade really needed? Pavel Vozenilek 23:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It could be that people overemphasize the easiness to shoot a porn and underestimate how hard could it be to sell and to do it consistently over long period. Shelf space is always limited and to convince people to pay for what is available over the Internet is not that easy. Pavel Vozenilek 23:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn. JJL 02:05, 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, almost reluctantly, no consensus. Reading this was actually a pain, with the keep side and the delete side just attacking each other. Here are the facts:

1. NEITHER side bothering to fix the article until Noroton did on the 5th day. This means that I had to give more weight to conversation afterward.

2. Do the references pass notability? It depends how much a high school needs to show in its article to be notable. Certainly there's less needed than in elementary schools. It passes sourcing, but does it pass notability? I don't know.

3. Is AfD'ing an article 3 minutes after creation in bad faith? Yes. Is whining about it and subsequently leaving the article in that shape also acting in bad faith? Yes.

4. In terms of arguments, the delete side was slightly stronger, but I'm reluctant to go either way on this due to all the civility problems.

What this needs most of all is a cool-down period and possibly a new AfD nomination a month or so down the road, since it was fixed up so late. I'm disappointed by both sides though.--Wizardman 03:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clayton Middle/High School

Clayton Middle/High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN middle school/high school, recreated after prod. Morgan Wick 03:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The nominator seems to be laboring under the misconception that this is a middle school. It is a combined middle AND high school. As the AfD was created within a mere three minutes of the article's creation, without any opportunity provided to expand the article beyond a stub, it would seem that this nomination is in staggeringly bad faith. Alansohn 03:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Additional material added to establish notability addresses any and all issues raised by teh nominator and by those who have voted to delete the article, despite the rapid-fire nomination. Alansohn 16:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Huh? I don't see any notability. Semantic debates and (considering the prod) timing issues have nothing to do with it. Morgan Wick 04:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The article was created and then nominated three minutes later. There's semantics and then there's a display of bad faith. The apparent failure to look at the article, as evidenced by the hasty correction of the nomination, seems to be further evidence of bad faith. Alansohn 04:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • What sort of "bad faith" could possibly be involved? I didn't even see the earlier version of the article. Morgan Wick 04:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • You need some reasons why starting an AfD three minutes after an article was created is in bad faith? Let's take a look at Wikipedia:New pages patrol and tick off a few problems: 1) "Special:Newpages logs new pages as they are created. It is advisable to patrol new pages from the bottom of the first page of the log. This should give the creating editor enough time to improve a new page before a patroller attends to it, particularly if the patroller tags the page for speedy deletion. Tagging anything other than attack pages or complete nonsense a minute after creation is not constructive and only serves to annoy the page author."; 2) "Improving new pages: Style problems. First, try to fix any style problems yourself. If you cannot, add one or more specific cleanup tags for pages which need tidying up. In particular, the following tags are common:... {{unreferenced|article}} -- for articles that conspicuously lack references."; 3) "Articles without sources The best time to ask for sources is when an article is fresh and the contributor is still around to ask about the origin of the information in it. Tag articles with {{unreferenced}} and let the contributor know with {{subst:sources-warn}}, or try to find some yourself. If there aren't any, it might need to be deleted." Note that article "might need to be deleted" only after legitimate attempts have been made to obtain sources.; 4) "Be hesitant to list articles on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion if there's a chance they could be improved and made into a meaningful article. Tag them for cleanup instead. Try not to step on people's toes. Many times, users will start an article as the briefest of stubs, and then expand it over the succeeding hours or days." There is a well-defined process for handling new articles. Read and learn. Alansohn 20:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 04:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Keep. This article obviously fails in its revised form now satisfies WP:N due to multiple, nontrivial as notability is not even asserted, so it should be speedied, and it fails WP:V as none of the asserted facts are cited to reliable sources. Also, could we please try to assume good faith and lay off the bullying and rhetoric? This is a place to discuss content, not other users. Thanks. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • When an editor nominates an article for deletion three minutes after creation of a stub, there is simply no time to add the sources necessary to establish notability. This AfD is some of the most shameless bad faith I've seen. Alansohn 04:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually you had five days before that to establish notability, as this page existed before, was prodded, and was deleted. And you knew that. Evidently the five days that the prod was up wasn't enough for you either, or else it wouldn't have been deleted. And even if it hadn't been sourced, could you have at least tried to assert notability? On Wikipedia, we tag pages for speedy deletion and prod them the instant they're created (I could cite a gazillion examples but they tend to be, well, deleted); I see no reason why AfD should be any different. Don't use a long series of edits to get an article to the state you want it in; use the Preview function if need be. You better be ready to defend it the instant you create it. Morgan Wick 04:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I did not know that. If you had ever created an article here on Wikipedia, You would know that's not the case. This article wasn't prod'ed. You clearly hadn't even read the article and nominated it for deletion three minutes after creation. You could have tried to wait a few minutes more, but you failed to do so. When you nominate an article you have to be prepared to justify your actions and you have utterly failed to do so. Three minutes is shameless. Alansohn 04:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • This version was never prod'd, but a prior version was. And you knew, at the very least, the article had existed before and been deleted, because when you recreated it it was with an edit summary of "recreate article", as I've already cited before. Now, I think you might have a better chance at getting your "time" to establish notability (which, again, YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE BEFORE YOU (RE)CREATED THE ARTICLE IN THE FIRST PLACE - you actually have all the time in the world to write an article to your standards before you send it in, did you know that?) if you actually, I don't know, ESTABLISH it (you do have another 5 days, this isn't speedy, sheesh) instead of questioning my faith when even a cursory glance at the facts causes your argument to fall apart. Morgan Wick 05:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. WP:CIVIL. That's all I'm going to say. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and bulk up High Schools are inherently notable as are all towns and cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

There is no consensus that high schools are or are not inherently notable, as evidenced by their frequent deletion at AfD. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Putting an article up for deletion three minutes after creation is inherently uncivil. Alansohn 06:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Whether or not that is true, it doesn't excuse others from compliance with WP:CIVIL. And some might argue that it is inherently uncivil for an experienced editor to post an article that obviously does not comply with WP:N and WP:V, to the point where speedy deletion is appropriate. --Butseriouslyfolks 08:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Where does it say that in WP:CIVIL? I'm sure the many newpage patrollers that tag pages for speedy deletion or prodding within one minute after creation would love to know that they've been "inherently uncivil". And I hope you removed my comments unintentionally, instead of trying to prove a point by doing so. Morgan Wick 06:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • You still refuse to justify your utterly uncivil actions. You put up for deletion an article that you clearly never read, as you have had to do research to correct your inaccurate nomination and come up with rationalizations after the fact to justify why you had created this AfD. Was the nomination unintentional, perhaps? The fact that other individuals are even less civil than you are does not justify putting up an article for deletion three minutes after creation. Alansohn 07:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Um, AfD nominations are rather complex and involved for them to be made "unintentionally". You keep resorting to ad hominem attacks (and demonstrating your complete unfamiliarity with Wikipedia deletion process) instead of actually demonstrating the subject's notability. The entire text of the article, aside from a listing of the administration and some external links, is "Clayton High School are a comprehensive community public high school that serves students in ninth through twelfth grades from Clayton, in Gloucester County, New Jersey, United States, as part of the Clayton Public Schools." That doesn't sound like it's more notable than any other high school. Now, you have a choice. You can demonstrate why the subject of this article is notable and deserves to have a Wikipedia article, or at least why you felt it deserved one (because surely you would never create an article if you didn't think it belonged in Wikipedia, being the experienced, dating-to-2005 editor you are, right?) or you can continue questioning my motives on incredibly shaky grounds. Morgan Wick 07:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Also, a few random examples of articles tagged for speedy or prod within five minutes or less of creation, most of which might not survive for you to see them: [19] (admittedly by me) [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] ...need I go on? Morgan Wick 07:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I think I will: [26] [27]. Morgan Wick 07:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless non-trivial coverage or reliable sources documenting multiple notable alumni can be found. Also regarding the timing of the AfD: sources are not an afterthought which you go looking for a few days after you've created an article, they should be used for every single fact you put into the article in the first place starting from the first edit. Articles which lack sources and assertions of notability not only run the risk of being put up for AfD quickly, they run the risk of getting immediately speedily deleted. cab 10:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That's exactly what I've been trying to tell this guy. Morgan Wick 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - The article should be merged into a more encompassing article on the school district. See Wyoming Area for an example. Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 13:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: as failing WP:V, WP:NN. At very first glance I was going to agree (rare as that is) with Alansohn that AfDing a high school article three minutes after creation is indeed obnoxious. I'm afraid my view's flipped 180 degrees when I see that Alansohn recreated a deleted article. He is no rookie, and should know better both to recreate a deleted article as an unreferenced stub almost entirely lacking in content, and to keep on hammering on the three minutes point knowing full well that the article had far longer than that to be sourced and receive more than barebones content. While we're citing rules, how about the one that it is up to the editors who want to save a threatened article to provide proper sourcing and content?  RGTraynor  13:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: I did not know the previous article existed, and I did know it had been deleted. In response to a request from a new user, I created the article, with the indication that the user had committed to expand the article with addition material as he has done for dozens of other school articles. I only discovered that the article had been deleted when I clicked on "edit" and saw a mention that an earlier article had been deleted. I have no idea what was (or was not) in this earlier article and had no expectation that the article would stay as a stub for long. While it is possible to create an article as a user page and then make it a regular page after the article has been improved to meet the demands of the instant deleters, it is far more difficult to collaborate with other Wikipedia editors in this manner. I'd love to create fully-formed Featured Article candidates as new articles, but any non-rookie editor would know that that is not the case. 99.99% of the best articles on Wikipedia start as stubs. Featured Article Buckingham Palace began with seven words. While Clayton Middle/High School is no Buckingham Palace, three minutes is simply an unreasonable and unjustifiable period of time in which to create a fully-formed article. Alansohn 13:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • You go tell that guy he can create his own new articles. And that's the sort of thing you should have said at the very start of this debate, or at least when I brought up that the article was deleted before, so you didn't come off as uncivil and skirting the issues I was raising. I'm a bit skeptical we should be creating articles for new users at all, certainly when we don't know why we should (if you wouldn't vote for it on an AfD you shouldn't create it for them), but I'm baffled why those people don't make that clear at the start when those pages are inevitably listed on AfD. I don't expect articles to be fully-formed featured articles at creation, but a good stub article should have at least a claim to notability, while this has none. Morgan Wick 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Stop already with the 3 minutes. From the time it was nominated until right now has been over 12 hours. Instead of sitting on the AfD hitting refresh to every reply, get some reliable sources and improve the article to keep it (although I highly doubt this Middle/High School is notable anyways -- listing links to the homepage of the school does not count for notability). This article will NEVER survive if you just sit here arguing, without backing up your claim. If you just recreated it for a different user, then it should be on them to assert it's notability, but since you have been arguing over 12 hours on this, you apparantly have some sort of interest in the article. Get in gear and work on the article instead of going back and forth and accomplishing nothing. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: A system that places a gun at the head of any individual creating an article by allowing creation of an AfD within three minutes is unjustifiable. The individual who requested the article has been adding sources and other material demonstrating notability to area schools and noticed that this article didn't exist. The burden is on the user who asked for this article to establish notability. I don't blame the newbie who requested the article for backing away from this inherently destructive process and the abusive editors who won't tolerate a stub. Where are these perfect articles supposed to sprout from in under three minutes? What is your interest in deleting this article? Alansohn 16:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My intent? How about keeping crap off of wikipedia when I see it? Having to argue with you is a waste of my time, and I refuse to do it any longer. Either assert it's notability by providing WP:RS or it's going to be deleted, simple as that. You repeatedly doing this non-sense about 3 minutes is complete absurdity. I don't care if it was nominated .00000000001 seconds after creation. It must be NOTABLE to stay in Wiki. Assert the notability. Prove it should stay. If you reply again with your same nonsense, it will just show you are not able to assert notability, and just wasting everyone's time. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep WP:N is not part of the Afd deletion criteria. - T-75|talk|contribs 16:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as another nn school. Eusebeus 16:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not a Wikipedia expert so I don't know how to use those WP:xx reasons every one seems to be giving, but here's what I can say: There is no reason to put this article up for deletion yet. As Alansohn has said repeatedly, it was only up for three minutes. Give me a break. High schools are important entities that should be included in Wikipedia because many of them, especially in South Jersey (an old and historic part of the US), have deep roots with their respective towns and are rich in tradition and history. If anyone looks at the edits I'VE made since I first started using Wikipedia it won't take them long to see that I'm obviously a Woodbury resident and that I have a vested interest in both the town's page as well as its high school's page. But, one will also see that I frequently edit and contribute to MANY South Jersey high schools' pages (ask Alansohn). If Clayton Middle/High School were to be kept up, I promise that I will add anything relevant or useful to it as time progresses, just like I've done with other schools. I can't promise a long, extensive write-up on it right away, but I (as well as other future contributors) will definitely be adding to it. Keep this article to let it grow! Nothing starts out immediately perfect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrcla2 (talk • contribs)
  • It would really help if you started doing that now, while the AfD is still going. Morgan Wick 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no claims of notability, should have been speedy deleted per the CSD rules about non-notable organizations (Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content). Alansohn is being disingenuous by trying to claim that the article was only up for three minutes when it had to have been on PROD for five days before it was deleted, and he knew it had been here before since his creation edit summary said recreation. Regardless of the semantics of who is or is not being civil, the fact of the matter is that Alansohn would rather argue about the merits of the nomination rather than the merits of the article and its subject. Until reliable sources are produced that this is anything other than a run-of-the-mill school, it should be deleted. Corvus cornix 17:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Alansohn has already spoken for himself on some of those points above, under RGTraynor's comment. Morgan Wick 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the "new editor" had been here 7 months and had over 400 edits. --Butseriouslyfolks 17:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I have. But I never studied the wiki how-to's or sat down to learn an in-depth understanding of everything. I basically know how to edit, upload pictures and create links. And most of that I learned through trial and error. In regards to the 400+ edits, most of them are minor touch-ups or one-line links, it's not like I was sitting there writing paragraphs for 400 edits.

• 400 edits is a fairly slow week for many editors; spread out over seven months it's a very small body of work to be promoted past a newbie. A review of the user's edit history, which (as I read it) shows that he has never created a new article, a read of the individual's request and of his comments above, should help wipe off the uncivil tone of the "new editor" remarks. Alansohn 18:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Mm, it's the old trial lawyers' adage: if your client is unpleasant, argue the fine points of the law; if the facts are against you, argue pathos and human factors.  RGTraynor  17:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And when that doesn't work, start slinging insults with self-righteous truculence. Eusebeus 18:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As the saying goes, if the facts are against you, pound the law. If the law is against you, pound the facts. If the facts and the law are against you, pound the table. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And when you have absolutely nothing to say, quote trite, but meaningless, adages. No facts, no law. I assume that's why all of you are pounding the table? Alansohn 20:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That glove's a bit small on me. Perhaps you should try it on? --Butseriouslyfolks 21:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And when you have absolutely nothing to say a second time, quote trite, but meaningless, adages. No facts, no law. I assume that's why all of you are pounding the table and pulling on the gloves? How about addressing the Wikipedia:New pages patrol listed up top. while you're working on witty ripostes. Alansohn 21:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to say? You're missing a good AfD. --Butseriouslyfolks 21:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have to admire the tenacity despite the vacuity. Let's wait for the "votes" to be declared invalid next.... Eusebeus 22:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's the ability to ignore multiple violations of Wikipedia:New pages patrol that I find most impressive. The silence on these multiple violations speaks volumes. Alansohn 18:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Don't get excited. We just don't think it applies. --Butseriouslyfolks 22:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Is this a pathetic joke? Why should anyone else observe Wikipedia policy if all one needs to do is wave it off with an excuse of "We just don't think it applies"? Alansohn 04:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• No, you misunderstood. We're not rushing to explain the perceived NPP vios because we don't agree with your position that those guidelines apply to this situation. You might as well ask us to explain all of the WP:TPG violations, then dance about giddily when the resulting silence speaks volumes. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• The nominator is a new page patroller. The Wikipedia:New pages patrol lays out clear policy for how new pages are to be handled. These rules were violated. Which part doesn't apply? For which situation do they apply and why don't they apply here? Putting an article up for AfD three minutes after creation is inexcusable and inherently uncivil. Excusing the violations doesn't help. Alansohn 05:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Y'know, I've just looked over this WP:NPP a couple times now, and for the life of me, I can't find a single sentence referencing this checklist as being a "policy" or "rules" for which one can claim "violations" (I did note that the entire first paragraph explicitly pertains to not biting newcomers, which tends to suggest that the stroking of veteran editors' sensibilities wasn't foremost in the minds of the author/s). Could you kindly point me to the section of that page which does proclaim WP:NPP to be policy, or to a section anywhere enacting a time frame within which filing an AfD is prima facie uncivil, failing any other consideration? Thanks.  RGTraynor  07:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Y'know, the nominator's proudly proclaims himself as a member of the Wikipedia:New pages patrol and seems to take some delight and pride in being an active member. While I have rather low expectations of other individuals (which have been met with great frequency), the nominator does not abide by the rules, policies and procedures he himself has adopted. It is these violations that are prima facie uncivil. Alansohn 12:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What? When did WP:NPP become a sacred fraternity with initiation rites and contracts? I thought "The patrol is entirely voluntary and carries no obligation," but maybe I imagined that part of WP:NPP. Anyone can flip through Special:Newpages and look for articles in need of improvement or tagging for deletion, and consider themselves new-pages patrollers. Do I need to cite a more current round of examples of pages nominated for speedy or prod within five minutes of creation? Morgan Wick 06:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a speedy deletion candidate. Speedy deletion criteria do not cover schools, which are not really organisations. People are too fond of pushing speedy deletion without realising that it doesn't cover every class of article (or maybe trying to fool the rest of us into thinking it does). This criterion is intended to cover such things as fan clubs, university societies and minor pressure and political groups, not edifices such as schools. -- Necrothesp 22:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)