Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 17

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ferenc Puskás Statistics

Ferenc Puskás Statistics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - contested prod. Wikipedia articles are not long sprawling lists of confusing statistics. Otto4711 23:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete list of stats. JJL 16:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, it's just a list of his international goals. I've seen other footballer articles with similar lists before. Steven Gerrard, for example. Recury 19:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete if this is important it can get put in the sportsman's bio. Imagine what WP would be like if every sportsperson had a list of his/her accomplishments: every baseball player's every hit? homerun? every bowler's (of the cricket variety) every wicket? every basketball player's every basket. C'mon. Carlossuarez46 21:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as an explicit violation of WP:NOT since this exactly a long sprawling list of stats. -- Whpq 20:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilberto Silva goals. Punkmorten 09:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. KissL 08:46, 22 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--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pumping House

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

I'm not convinced this genre exists, and as another editor has shared my concern on the article's talk page, I'm nominating it for deletion. A lot of the tracks referenced at the bottom are electro house, flat beat, for instance, is already mentioned in the electro house article. The creator has also added a paragraph on the pumpin' house article which suggests that "pumpin' house" and "pumping house" are separate genres, which is hardly believable. I've looked for some references for this and found none which explain what this genre is exactly. - Zeibura^(talk) 23:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, it is noted that Euro-Trance references this genre quite well in an article that is without citations but is at least structured. That the genre is not clearly defined suggests that it is not sufficiently notable to have a stand-alone article. Pever 04:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Blimey. I read that subsection, started out by deleting the "electroclash is a music style intended for gay people" sentence (which is completely false and unverifiable), then realised there'd hardly be any of the subsection left. That whole section (Music styles considered "Euro-Trance") is just a weasel nest, and unreliable without references. So still not convinced the genre exists. - Zeibura^(talk) 05:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, seems to be about electro house, which already has an article Reubot 10:29, 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 withdrawn by nominator. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Shakespeare's works

List of Shakespeare's works (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced list of information already outlined on the William Shakespeare page, as well as the {{shakespeare}} template, which is posted on several Shakespeare pages. All in all, unsourced, redundant, no real room for or reason for expansion. Speedy Delete Wrad 23:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn and Speedy Keep per recent changes and discussion. Wrad 02:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Obviously redundant. VanTucky 23:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge per aboveJForget 23:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Isn't there already a list of Shakespeare's works on here? Mandsford 00:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree. It's redundant. --Tea and crumpets 00:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree. It simply repeats already listed information. Smatprt 01:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 02:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to William_Shakespeare#Bibliography. Redirects are cheap, and this is a conceivable search term. (Indeed, I think I've used "List of Shakespeare's works" as a search term in the past, before the article was created.) Zagalejo 02:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Keep, per below. Zagalejo 21:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That sounds reasonable. Wrad 02:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Zagalejo. Doczilla 06:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as a reasonable search term (although using "shakespeare's works site:en.wikipedia.org" gets Shakespeare's plays as the first result). I'm surprised the bibliography is included on the main article, although it isn't really that long even with the apocryphal works. We already have several articles covering this including a chronology. --Dhartung | Talk 06:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as per above. Lugnuts 07:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the current MOS permits such lists. Although this could conceivably fit into the article, it is also useful to have one straightforward list by genre. Addditional bibiliographic information can of course be added.DGG 05:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• RedirectKeep per Zagalejo. Likely search term. List at William_Shakespeare#Bibliography is better -- more complete and has links. Given all the new information, my opinion is to let the author finish the article. Capmango 05:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep or Redirect (FYI: It is generally considered good wikiquette to leave a note on the talkpage of the principal contributor, after making an AfD. I have done so for you.) Unless User:Editor at Large declares an intent to work on the article soon, redirecting this list to the more complete list per Zagalejo makes sense. Done so below. Changed recommendation to speedy keep. --Quiddity 07:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Since Shakespeare's article is one of the top fifty viewed sites at wikipedia, I do feel that his articles and subpages deserve careful consideration. It is unfortunate that this page is not yet a full bibliography, listing the various quartos, folios, and other important editions for each work, but that is beside the point. The question is whether the concept of the page is legitimate. Obviously it is; there are many such lists of works on wikipedia and the MOS even encourages them. We should not limit the editors working on Shakespeare to a simple listing of the plays. This kind of page, which is obviously a work in progress, can include much more information than the current William Shakespeare page and can be sourced to any number of Shakespeare bibliographies such as McManaway and Roberts' A Selective Bibliography of Shakespeare: Editions, Textual Studies, Commentary.

• Shakespeare's plays is not a detailed listing of the plays and their publication history. It is an article about the plays themselves. Trying to integrate a detailed list of important editions would be disastrous.
• Shakespeare's sonnets is also an article about the sonnets themselves, not a detailed list of all 100+ sonnets. Including such a list would strain the page.
• Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian is a proposed chronology for the authorship of the plays, if they were written by Oxford, not a listing of publication dates and information about those publications.
• Chronology of Shakespeare plays tries to sort out the mess of dating Shakespeare's plays. It is not a page about publication information.

None of these other pages has the same purpose as this one. I have not seen a convincing argument from those who want to delete that relies on wikipedia's deletion policy. Simply because the page is incomplete at this time does not mean it merits a deletion. The page's concept is legitimate and much more information can be added to flesh it out and make it useful. If the editors here who are in favor of deletion want to delete all incomplete pages, they should begin by eliminating all "start" and "stub" articles and demanding that any new article that is posted be relatively complete. I was under the impression that wikipedia was supposed to improve slowly over time and ideally multiple editors would contribute to each page in order to make it better. Deleting legitimate but incomplete pages does not encourage such practices. Awadewit | talk 07:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from creator - whoa... I only got the notification this was up for AfD just now. This is a work in progress (which I unfortunately have had little time to get to recently) and I have a much better version in the works in a text document which I am not quite finished. My plan was to have the list (once much further expanded) replace or expand upon the section William Shakespeare#Bibliography. I'll outline my plan below so people know what it is going to evolve to beyond a mere list of titles;

1. Better formatting, in a table; with information including date work is assumed to have been published, folios/quartos/editions of note, notes about authorship if warranted, etc.
2. Addition of images, of which there are many high-quality ones available on the Commons
3. Better sorting, including divisions into tragedy/comedy/historical
4. Further details that may be thought of in the future or that other persons can bring to the list

As Awadewit stated above, the other four articles on a similar subject are not comprehensive lists of just the works. Although the bibliography section has much the same information, it would be nice to expand more and have a little more relevant information available in one place. The articles on his plays and sonnets have too much background information and take longer to sort through. I am going to make this list far more than it is currently, and other people adding to it will help it expand and grow; as it stands it is a pathetic little stubby start containing only the bare-bones information. It was not intended to stay this way for long. I ask that it be kept so that it can be expanded and built upon; if after a month or two it is still not satisfactory then another deletion request can determine if it is needed. -- Editor at Large • talk 08:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Actually I agree with the delete votes that point out that the article as it now stands (or stood when I last looked at it) is redundant; I don't support the existence of articles that are redundant but might well become worthwhile, instead believing that they ought to be worthwhile from the start. Editor at Large would have been wise to build it up in his or her userspace, and only when it had reached a stage where it was clearly worthwhile spring it on WP's dazzled and grateful readers. Still, an improved bibliography would be worthwhile, and Editor has clearly and convincingly expressed an intention to improve it soon. So let Editor (and others) work on it. -- Hoary 09:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to William_Shakespeare#Bibliography. Wikisource has a rather complete list of his works at Author:William Shakespeare. I have noted on the Wikisource talk page that there are a few entries missing from that list. John Vandenberg 09:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not just about a complete list in Shakespeare's case. It is about adding all of the interesting information that the primary editor has outlined. The Commons page has none of that - is it heading in that direction? Awadewit | talk 10:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is much more appropriate that the intentions of Editor at Large (talk · contribs) are carried out on Wikisource, which is a project devoted to presenting the works of authors. In general I dont mind lists on Wikipedia, but in this case there is a more useful location for the list. John Vandenberg 10:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

See the List of Oz books, which is a featured list. Yes, having this information on wikisource is good; but there author pages are more about listing the person's works with links to their documents within wikisource, and some background information on the author. Here on wikipedia this list of his works will be more about having information and a comprehensive overview of the most important points about them, other than just dates and links. You are more than welcome to copy the list there once it expands, but when people are looking for a list of his works and information on them they will think "I'll look it up on wikipedia, where they have information on things", not "I'll go to wikisource where they host books". I am a contributor to Wikisource as well, and I know that it is more than that; but random people won't. Wikipedia = primarily information, Wikisource = primarily resources and documents. While you could provide a soft redirect to the wikisource page, if people are looking for information like will eventually be located on this list they will want to be on the encyclopedia, where they can also look at the information on the individual plays and sonnets and poems and the man himself. -- Editor at Large • talk 11:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections to there being a list here if it is more useful than the Wikisource author page. At the time I commented earlier, this list wasnt developed beyond that stage. But, the list is now looking useful so ... Keep. John Vandenberg 01:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from submitter Sorry I didn't notify the creator, but this is my first RfD (I actually looked over the editor's recent contributions, saw no Shakespeare-related edits, and figured he had forgotten about the article). Anyway, I like the idea of developing it a lot (in both senses), perhaps in a table format, with proposed creation dates, collaborative authors, revisers, early publications, classifications, etc. I also think it should be renamed to List of works attributed to Shakespeare, in order to acknowledge that his authorship of several of these works is in question. Wrad 18:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Although the current version (as of 19:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)) seems to mostly duplicate content in William Shakespeare, I believe that this list could be further developed into something in-between a mere list and a full-fledged article on each play, something akin to the Featured list List of major opera composers. Perhaps this list could have brief, spoiler-free descriptions of each play, such as "Romeo and Juliet: Romeo and Juliet fall in love despite coming from rival families." OK, so that description needs work, but you get the idea: a brief, even pithy description of the initial plot, perhaps combined with best known dates of each play's premiere, etc. Something similar could be done for each poem listed. Admittedly, that would make for a very long article if each sonnet were described, but Wikipedia isn't perfect. A list like this, as far as I can tell, would not duplicate precisely anything on any Shakespeare page currently existing on Wikipedia. Please allow the page time to grow. --Kyoko 19:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Now that we have heard from the creator (no, not THAT one) about his plans for the page, and the eloquence with which he made his argument, I am changing from delete to keep. I agree with Wrad (above) that we should allow for time for the page to grow in the way described. One quick note - presently The Two Nobe Kinsman is listed under apocrapha instead of his accepted works, as it is generally agreed that he was a co-writer.Smatprt 19:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've moved The Two Noble Kinsmen to the "Plays" section, thank you for mentioning this. I would also like to add that User:Editor at Large is a she, not a he. --Kyoko 20:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG and Kyoko. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  23:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep, but needs improvement, per above. Modernist 04:08, 22 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 18:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Georgia Figure Skating Club

Georgia Figure Skating Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local branch of national organization (United States Figure Skating Association); see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Club activities listed are typical of thousands of other figure skating clubs and not evidence of notability. Has never been a major training center for the sport of figure skating or played a notable role in the history of the sport; compare Skating Club of Boston, Philadelphia Skating Club and Humane Society, and Broadmoor Skating Club for counterexamples of skating clubs that are notable. Dr.frog 22:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This might merit an article if sources could be found to back up its notability assertions. If it really is one of the largest clubs, or if the Peach Classic is as important as the article makes it sound, then perhaps this place is notable. Without sources, however, this is a delete. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Before deleting, please let me add the notable skaters and coaches. I didn't realize that an article had to be full and complete before it was added. I thought that the articles could be added to. Rlichtefeld 15:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must assert the importance of the subject. What makes the Georgia FSC more important than any of the other thousands of figure skating clubs throughout the world? The other notable skating clubs listed above have been the training home of multiple national champions and World/Olympic competitors over a period of several decades. I am not aware of any such notable skaters who have trained at or represented the Georgia FSC (which has been in existence for less than 10 years), much less enough of them to make the club notable in its own right as an elite training center. Dr.frog 15:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The skaters you listed are not considered "notable". Dr.frog 16:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Rlichtefeld, I believe the "lowest" we go in terms of notability is World Junior level. Got anyone from there? --Fang Aili ^talk 17:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable organization. And I don't think competiting at the novice level is inherantly notable for an encyclopedia. Kolindigo 18:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, article fails to assert notability per WP:N. If there is a skater associated with the club who competes at the national level, I may reconsider. --Kyoko 19:03, 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 Keep. The Sunshine Man 20:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Get the Guns

Get the Guns (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a bootleg compilation that was not released by Eminem. As such, it does not meet the notability guidelines for music. It has no sources, very little editing activity, and very few articles link to it. Daniil Maslyuk 05:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nom. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 20:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Eminin is so notable that even prominent bootlegs of him ought to be included. This apparently contains tracks not available anywhere else and so it is a major bootleg. Herostratus 21:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nabla 22:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and suggest merge in the normal manner. There are 20,000 hits for this, making it a useful search term that should redirect to Eminem if it doesnt warrant its own article. John Vandenberg 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks notable to me: just because it's a bootleg, does that make it non-notable? -- MightyWarrior 09:28, 24 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 18:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Followday

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

Was tagged as "speedy - notable" (?) which was contested, and removed as there is a vague assertion, and CSD A7 doesn't extend to neologisms. However, the title only returned 20 google hits, none of which seemed to be relevant. - Zeibura^(talk) 22:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of use can be found nor are any sources provided. The New Jersey claim of origin tugs at my heartstrings, but a search of Google and Google News/Archives finds no relevant source that can be used to support the term. As such the article fails WP:NEO. Alansohn 00:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. --Bren ^talk 07:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it's a dicdef at best, but thre's not even evidence of widespread use. -- Whpq 21:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as per Whpq Thehalfone 08:47, 22 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 to Warriors (book series). History will be left intact since there appears to be strong interest in merging, whether, what, and where to merge is an editorial decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dark River (Warriors)

Dark River (Warriors) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is an unreferenced article on a book that doesn't come out until January of 2008. Nothing in the article suggests that the book will be notable. The article is filled with speculative terms and the main content of the article is a action summary from an excerpt of the book from the previous book in the series. This should be deleted until after the book is released in half a year and notability can be proven and sources can be found. Metros 22:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Warriors (book series), which has an empty header with only a link to this book name. Any crystal ballery can be removed from there. - Zeibura^(talk) 22:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Outcast We don't have enough info on them, so it makes sense to make a small article on both of them. ~Crowstar~ 15:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect per Zeibura. Can always be recreated in the future.Legalbeaver 17:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I have modified it so that it has a infobox with a fair bit of info. I have also added a reference that should be reliable enough and that has a page on the book, Dark River. (Amazon.com). If anything, the idea of merging Outcast with it is also a good idea.~Bella 17:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for now This will be a notable book, Metros, there is be no question about that. However, the reason this should be deleted is simply because you can't write an article with sources on a book that hasn't been published. The only thing we know about it is the two page preview at the back of The Sight. The information about when it will be published could easily be merged with the main article. When the book comes out would be the appropriate time to rewrite this article. KjtheDj 20:07, 22 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amber Child-Cavill

Amber Child-Cavill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

These are some child actors that play toddlers in some series and that more or less it. IMO, being filmed when an actor carries you around doesn't make them notable for an encyclopedia. Also nominating:

• Isabella Hammill
• Raymond and Joseph Cartigiano
• Freyja and Phoebe Coltman-West

I was considering a separate nomination for each but the reason is the same for all. Tone 22:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all in absence of any non-trivial coverage. --Tikiwont 12:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Not really something for an encyclopedia IMO.--Sandy Donald 18:55, 21 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mickey Deans

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

Non-notable biography. Only claim to notability was being the final (and surviving) husband of Judy Garland. Ozgod 21:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - his coverage in umpteen Garland biographies attest to his notability. He wrote a notable (and apparently best-selling) biography of Garland that went into multiple printings and has been cited (albeit unfavorably) in other scholarship on Garland and so appears to pass WP:BIO as a creative professional. Seems kinda silly to have articles on the rest of her husbands and not Deans (yeah I know, but still). Otto4711 23:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Vincente Minnelli and arguably Sid Luft certainly pass the WP:Notability, but merely being the last husband of Judy Garland and his written his (and only one) book Weep No More Lady does not necessary (to my understand of WP:Notability) make him eligible of his own encyclopedia article. His marriage to Garland and subsequent book could be suitable subsections of her main article. I also feel Mark Herron is a potential AFD, but I will re-examine his article and google his name to see if he achieved anything other than being another husband of Garland. --Ozgod 01:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally if an article becomes too long and cumbersome it is appropriate to break off to sub-pages. To incude a discussion on each husband's life would be problematic; to include a bio on one would overstate his importance relative to the others. A double edged sword. --Kevin Murray 02:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Concur with Otto, and provided some references to support verifiability. --Kevin Murray 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete - this is a tough one, but given that his notability stems entirely from having been married to a famous person and written about it, I'll say delete. Korny O'Near 15:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Still within the bounds of Wikipedia:Notability... Ranma9617 02:18, 21 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--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Morris

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

This one's been speedy deleted a few times for A7 and G11... It's been recreated again with a bit more work with the references... However the subject simply isn't notable enough (and I think it's taken that the author of the article is the subject). Does not meet WP:BIO, sole reference is not a WP:RS. Oh, and the station itself is hardly a roaring success - it'll close down in about 10 days time.

In summary - not yet notable Thanks/wangi 21:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete While I'm not sure Adamiow was the author (in that case it would be vanity, although he was a contributor), still, delete per WP:BIO and WP:RS. His name is mentioned in the article for the station. That's enough. This guy doesn't need publicity. He needs a job.--Ispy1981 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, a guy with a job (and not even that for long, it seems). Doesn't come remotely close to the criteria for entertainers on WP:BIO. —Cryptic 21:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Firstly, I am not the person that the article is based on. I am just a fan, who happens to have the same first name. Secondly, I believe that he is a notable person. He has worked on two nationwide radio stations, broadcasting to in excess of 200,000 listeners on Capital Disney, as per RAJAR results. I also think that the comments on Capital Disney's success aren't really relevant. In reference to his future jobs, I don't think that is a matter for here either. Adamiow 22:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: If Adam Morris is indeed notable then you should have no problem updating the article to meet the WP:BIO notability guidelines. If you're not Adam Morris then I think you need to do a bit of work on a couple of images: Image:AdamMorris.jpg & Image:AllanLake.jpg — who is the copyright holder? A photo being uploaded to myspace isn't a general release to use it somewhere else. Thanks/wangi 23:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: I will sort out the copyright for the photos in due course, after this page is sorted. Adamiow 06:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't see any evidence this person meets WP:BIO. There is no significant additional claim of notability beyond the versions that were speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7 or WP:CSD#G11 (and for sake of full disclosure I am one of the admins who previously deleted this per a speedy tag).--Isotope23 15:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: I am assuming radio presenters are part of Entertainers on WP:BIO. However, this criteria is very unclear, as I could say Adam has a cult following and his work on Capital Disney is significant, as the station is a major station, with awards and audience figures to show. Adamiow 22:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

  Please, have some reality and perspective when talking about "cult following"... Cult following is used to define fan behaviour of the like shown toward the Rocky Horror Show. Capital Disney was never a major UK radio station - it was DAB / satellite only. Thanks/wangi 21:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: I accept the cult following situation, but I was just trying to demonstrate there are no clear criteria with regards to radio presenters. However, I very much disagree with your views on Capital Disney. The station is a major UK radio station, as the audience figures show. It makes a much larger impact than many stations on the RAJAR results. As well as this, it has won numerous awards, including the Sony Radio Academy Digital Station of the Year, which is the highest accolade possible for the station and for any station which is not local or on FM/AM. Adamiow 09:07, 21 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 10:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iron Cross in popular culture

Iron Cross in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - another largely unsourced indiscriminate collection seeking to capture every trivial or non-trivial reference to or appearance of a particular German/Nazi/neo-Nazi symbol/decoration in any context without regard to its meaning or importance either within the work or in the real world. Not as egregious as the deleted "Swastikas in popular culture" article but still quite poor. To forestall one inevitable response, strongly oppose merging any of the content into Iron Cross. This article was created as a place to dump material that wasn't wanted in the main article and it is no more encyclopedic in another article than it is on its own. Otto4711 21:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the only non-trivial material, as explained in the nomination, is the use as a hate symbol. Which could be merged, since it's one sentence. --Haemo 03:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no reliable sources--Sefringle^Talk 03:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT#IINFO. Masaruemoto 04:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 21:10, 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--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of people in Playboy by Birthdate

List of people in Playboy by Birthdate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Another list that qualifies as WP:NOT#INFO. All the info needed can be found at individual playmate's articles, no need to have a list like this. Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. Tone 20:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Listcruft.--Ispy1981 21:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft. Useight 22:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Although I am pro beautiful women and honoring their birthdays, I don't think that this type of list is encyclopedic for any group of people regardless of whether it is my favorite baseball team, my personal friends or a list of bunnies. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This isn't a list of the Playmates birthdays, it's a list of their years of birth (birthdates), time of first appearance and age at the time, age at time of death (that needs to be made clearer), etc. Everyone of them is a bluelink. I kind of like the idea that there's an 84 year old lady out there who was Miss January '55. Say what you will, but it's informative, well organized and it passes the notability test. Mandsford 00:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This is not informative, is irrelevant, and duplicates information that exists in other lists on Wikipedia. These ladies simply aren't that important that we need dozens of separate lists about them, and their age is one of the less important things about them. --Charlene 01:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: It's high time the phrase "indiscriminate collection of information" was redefined or reinterpreted. <KF> 06:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this is a poster child for indiscriminate. If there were a Playboy wiki, or even a pin-up wiki, it might fit in, but I just don't see what function the list serves beyond making a list. For example, I could just barely see a justification for List of Playboy Playmates by age at first appearance which might conceivably tell us something about the ages considered appropriate for nude models in different eras. I don't think it would survive AFD, though, either. --Dhartung | Talk 07:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and add fold-out illustrations, for the benefit of Wikipedia users (no current nude picture of Miss January '55, please) Mandsford 11:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Only vote once, please. Eusebeus 12:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant list. Eusebeus 12:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete pointless list and violates WP:NOT Kwsn^(Ni!) 16:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. --Ace of Swords 16:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• "Everyone [sic] of them is a bluelink." Then make sure the information is present in the individual articles, and delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 19:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it does boggle the mind that we have articles on every playmate, but since we do grouping them this way rather than by age at time of appearance, or by order of appearance, or by height, weight, cup size, whatever, seems unnecessary. Carlossuarez46 21:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It's a list article and it's not indiscriminate, one has to be a Playboy Playmate to be on the list. The list makes it easy to see which former Playmates are still alive and how old they are, and how old they were when they appeared in the magazine. The list doesn't count as "indiscrimiinate collection of information" because it does not fall under any of the 10 sub-sections listed on WP:NOT#INFO. The data is within a table. The article is neutral, verifiable, and contains no original research. "Cruft" is a subjective term meant to belittle any piece of information. Even if there was a common definition as to what "cruft" is, there is no policy against "cruft." As far as I can tell, there are only two articles on Wikipedia that list every Playmate on one page and I think this is a useful article. Everyone on the page is notable, and the article is useful for comparing their current ages. --Pixelface 22:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Third option. Can't we use sortable tables to generate a list with this functionality that also allows sorting by date of appearance, date of death, age at time of appearance, alphabetically by name, etc., thus serving all the desired functions at once? --tjstrf talk 22:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to suggest the same. Sortable tables reduce the number of articles about the same thing drastically. --Tone 09:29, 22 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 to Young Snipe. Sr13 21:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Look, Listen, & Learn

Look, Listen, & Learn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This isn't an original work, but a mix tape of other artists' music. Non-notable. Also AFDing the artist, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undaground Rap Mixtape Vol.1 eaolson 20:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No sources providing actual content. Track listing alone is not encyclopedic. Jay32183 02:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Young Snipe. John Vandenberg 02:53, 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 redirect all. Mangojuice^talk 16:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undaground Rap Mixtape Vol.1

Undaground Rap Mixtape Vol.1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This isn't an original album, but a mix CD of other artists' works. Non-notable. Also going to AFD:

• Young Snipe, the artist (artist may be notable, arguably, but these mixes are not)
• Look, Listen, & Learn, another mix tape
• Ben Frank:The Mixtape, another mix tape

---

eaolson 20:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all as no assertions to notability have been made. In addition, Undaground Rap Mixtape Vol.1 and Ben Frank:The Mixtape are both borderlining on CSD A3, as they have nothing other than a track list and an infobox. - Zeibura^(talk) 03:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Young Snipe. John Vandenberg 02:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Week keep per WP:MUSIC: "If the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Assuming this was verifiably released by a label, I'd say there's no reason to axe this, although some expansion is obviously needed. Numerous other professionally released Category:Mixtape albums have been kept. That said, the definition of an album in that quote might not be relevant, given that the album was released on the artist's own non-notable label. MrZaius^talk 16:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect The line line in WP:MUSIC about albums inheriting notability is weak and disputed...I default to: Has the album received any indepedent coverage to justify it as an article on its own? No? Merge it into the main article, there's plenty of space. Track listings with no other information are indiscriminate in my opinion. — Scientizzle 16:19, 25 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. - KrakatoaKatie 11:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Memorial Day Miracle

Memorial Day Miracle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Fails WP:NEO, as there are no reliable, verifiable sources using the term. The article is completely unsourced. Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Okay, I never heard of it, but it's apparently a great moment in pro basketball history, right up there with the Immaculate Reception, the Miracle on Ice, the Helicopter Game, etc. Mandsford 00:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep It's not on par with the Miracle on Ice, but it's an interesting moment in NBA history. The NBA itself lists Sean Elliott's game as a legendary performance; in addition, the book 'At the Buzzer' devotes an entire section to Elliott's game-winning shot (which also appears on the cover of the book - see top image). As for the nom's claim that "there are no reliable, verifiable sources using the term," I found 91 Google News hits for "memorial day miracle" + "sean elliott"; the term also appears in the two sources I mentioned above. Zagalejo 02:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, there seems to be many reliable sources for the event and the name; there seems to be a very clear link to the NBA reference at the bottom of the article. How did you go about determining that there were no 'sources using the term'? Kuru ^talk 01:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, I remember the moment well and it was an extremely important event in basketball that needs to have an article.--Southern Texas 05:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There are plenty of sources, as Zagalejo says, that use the term "Memorial Day Miracle." However, I still think the article covers a non-notable topic. Mention of it certainly belongs on relevant pages (such as Sean Elliott, San Antonio Spurs, 1999 NBA Playoffs, etc.) but the shot in itself is not notable. It received significant coverage as described in the notability guidelines, but only because every NBA game is covered by mainstream media. There are no separate articles for John Havlicek's dramatic steal or buzzer-beaters by John Paxson and Robert Horry. I know this is the dreaded what about X argument, but I think it's reasonable to assume that those events form a solid peer group. Articles in the category "National Basketball Association lore" (of which the MDM article is a part of) point to an individual player's page such as Gar Heard; why should this be different? SliceNYC (Talk) 21:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not necessarily just the shot; the name refers to the game itself, which was an improbable comeback capped by a rather difficult shot. If you want to play the 'what about x' game, you can probably find hundreds of articles on notable individual games, including basketball ones: The Phantom Buzzer Game, The Shot. I'm sure they have varying levels of subjective notability; I certainly wouldn't compare this to the Miracle on Manchester or the Music City Miracle (ok, maybe that one), but it is clearly referenced as a significant historical, not current, NBA event in news media and books as noted above. It's possible I'm missing your point; you're saying you're comfortable that it meets the notability guidelines, but not your personal threshold for inclusion? Kuru ^talk 00:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that the guidelines can be deceptive. Sure, the game received lots of coverage that would qualify it as notable, but that's because NBA playoff games are highly scrutinized events even if it's a blowout. Informally surveying the basketball articles on here, it seems like notable games are incorporated into the playoff series' article or the individual players article. Also, I'd prefer not to conflate the shot and the game as you seem to be doing; the shot makes the game better-known. If the game was decided by one point but without a last-second shot, odds are nobody thinks to create a page for it even if there was a big comeback. SliceNYC (Talk) 15:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I know nothing about basketball but I assume that the NBA site is reasonably authoritative for the sport. Although this is the only source establishing notability, I think it's just enough. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:27, 24 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 07:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Moore (politician)

Charles Moore (politician) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete: Non-notable minor political candidate, whose only claim to fame is achieving 2% of the vote in the Congressional elections in (apparently) 2004. Fails WP:BIO. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

PS If the article is deleted, please also remove his entry from Charles Moore (disambiguation). Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a non-notable, failed candidate. Montco 23:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment anyone have an idea of what Libertarians usually get in the State of Washington? Is he by any chance doing spectacularly well? DGG 00:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but I'd keep his mention in the dab page, which might help avert some reader's confusion. After the article on the Jim Robinson of Free Republic was deleted, his name stayed on the dab page. JamesMLane t c 03:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:27, 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. Peacent 02:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Titans of Justice

Titans of Justice (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete article on insufficiently notable fanfic site. Doczilla 19:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, low notability fan fiction published on free blogs and forums. (Emperor 19:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC))
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fanfic and not notable. Kusonaga 14:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete fanfic - NN. --Fredrick day 14:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as inattributable. Murgh^disc. 21:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Capmango 05:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Bren ^talk 07:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence of non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. Does not meet any inclusion criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (web). -- Satori Son 01:55, 21 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 07:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SaLon Gallery

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

Speedy A7 was declined by admin User:Rklawton, who recommended AFD. Notability is not established. Conflict of interest is likely given the author's username, which also has no other edits. YechielMan 19:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, A7, no assertion of notability. Leuko 19:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - this article was originally listed as db-spam. I removed the spam bits. Notability is claimed via artist(s) represented. I thought it might be useful to give editors a chance to improve the article. If no such improvements are forthcoming, then count my vote as "delete", too. Rklawton 19:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Assertions to notability are there as Rklawton says, and the press page on their website claims they've been reviewed by some guides and magazines which look like they might be reliable sources. Can't find any of them on the internet, but if these can be obtained as hard copies and used as references, I think it'd be keepable. - Zeibura^(talk) 20:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Switched to Delete per Victoriagirl's reasoning. - Zeibura^(talk) 03:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:ORG, the primary criterion of which states "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." I write this recognizing that the SaLon website claims that the gallery "has already appeared in the March 2006 editions of the Hill, Grove & Kult magazines, the October, November & December 2006 editions of Gallery Guide for Europe, the January 2007 edition of the Resident Magazine". This leaves the reader to wonder what is meant by "appeared"... a feature article, a profile, a column, a review, a listing, an ad? Really a non-issue, as the article itself doesn't attempt to provide such sources. Victoriagirl 00:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It was me who nominated it for speedying. If you have to write your own article, then methinks you're not notable enough. Chris 20:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment while this may be an indicator that problems may exist with the article, self-authorship is not a deletion criterion. Rklawton 21:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Another comment: True. But, this says "We also tend to discourage authors from writing about themselves or their own accomplishments, as this is a conflict of interest. If you have made notable accomplishments, someone else will write an article about you eventually." Chris 08:13, 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

There seems to be consensus that there isn't enough reliable material for an article. There are also biographies of living persons concerns. After one year and hundreds of edits the references remain of remarkably poor quality. The subject may merit a line or two in List of internet phenomena if it can be shown to pass the standards for inclusion in that article, and can be sourced adequately. --Tony Sidaway 18:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Frosties Kid

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

sources do not show notability of the subject and arent reliable sources. tried to add tags for cleanup but tags are deleted and they say i should "prod or afd" instead. Elbowdrop 18:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Frosties if WP:RS exist, otherwise delete.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article has some notability as a Meme/Urban myth. i have been involved with the article since its creation and it has gathered more comment than it is worth. Wikipedia should mirror the internet and have raised the subject of its deletion on wikipedia email. A google search on Frosties Kid raises over 40,000 links [Frosties Kid search] I cannot really see how a deletion is appropriate. The article does need sourcing. but a delete is inappropriate Mike33 19:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — Little or no notability, virtually no sources to speak of, and is not written in an encyclopaedic tone. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 19:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• I have two votes:

Merge if more proof of a meme/urban myth can be shown, right now, it can't be. Otherwise...

Delete unless he does make the 2008 team, right now, there's a serious lack of notability since anyone off the street can be in a commercial (hell, I've done an anti drug commercial before, and I don't consider myself notable). That, and the sources aren't reliable. Kwsn^(Ni!) 19:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment calm down. It is not a biography. Sven Ruygrok just happens to be the internet meme. Does wikipedia echo internet memes, yes. Does Wikipidea become part of a meme? no way. The article has stood for the last year. It does need clean up. WP:BLP warriors - prove how it worked last week and falls from grace this week? Mike33 19:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment could you please see WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. Thank you. Kwsn^(Ni!) 20:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That is so uncool in Afd. please save remarks like that to my talk page. unjustified. Mike33 21:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep If you'd like more evidence of how widespread this meme is, check out the article "Why the Frosties ad is the worst of all time" by Alistair Foster in the Evening Standard on August 14th, 2006. It's an article just about the commercial and the reactions its inspired. It's not All Your Base, but it has widespread coverage including coverage in mainstream sources. Chris Croy 19:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Frosties. One newspaper article and Snopes does not satisfy WP:BIO. Also smacks of spam by the cerieal company to gain more free publicity. Someone might consider reviving WP:MEME with criteria which would consider the significance of memes. Edison 21:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain, with a sidenote that I'd support a merge. He appears to be the equivalent of Mikey over here in the United States, but research turns up nothing much. Perhaps a local over there can turn up something. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment the merge idea was kicked around last fall. without canvassing I can find some of the editors who opposed a merger. During the WP:BLP storm I asked for clarification about this article. The feedback I received is that it is meme. If we are going to start deleting all meme then surely we have lost sense of those guidelines. The article has gone through ad infinitum changes. As it stands today I think it has credibility. Mike33 21:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I am voting keep based on the fact that Little Mikey thrives and because I don't really think people should just keep taking stabs at the apple. The article is marginal, but somewhat encyclopedic. If Lucky Vanous had an article I would surely vote to keep. I am not sure where the notability hurdle is on human spokespersons, but I support as an interesting topic. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

not sure if I understood all the text. red links certainly dont help your argument. Little Mikey may well be a good example (its been a featured page), however, The Frosties Kid, will never get to be a featured page. It has its own validity, but certainly not to the extent of Little Mikey. Mike33 23:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• On a lighter note my home page is google and use the search "frosties kid wikipedia" to edit. what am i gonna do if it gets deleted? its gonna sugest I recreate the article! Mike33 00:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If it's deleted per concensus, I'd suggest going to Deletion Review. Recreating the article post deletion is a sure-fire way to see it deleted as per WP:CSD#G4. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It was intended as an offside. I have no wish to recreate the article if it passes through Afd. Lighter note is just a wikilove. Mike33 22:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

...my sense of humor was not working at that moment. =/ --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, one article does not notability make. The lack of results for search strings like "frosties actor" combined with just one (reprinted in four places) for "frosties kid" simply isn't convincing notability. Interest in the subject matter appears limited to the urban legend, which isn't itself notable. --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment In this Afd and the last, my arguments have always been based on the Idealist idea the the article is about the advert and the interest it created (see Frosties kid talk "what is this article about"). During my editing of the article it has remained purely about the advert and has never been a biography. Search strings like "frosties actor" are a little weasle, and certainly dont help to form consensus. Further to that, AfD is not a vote. It is about consensus. The article was raised because tags were removed, and a consensus decision in Afd is often a great way of resolving matters. As for WP:NOTABLE, that is a guideline. I beleive it passes notabilty guidelines. In terms of validity, The simple question we should ask is "does this article make wikipedia good or bad by its inclusion?" Mike33 17:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, as per Mike33. Lugnuts 07:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per Dhartung. The Parsnip! 17:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, redirect to Frosties. Any article that's only known as "The Frosties Kid" seems a little silly to me. Include the rumours and info on any ad campaigns in the Frosties article. It's not important enough to have it's own article. Barbara Osgood 18:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment there is no Frosties it is a redirect to Frosted Flakes and would simply create a new edit war. I have archived Talk:Frosted_Flakes about the frosties kid long predating an article. The advert was never aired outside the UK and Eire. Mike33 18:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... then redirect to Frosted Flakes. Comment if it's redirected from Frosties, why does the article begin Frosties (or Frosted Flakes in North America) If the Frosties is noted first prominently in the article, surely the disambig page should link to "Frosties", with "Frosted Flakes" being a redirect? Barbara Osgood 19:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A merge to Frosted Flakes would create more mess (see Frosted Flakes archive. A redirect? Either you haven't made your self clear, but this AfD has never been about a redirect. My answer to you is that a merge with a North-American page is not an option. Disambiguation pages should list the most notable instances with preference over others. Frosties in the US is more notable as a cool-ade than frosties as a kellogg brand. You seem too have headed very far off topic. Mike33 20:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Nominator says "sources do not show notability of the subject and arent reliable sources". Has been featured in articles by the Sun (UK's best selling paper) and the Daily Mail/Evening Standard/ Metro (all part of the same group but separate newspapers - 1 national, 1 London-based, 1 regional I guess). Also mentioned by Scott Mills on BBC Radio 1 (national radio) ([1])Very well-known in the UK, if not in the US. '"Frosties kid"' gives 9000+ hits on Google. 'Frosties suicide' gives 27000+ hits on Google. Paulbrock 23:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment not sure where you get the 9000 figure from on google, my simple google search tallies 40,500 [Google Search using "frosties kid"] Google also directs me to try related searches (Searches related to: frosties kidfrosties advert frosties kid suicide frosties frosties kid dead frosties kid myspace frosties kid death kellogs) I haven't yet needed to use any of those wonderful search suggestions, and would not think it very wise to! Mike33 01:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, the 9000+ search was [2] Paulbrock 09:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete because of potential WP:BLP problems. Doesn't sound like this guy wants a wikipedia entry (yeah, I know it's not under his name). Capmango 05:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The BLP problems would pose a cleanup. Aside from that, unless the party in question comes out and says "please remove it", we can't really make those assumptions. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete due to WP:BLP issues and lack of reliable sources. RFerreira 05:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Closing Comment - I just seem to be repeating the same arguments.

(1) This was raised as tag dispute and a further reason was notability. Notability is not a criteria in Afd but very helpful - in various googles it hits over far over the 1 or two articles suggested. (passim 40,000, 9,000plus, 27,500 etc)

(2) "The Frosties Kid" might well be a living person, but the article is about the advert, its reception as a meme and media reaction to the meme. In terms of WP:BLP one could use the same rule to delete Essjay controversy and you would find a very big no way. A bee helps to create a new flower but the bee does not become the flower.

(3) Mergers have been considered before. Frosted Flakes is largely a US article and The Frosties Kid didn't sit on the page for very long and went through an edit war.

(4) A delete is only acceptable if the article makes Wikipedia bad. If editors consider this article makes wikipedia bad then please start removing all cruft from Wikipedia, some of the editors commenting have contributed to articles that are very Cruft.

(5) None of the original editors seem interested in the article, but it has been policed successfully for the last 11 months. It is a constantly vandalised article, but this certainly dosen't make it bad.

Mike33 07:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Frosties ...it's no longer current but is relevant and it is referenced ...? the fact that is is regularly vandalized would seem to say it is notable ?

^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Vandalism does not make the subject of an article notable... The Parsnip! 15:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The most Notable articles on Wikipedia are also the one that are either Locked to stop vandals or are the most vandalised it shows that it is a "Well Known" subject and people are interested in it (regardless of notability) "The Frosties Kid" is Notable since it has been referenced in several UK newspapers (Note this is more that the article on Slashdot has!) ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 16:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no reliable sources, and we're not here to regurgetate tittle-tattle and rumours.--Sandy Donald 13:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Poorly written article, but notability sufficiently established even if the subject seems trivial to me. Obviously not a biography, so WP:BLP doesn't come into it. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:36, 24 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stopped At Stalingrad

Stopped At Stalingrad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not qualify under WP:BK. Feshbach Fan 18:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Also nominating Image:Haysto.jpg for same reason. Feshbach Fan 18:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not wualify under WP:BK, and furthermore is a clear and definite advertisement.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A lazy article, which I am improving; shouldn't be held against it--the subject is N, not the article.. I've removed the detailed contents, which is the inappropriately advertisment part, and added references so far to about 8 reviews in academic journals, with quotes from some of them. Reviews demonstrate N of books. as condition (1) of WP:BK.DGG 22:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It is present in 398 libraries, according to WorldCat [http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/wcpa/top3mset/a76c858f16a34440a19afeb4da09e526.html}, including many public and it seems like all major academic libraries and a great many college libraries as well. DGG 23:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep War historians consider this book to be a significant contribution to the study of the Battle of Stalingrad. It has also been reviewed in various military history magazines, but I don't know if these are on line. I will look through my stack when I get a moment, also. KP Botany 23:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Meets WP:BK, as noted by DGG and KP Botany. Victoriagirl 00:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - appears to meet WP:BK. --Charlene 01:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Based on the criterion "...subject of multiple, non-trivial published works... with at least some of these works serving a general audience," I'll have to recommend weak keep. All of the refs recently added to the article do not serve a general audience with the exception of the Times Literary Supplement cite. That last cite just barely qualifies the book under WP:BK. "One" isn't exactly the same as "some", but for a pub as significant as the TLR, it'll do. IMHO it fails the other WP:BK criteria. Groupthink 08:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. As an aside, I would admonish the nom for making a disruptive point, but unfortunately, I do think it needs to be noted that it's disingenuous of the WP community to assert that an article on Hayward's book is worthy of inclusion while Hayward himself is not (see here here) for more. Seems to me like that's trying to have your cake and eat it too. I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I still think that this should be pointed out. Groupthink 08:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I took it upon myself to clean up the Joel Hayward article, and it looks like it's actually going to survive (nope, it's been AfD'd). It still needs work though, and some of y'all might be interested in making some improvements (but not me, I've had my fill). Groupthink 20:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as per previous comments. The article still needs a lot of cleanup, though. Edward321 03:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:BK as the subject of multiple, non-trivial works about it. I found a few reviews just by a quick Google search. Also, although WP:GOOGLEHITS isn't really a legit argument for whether a subject is suitably encyclopedic, all the same the fact that this book gets 692 hits on Google shows it's fairly well-known. --Ace of Swords 21:29, 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 Delete. « ANIMUM » 23:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Muslims by date of birth

List of Muslims by date of birth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This list is just too vague. We are talking about 1 billion + Muslim people in history. Not to forget, WP:NOT#INFO. What could be acceptable, would be perhapes a list of important Muslim religious scholars or something like that but to list people just by religion is too indiscriminate. Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. Tone 18:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - a chronological list of people by any faith is ridiculous. Otto4711 18:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Leuko 19:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, even implying the word "notable" it serves no purpose. Carlossuarez46 21:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as indiscriminate list of info and as a directory. Useight 22:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry, Delete. This is a weak list to begin with. I can't believe that Sadat, Khomeini, Omar Khayyam, Saddam Hussein, etc. aren't on here. It does meet the Wikipedia standards for silliness by including squash players and comedians in there with historical figures, but it's not well researched. If you're serious about something like this, you would look at the lists of people born in each year, pick out the notable Muslims, list their A.D. birthdates (1979, 1980, 1981) along with their Moslem birthdates (in A.H. 1399, 1400, 1401). How many folks born on the 10th of Ramadan? But anyway, do we need a list of Moslems by birthdate, any more than we need a list of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc...? Not a very well done list. Mandsford 00:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete list would just be way too long.--Sefringle^Talk 01:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - useless.Proabivouac 01:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not appropriate for Wikipedia. We are getting too many ethnicity lists - there really should only be a handful. Cedars 05:48, 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. Peacent 02:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of births and deaths on Coronation Street

List of births and deaths on Coronation Street (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

One list more in the series of articles in contradiction with WP:NOT#INFO.Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.--Tone 18:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - wouldn't that list cover almost every character? As per nom. Rgds, --Trident13 20:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & per WP:FICT if these are important rather than trivial - which I doubt - put them in the main article. Carlossuarez46 21:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because this is a disguised list of trivia with no real-world context. Such information is unencyclopedic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 07:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lynotic

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

Not verifiable. Can find no sources that indicate that this is a real language (or that 'Lynotic' is another name for a real language, as has been claimed on the talk page). Proposed deletion was contested. Pan Dan 18:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong/WP:SNOW Delete: Unverifiable hoax article with no WP:RS. Leuko 19:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Half Make a redirect to West Frisian Janvanhorn 17:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Haaf
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Why? I don't see that they even claim to be related, not to mention actually verifiably being related (or a language at all). Leuko 22:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• delete unless sourced. Looks like an hoax, not one of the 7594 enties/languages listed in ISO 639-3 - Nabla 00:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, plus it screams hoax. Bearian 01:59, 21 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. Peacent 02:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Masonic Youth Organizations

Masonic Youth Organizations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete. This is nothing but a list of internal links to other full articles (and some nn groups as well). The same material is duplicated in the Freemasonry2 template which is on every Freemasonry article page, and as these are different groups, there is no way to redirect to one page and have the redirect be accurate. MSJapan 17:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

DeleteJ ust a list, and not even a complete one at that. Escape Artist Swyer | Talk to me 17:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As noted by the nominator, this article accomplishes little that the template does not do better. —C.Fred (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Category already exists for it. Kwsn^(Ni!) 20:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Category already exists for it. --Tone 13:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 07:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haberarts

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

Bringing here to determine consensus, contested speedy deletion

• delete This article doesn't even hint at notability. Coren 18:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, fails WP:N. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 07:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tuxes

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

Unreleased book by vanity press. Questionable notability. WP:NOT a crystal ball, at the very least. Deproded by author with no explanation.

• Keep - Tuxes is in fact available for pre-ordering - see Amazon. BeachSidePress is not a vanity press - Mr. Fivelson has never paid us. Some additional information about publishing that may shed some light on the subject: it is usual practice in the industry to begin selling a book many months before its publication date. And the book is available on Amazon and from our website now. I beg the question: what determines the existence of a book - sales, or the passing of the publication date which by common definition is a fiction. (See inside Kramer's 1001 Ways to Market Books) Respectfully, Ron Beachsidepress 06:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Fivelson, AFD nomination for the author. eaolson 17:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:BK. As noted above, the book has not yet been published. Speculation as to whether it will meet WP:BK after publication is pure crystal ball. Victoriagirl 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - same as Victoriagirl. With additional comment - as said by BeachSide Press, it does not appear to be a vanity press, but a brand new small press. Their site states that they pay royalties, do not charge the author a fee, both the reverse from vanity press practices. Felisse 19:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the author will pass AfD, but the book still doesn't meet WP:BK. Coren 02:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL. John Vandenberg 02:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. Sr13 06:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of sampled songs

List of sampled songs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Tagging for the nominator the following articles:

List of sampled songs starting with a non-letter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of sampled songs starting with A (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of sampled songs starting with B (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of sampled songs starting with C (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of sampled songs starting with D (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of sampled songs starting with E (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of sampled songs starting with F (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of sampled songs starting with G (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of sampled songs starting with H (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of sampled songs starting with I (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of sampled songs starting with J (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of sampled songs starting with K (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of sampled songs starting with L (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of sampled songs starting with M (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of sampled songs starting with N (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of sampled songs starting with O (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of sampled songs starting with P (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of sampled songs starting with Q (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of sampled songs starting with R (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of sampled songs starting with S (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of sampled songs starting with T (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of sampled songs starting with U (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of sampled songs starting with V (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of sampled songs starting with W (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of sampled songs starting with X (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of sampled songs starting with Y (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of sampled songs starting with Z (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I prodded this article, the template was removed so now I list it here. This article (with subpages for every letter) lists sampled songs. In my opinion this is in contradiction with WP:NOT#IINFO, indiscriminate collection of information. Besides, as the article says, Obviously, this list is by no means exhaustive or complete. And there are no references, apart from two listst with similar content.

• Keep -please keep the lists. i love going thru it and seeing the songs that have inspired others to make music.its interesting to me atleast.i have spent hours listening to these songs to see the samples and i like figuring out how they did it.again please keep the list.this information doesnt exist anywhere else.oh and in case you do delete please let me have a copy of it =(
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Tone 16:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bravedog 16:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I agree there is a problem with this list, but I think you still have to note the deletion on all the sub-pages. FrozenPurpleCube 16:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Could anyone with AWB be so nice and do this instead...please...? Thanks in advance. --Tone 16:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I've been wanting to nominate these lists for deletion myself for a while now. They are indiscriminate lists, directories of loosely-associated topics. The lists reach across every style, genre and thematic structure of music to bring together any song that has nothing in common with any other song beyond someone went in and copied a beat or a musical phrase from another song. These lists tell us nothing about the sampled songs, the songs that include samples, the history, process or technique of sampling or music in general. Otto4711 17:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep <sigh>. Valuable information to those who seek it. <KF> 17:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - how valuable the information might or might not be (besides being largely if not completely subjective) does not answer the policy concerns the article raises. Otto4711 18:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as above (Otto4711). JJL 17:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as Otto says it exactly. Also, "Valuable information to those who seek it." is a tad weak (similar to WP:USEFUL). Kwsn^(Ni!) 19:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - might as well list every song recorded in the last five years. Rgds, --Trident13 20:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Ye flippin' Gods, major WP:LIST issues. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Otto7411. Exactly. --Charlene 01:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The list has always been messy from the start and seeing as it fails WP:NOT#INFO, it just needs to be deleted. No actual resources either. Douglasr007 03:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - very, very trivial inclusion criterion. Might as well make a list of "all songs played in clubs". --Haemo 03:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A song list(s) that violates WP:NOT#IINFO? What are the chances of that? Masaruemoto 04:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not appropriate for Wikipedia. Cedars 05:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom., and others.--JayJasper 17:10, 21 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. Peacent 02:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of actors from Germany

List of actors from Germany (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This list is a random collection of names only which is not being maintained. No effort has been made since the deletion of the good, comprehensive list (which would have been worth keeping; see User:Black Falcon/Sandbox/List of German actors (from 1895 to the present)) to improve this one here. Category:German actors serves the purpose of this list much better. <KF> 16:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and delete to the category, as per nom. Bravedog 16:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, merge with what? <KF> 16:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I think Bravedog means merge with Category:German actors, KF. Dalejenkins 17:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete better as a category. JJL 17:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete category is better for a potentially immense list. Carlossuarez46 21:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete better as a category. Agathoclea 05:40, 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 redirect to Steve Cole (author). Sr13 06:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cows In Action

Cows In Action (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Brand new series of books of dubious notability. Wikipedia is not for advertising. Rick Block (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Dalejenkins 17:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: A7/G11. Leuko 19:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Sounds like an intriguing series of kids books, but not notable otherwise. Delete. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am the creator of Cows In Action article and am dissapointed that my article has been nominated for deletion. I'm new and i don't know a lot about how to improve an article. The reason im not putting more into it is that the chances are somebody will improve my article. I am not advertising this book. Astrosaurs and Cows In Action are one of my best books and i was inspired to write an article about them. Don't delete my article please because if you do, I probably will create it again. Please let it stay on and if it is not improved in 1 Month Delete it. This article will probably be improved by other people. I just started it so people would look at it and put more into my article so its not rubbish. User Woggy June 18th 19:09

The issue is not the quality of the article, but the notability of the topic - which is an issue because Wikipedia articles are meant to be written based on reliable sources. If the article is deleted, please don't recreate it (it will simply be deleted again). Per my suggestion on your talk page, how about changing it to a redirect to the author's article, and including something about this new series there? If you'd like to create an article, there are loads and loads of articles requested at Wikipedia:Requested articles, or any of the red links at Newbery Honor would be fine topics. We like new users, and definitely do not want to discourage you from contributing. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have improved my Cows In Action article now and i am still working on it. There are links to different articles in the article and a contents list. I am hoping that this is enough to stop my article from been deleted. I didn't know much about how to improve an article, but i have found out and its looking better than it was now. Im really hoping now that you won't delete it as i will and probably other people will improve it and make it better. It now includes information about the books but no images as i don't understand how you get images. The books that are not available yet i can't write much on. And i am sorry that i can't. More information on the upcoming books will be available when the book is published. I am also going to include something about Cows In Action on the authors article. User Woggy June 18th 20:23

Woggy, like Rick Block noted, you have to demonstrate notability. See this page for what we're looking for, and also see this page for what we consider to be reliable. Sorry, but unless it's notable, it's not going to survive. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I spoke up for a keep on Astrosaurs, the other famous series of books written by Steve Cole, but Astrosaurs is much longer running and much more successful than Cows in action. I would have a hard time supporting C.I.A. on notability grounds at present; if it goes on to be a Blockbuster success as well, then maybe it can be revisited at that time. Don't be discouraged though, Woggy. Losing an article to an AfD is a rite of passge that all Wikipedia editors go through. --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My Article does have notability. I put some in when i wasn't logged in yesterday. Thanks for the suggestion Rick, But somebody did it for me. There are a lot of redirects to different articles in my article. User Woggy 15:27 (UTC) June 19th 2007

• Comment. I think it would be reasonable to keep this as a redirect to Steve Cole (author). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am going to keep it as a redirect to the author. I am not at all dissapointed that its been nominated for deletion. I have 2 questions. If somebody else creates it again and its improved and its notable, Will it be deleted? In the future when Cows In Action gets more books and is more popular will i then be allowed to restart the article again? I mean like in 2 years or 1 year. Because im new, Im not sure how to create a redirect. Could you tell me? User Woggy June 19th 2007 (UTC)

• Woggy, if the books become notable, then they will survive a future AfD. Procedure for creating a redirect is found here. Your understanding is appreciated, thanks. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:50, 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 KEEP as a redirect to Ralph Klein. Changing that into an article about the event, not the person, is left to editor's discretion. (And, obviously, even the person may become WP-notable later) - Nabla 13:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Huygen

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

Article doesn't meet notability guidelines. The references are more about Klein and his antics, mentioning Jennifer in passing. UnfriendlyFire 15:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Dalejenkins 17:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep lots of news attention, but it will probably fade...borderline, but currently notable. JJL 17:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete belongs on Wikinews if anywhere. Also a bit of a coatrack as mentioned above. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• merge This material can stay in the Klein article. -- but Legislative pages do tend to go into politics eventually, & I doubt she'd mind the publicity. DGG 00:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. Although it's been over a year since this happened (and therefore her notability is not temporary) I'm not sure she's as notable as the event, which was notable; reliable sources (canada.com, etc.) say it may have contributed to King Ralph's abdication. However, I don't think merging it to Ralph's article is an answer, since that page is already long enough and the event was one of the most notable of his reign. --Charlene 01:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No significant biographical content. All the relevant facts about the book-toss event are present under Ralph Klein's Controversises section. Canuckle 18:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As creator and sole contributor to this article I don't feel qualified to pass a vote on this issue. Furthermore, I know her personally and am as such biased. However, I will endeavour to add an argument in its defense.

As stated in the article, the incident and its fallout received significant provincial news coverage for a number of days and was significant enough to receive national coverage as well. Furthermore, it is my personal assessment that it was a contributing factor to Premier Klein's early resignation, although how heavily it factored in is open to debate. That the incident merits mention on an article as major as that of Ralph Klein I think suggests that, should the opportunity arise, we should endeavour to maintain at least a stub-length article on the issue. I strongly disagree with the assessment that it is superfluous; rather, I would submit that, having passed the test of at least marginal notability, we should maintain and improve it in the spirit of the free availability of information.

I have a friend that, before either of us knew her, wrote a school paper on the incident. While this anecdote is in itself rather insignificant, it serves to illustrate that the event, while small, is not necessarily trivial and as such, I submit, merits keeping.

However, by way of correcting DGG: no former Alberta Page has served in provincial politics to date. Alumni tend instead to find jobs in the civil service at various levels.

For what little it is worth, she received a small degree of media attention again on June 14, 2007 when she became the first Alberta Page ever to address the province's Legislative Assembly.

Thank you for your consideration and I appreciate all of your votes, for or against. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 03:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment On further reflection, perhaps this should be merged/redirected into an article on the incident itself instead? That might present a suitable compromise. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 16:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I was thinking along the same lines. The event certainly seems notable. JJL 18:45, 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 and redirect to Monash University. - KrakatoaKatie 12:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radio Monash

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

Ex-amateur radio denied a license who now streams on the 'net. No assertion of notability. Coren 15:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• statement that Radio Monash is ex-amateur is assumption. Please provide proof of this statement Coren. Cazza411 11:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 19:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 20:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability (A7).Garrie 21:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Monash University after editing down to essentials. --Bduke 23:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per BDuke. Capitalistroadster 03:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per BDuke. Orderinchaos 15:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Have made some changes to the article - sources conflict each other and none are WP:RS, but at least we have some clear idea of exactly what we are voting on now :) Orderinchaos 16:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per BDuke. It's been on the air for quite a while, but RS appear to be a problem, so merge for now. John Vandenberg 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Retain Notability asserted given organisation's history and the fact that it is still operating. Should remain separate from Monash University as it is in itself independent despite financial contributions from the University and it's operating location. In fact Monash University administrative support further asserts the notability of the organisation. I suggest people take the time to read Talk:Radio_Monash. --60.241.201.106 10:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

  The concern being raised here (by Australians who would want to keep this article if it were encyclopedic) is that Radio Monash has not been mentioned in newspapers, magazines, etc. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, please do. John Vandenberg 11:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

  John, recent publicity of "Radio Monash" (as it is currently named) is naturally restricted to closely operating organisations such as, obviously, Monash University (including staff and students) and affiliated groups and thus I would be surprised to read of Radio Monash per se in newspapers and magazines. Yet I believe that the significance of the evolution leading up to the organisation as it operates today is such that it warrants an 'encyclopaedic' representation especially since the organisation still exists albeit under the name of "Radio Monash". I ask that you read this page from cbonline.org.au that mentions some of the historical context in which 3MU evolved, and the self-published history that can be found here. Community Radio is clearly an important aspect of society (and I am sure you are not arguing to the contrary) - the roots from which Radio Monash has since evolved in their own right, in my opinion, warrant notability. You can read more about that in an article by Dr. Jeff Langdon called "The Social and Political forces that led to the Development of Public Radio in the 1960's" published in 1995. I, however, do believe that this article does lack somewhat in historical context and detail, hence I can see why so many perceive that this page should be merged or deleted - but clearly I do not agree with those perceptions. The page should be expanded on and boast the significance (which I argue is readily seen if one looks) that this organisation holds which is distinct from the University itself.--60.241.201.106 13:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"naturally restricted to closely operating organisations", I dare say that's pretty much one of the definitions of "not notable". That's a good argument for delete, not keep! Coren 23:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha sure, if you take it out of context it is. --60.241.201.106 02:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. However the context is plainly visible above, and fully supports my comment. Coren 05:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Oookay Coren, if you say so. ;) But to everyone else who isn't as steadfast in their opinion, you should be able to see from what I wrote that Radio Monash and all prior names are one and the same. There is clearly historical significance and it is my opinion (but clearly not the opinion of others such as Coren) that this is weighty in terms of notability. I also think that the authors of the article (of which I am not one) convey this. To clarify the quote of myself by Coren, I am trying to say that the organisation is now limited in its publicity due to licensing and being a youth/student service. It's exposure is reduced due to the relatively inaccessible nature of the medium (being the internet). This is akin to the way of Australia's Channel 31 where the transition from analogue to digital broadcasting coupled with licensing requirements hinder the station's viability since more and more households are changing to digital thereby making Channel 31 inaccessible. I would not relate the reduction in Channel 31's audience to a reduction of notability. Nevertheless, if people choose to deny the history as significant then indeed Radio Monash is not notable. --60.241.201.106 11:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are confusing notability with popularity. Nobody here, I think, is claiming that this radio station is somehow unimportant. It does appear to have relevance to Monash University (which is why many here are suggested that the article be merged (back?) into the U's article). But it does not match the minimal guidelines for notability by itself. This is no reflection on what you perceive to be a significant part of history, but on the appropriateness of having an article. Do you have any idea how many amateur/community/college/student radio stations there have been since Marconi? Coren 15:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually Coren I think you are the one confusing popularity with notability. 60.241.201.106 makes no reference to popularity, and the statement that "I would not relate the reduction in Chanel 31's audience to a reduction of notability", seems to have deliberately been taken out of context in order to fuel your argument. The writer never equates popularity with notability, or vice-versa. My interpretation of the writer is that the audience (and you could potentially argue popularity) is irrelevant to the notability of the station. Although Chanel 31 is less obscure to some than Radio Monash, Radio Monash is arguably of equal relevant notability. Just as Channel 31 was Australias first Community TV station, Radio Monash was Australia's first 100% online student radio station, as per the evidence of notability I've posted.Cazza411 11:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect per BDuke. Ichibani _u^t_c 00:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Evidence of Notability & Independent Reference In answer to John Vanderberg, as per no newspaper articles re Radio Monash, and in additionally to Coren who ASSUMES no notability, this link shows Radio Monash was Australia's first completeley online university radio station. I think that answers the question on IMPORTANCE. Admittedly the reference is somewhat obscure, but obscurity is a poor measure of validity (note Mendel's laws of genetics were published 1866, but languished in obscurity until the 1900's; they are now considered seminal works in the field of genetics)Cazza411 09:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Retain but reclassify after having read various arguments, I agree with --60.241.201.106 to keep page, but classify as a "start" page. I think it is worthy of notability, if a little obscure for those in the Northern hemisphere ;) however the quality of the article content could use some improvement. Article talk page said it was started by a fan. Note it seems Coren is not a person to accept individuals disagreeing with him/her, and I felt that he/she was deliberately attempting to provoke and argument with --60.241.201.106. Rather childish behaviour really. Cazza411 11:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. Sr13 06:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UCW-Zero Tag Team Championship

UCW-Zero Tag Team Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable championship for a minor non-notable wrestling promotion, fails WP:V which is why the content was removed and fails WP:N, claims of being a member of the NWA is in itself not enough to warrant notability as even the smallest indy fed can pay the dues and call themselves an "NWA" federation, there has to be more to it than just paying the NWA due to achieve notability for the promotion. If Prod is removed without sources being provided it will go straight to AFD. Andrew_pmk | Talk 15:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they suffere from the same problems as the UCW-Zero Tag Team Championship article and all pertain to articles about the same federation maintained by the same user:MPJ-DK 15:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

UCW-Zero Mexico Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

UCW-Zero Heavyweight Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

UCW-Zero Ultra-X Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

note: the bundle was added after user Coren voted just so there is no misunderstanding MPJ-DK 15:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• delete The federation has no inclusion requirement beyond paying the dues, and the championship has no notability of its own. Coren 15:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I keep my !vote for the whole bundle, for the same reasons. Coren 18:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As the original prodder I vote delete does not in any way show notability, did not even attempt to show notability or verifiability when removing the prods MPJ-DK 15:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete All, all fail WP:N. Bmg916^Speak 16:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All BMG said it best. This kind of stuff gives the project a bad name. Darrenhusted 16:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• delete - WP:N Marcin Suwalczan [our talk] 18:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all, not notable in any way. Nikki311 23:20, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fragmentalism

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

Appears to be OR/personal essay and may be a neologism, not quite sure as the ghits give a lot of usages in varying contexts [4]. Asked for notability but couldn't work this out with sole editor of article so bringing it here.   ⇒ bsnowball  15:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• delete Only sources and reference are on blogspot? Original research anyone? Coren 15:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC) (See my comment below)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  15:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  15:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• delete The creator of the fragmentalism article edits with a very strong anti-science POV. Other essays he has written should be examined. As for fragmentalism, I can't find any reliable sources beyond the first cite in the article, and that is unavailable to non-subscribers. If someone could find the abstract, or better yet quote relevant sections, it would help us evaluate it's reliability better. Cheers, Skinwalker 18:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the recent edits to the article, I change my vote to keep. The newly cited material may find a better home at reductionism. Skinwalker 13:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

*Delete per above. Doczilla 19:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

*Delete Not sure if this is a real concept, but if it is, it is written poorly--Sefringle^Talk 03:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Changed my mind after recent additions--Sefringle^Talk 19:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The issue here is not about how well written it is or if my views seem mildly antiscience to some strongly pro-science people, the main issue about deletion should be concerned to show whether this term is a neologism invented by me, and if it is a legitimate term used in academic discourse. If it can be shown that it is not a neologism invented by me and that it is a valid term then the article should stay. I believe it is possible to show this and below I present evidence that though it is not a commonly used term, it is a valid term used in intellectual discourse. The term appears to have first been coined by the American psychologist, Alexander Goerge Kelly [1905-1966] see Biographical notes

I present her some good examples of the use of this term: 1. "fragmentalism, which is that truth is collected piece by piece" [5] 2. "FRAGMENTALISM or REDUCTIONISM whole is equal to the sum of its parts whole is different from the sum of its parts that all things in nature are inter-dependent with each other...two opposing beliefs about how we come to know about nature." [6] 3. "This is why we WILL and ARE seeing fragmentalism taking over the world, except in the area of corporate consolidation, one of the very fuels toward the fragmentations." [7] 4. "fragmentalism - the notion that knowledge is a growing collection of substantiated facts or "nuggets of truth", independent of human reconstruction." [8] 5. "every fragment has a memory of the whole," [9] 6. "individualistic and ethnocentrist fragmentalism" [10] 7. It was Alexander George Kelly, referred to above, who "suggested that his philosophy of constructive alternativism was an approach to science that was an alternative to the scientific method favoured by psychology, for which he coined the term accumulative fragmentalism." [11] 8. "The deviation from the principle of ameliorative equilibration takes the shapes of monotelism, fragmentalism, and reductionism" [12] 9. "We celebrate fragmentalism. He most assuredly did not." [13] 10. "The three worldviews - fragmentalism, pragmatism, holism, - as identified by Greig, Pike and Selby (1989)" [14] 11. "Fragmentalism in knowledge is a natural response to professionalism and especialization out of which come the absence of overall conscious whole, of self-conscious attitudes and trends, of relevant critical theory and arguments against ever-increasing distance between professionals and real life,nature, social attitudes and the true-honest relationships of man with each other. Fragmentalism has, unfortunately, in one way or another, become 'scientific religion' of the academicians who are expert on one property or feature of man’s activities, actions, interactions or behaviour." [15] 12. "As a matter of fact, some have made public that the very creed of postmodernism is its declaration of "fragmentalism" as the real fate of man." [16] 13. "...one of the most persistent themes up to 2020 will be judging the economical, financial, technical and scientifically globalization in opposition to fragmentalism maintained by the smaller cultures, so long neglected and now brought to life. Here are the reasons we have reserves about setting up global cultures or a regional culture, that is an European culture with an European consciousness - because it is essentially for any culture to underline the difference." [17] 14. "That is the solution, not beating the worn out drum of fragmentalism which is european (reserved for Africa) by nature." [18] 15. "When a unitary and comprehensive outlook seems to be looking in on us in our unaccustomed state of heightened or vivified receptivity, we feel a disconcerting awareness, an overriding consciousness somehow posed over against our ordinary and less intense fragmentalism of cognition." [19] The term is also used in the following place: 1. [20] Concerning the article by M L Pope (ref 1 in article) see also: [21] Overall, given this wide-ranging evidence, I think it is incontestible that the term 'fragmentalism' is NOT a neologism invented by me, that this article is thus not OR, and though it is not commonly used, 'fragmentalism' is certainly a legitimate term used in academic discourse in quite a wide range of disciplines. On that basis, I recommend the article should stay. I would further propose to see the article revised to include some of the above new material so as both to clarify it and to give it greater weight. Peter morrell 09:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite Although this is not a well-referenced article as it stands, this term does appear to be used in some parts of the philosophy of science. For example:

Andre Kukla Antirealist Explanations of the Success of Science. Philosophy of Science, Vol. 63, Supplement. Proceedings of the 1996 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers. (Sep., 1996), pp. S298-S305. It is also used in cognition under the term "accumulative fragmentalism". I will edit this page to remove the anti-science POV, and add higher-quality references. TimVickers 15:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I've posted a request for feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy. TimVickers 16:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Bizarre as it is, and generally unknown as it is, this does seem to be a philosophical position that has been referred to, criticised and developed by a number of different professional philosophers in professionally recognised journals and books. Anarchia 03:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I've further rewritten the article to make it clear that the most common usage is pejorative. TimVickers 14:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment on rewrite.

• this seems to me to make it clearer that we are dealing with, at best, synonym for the critical/'pejorative' use of 'reductionism', so don't see that it needs an article. tho with the caveat that i can't access the subscription only references (none of the others use the term in anything other than its normal dic. def. if they use it at all) perhaps putting the relevant quotes in the fns wld help.
• second, we seem to have another coinage (definitely no neologism now:) "accumulative fragmentalism" which might deserve an article (tho at a single page of ghits [22] i don't know) but is a little tangential here. see what others think, but i'm not sure it changes that much, sorry.  ⇒ bsnowball  15:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to check the references yourself, send me an e-mail and I can send you copies of the Pdfs. Apart from that, if it is a term discussed in peer-reviewed journals, even just a few, then it easily passes the notability criteria. TimVickers 16:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

for verifiability it would be better if you quoted them in the article, then anyone can see for themselves. cld you also pls make it clear where you are summarising or quoting directly (the italics are confusing, are they meant to indicate direct quotes?) half the quotes (fn 3, 4 & 5) only use the the word fragmentary in its usual sense or don't use it at all. hence when looked at closely it now seems to be OR in the sense that the article is describing usage in primary sources instead of summarising definitions from secondary sources & again, there appears to be no difference between the claimed usage & reductionism. possibly closer should consider MERGEing on these grounds.  ⇒ bsnowball  08:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not a requirement in the policy, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. I can provide copies of these references if you wish, but articles are more than an collection of quotations. TimVickers 15:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The rewrite is much better, and has sufficient references to establish the term as really used, if perhaps still marginal. Philosophy isn't my forte, so I defer validity to someone else, but the article now actually reads like it should be in an encyclopedia. Coren 01:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Merging reductionism and fragmentalism is not a preferred option as these are two different things. Fragmentalism is the breaking up of the world into parts and the assumption that these parts are real. Reductionism also involves that but takes the parts and builds them into models and mechanisms and then assumes that these 'reduced' models comprise a fair representation of reality. Both involve assumptions and both are conceptual acts, but it is clear that they are sufficiently different from each other to keep them in separate places and under separate names. In point of fact reductionism is the secondary conceptual act and fragmentalism is the primary. Thus if anything it is reductionism that should be merged under fragmentalism and not the other way round. They both underpin the modern scientific worldview that has spawned such things as the Periodic Table of elements, the Linnean taxonomy of living organisms, the anatomical names of body parts, the features of the Moon, the names of planetary bodies, the names of continents and countries, etc, etc. On this basis, I would say the suggestion is not therefore tenable. Peter morrell 11:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep interesting --Pgreenfinch 18:54, 21 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 06:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot of Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo

Plot of Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. Article has been tagged for months and, while some discussion ensued on the talk page, the article remains a plot summary. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawson's Creek: seasons 5 and 6, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawson's Creek: seasons 3 and 4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawson's Creek: seasons 1 and 2 for similar plot summary article deletions. To answer one objection I imagine will be forthcoming, WP:WAX and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS do not serve as arguments to save this article. Otto4711 15:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• deleteness I don't even see how an article called "Plot of X" could be salvaged into something else. Coren 15:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:IINFO is policy. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 16:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge any useful info. to the main article. JJL 17:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Doczilla 19:36, 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 Keep--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NE1fm

NE1fm (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, station only launched a few days ago. Speedy deletion contested. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - as per nom. Rgds, --Trident13 20:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, for a number of reasons. Firstly, just launching is not a reason to delete something. Secondly, this is a station broadcasting on FM, across a major city, on the same level as Metro Radio and BBC Radio Newcastle. It's launch was heavily promoted and significant in the city. Furthermore, all FM-based stations in the United Kingdom have articles. By deleting this, it's essentially opening up a can of worms as to whether local stations are notable at all. It should also be noted that Adam Cuerden's opinion is, like mine (as I created the article), biased on this subject - He originally deleted the article totally out of process, and is biased due to his connections to Hitz Radio UK (Hitz Radio have had problems with one or two members of NE1fm's staff, and they've looked to have many articles deleted because of their own personal issues.)

If this article is deleted, I won't look to have it re-instated again, but I find it absurd that it has even been nominated for deletion - It's an FM radio station, and every FM radio station in the UK has an article. Just because this is the newest one doesn't make it any less notable. The articles does require expansion, but the topic is very much notable. Esteffect 17:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, WHAT?!!! WHAT connections to Hitz Radio? I'm a bloody biology student who listens almost exclusively to classical music!!! Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. A further comment from me here - NE1fm is a community radio station. All of the community stations in the UK are listed on this Wikipedia page. Many, as can be seen, have articles. Deleting this article would certainly raise the question as to whether any of them are notable. I also add that many internet-based stations that have nowhere near the exposure or reach of NE1fm currently have articles also. I'd also finally like to request Adam Cuerden not close this AFD as he has ended others on other topics he is biased about early. Thanks. Esteffect 17:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please prove your claims of bias, or retract them, and please stop repeating them. See WP:NPA. Corvus cornix 22:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thought If this article is deleted, then I move that every article about an organisation which launched within the last six months be given the same treatment and deleted as well. Eugenespeed 10:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• • That's hardly the main point: It's launched very recently and the page does not assert notability, and, despite the personal attacks, no-one has made any attempt to make such an assertion. The only argument so far made is "There's other articles on similar subjects." However, those articles (presumably) assert notability. This one doesn't. Its recent launch just makes its failure to assert notability all the more glaring. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Launch date is irrelevant in my opinion.

Reasons article should be kept:

1. It is the first full time non-commercial community radio station in the Newcastle / Gateshead area.

2. It is the end product of approximately 10 years of other lead up broadcasts.

3. It is the official broadcaster of Newcastle's The Green Festival

4. In it's first week, Maximo Park were guests on the station. (Al Smith's - The Tuesday Club)

5. It is fully licensed by OFCOM

6. It has recieved write-ups in local Newcastle based print media. (e.g The Evening Chronicle)

7. It is on air now (and online) and people are listening to it.

8. It is listed on UK Community Radio websites.

9. A team from the station was invited to partake in the North East Radio Academy fun night.

10. It has a parent company, who are council funded, called CBIT (Community Broadcast Initiative Tyneside)

Well, if any of that was in the article - particularly Evening Chronicle writeups - we wouldn't be having this conversation. Add it! =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• facepalm* I just looked up the Evening Chronicle article. This is it. A short sidebar merely saying it launched isn't a non-trivial source. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This has been in the Evening Chronicle actually, we have the article in the radio station - although it was not published on their website. We could upload the article after scanning it in, but no doubt you would then complain of the validity of the article. Again, I question your actions in deleting articles in the past for a number of reasons which I will not go into. It's insane to say a new community radio station (the first for Newcastle & Gateshead) is not notable. If you actually did any research you would see we were operating, we are on the Ofcom website, we're broadcasting on FM and online and the list goes on... In my opinion - if you delete this, again you will have deleted an article you have voted on, and as already stated, will question the validity of all articles on radio stations. I would be inclined to raise this with the rest of the Wiki admins. I personally question your increased interest in NE1fm & its participants and motives for 'just wanting to delete it' Kev Akas 13:47, 21 June 2007 (GMT)

• Strong Keep. The station is significant enough within the Tyneside and broadcast communities for people to want further information regarding it, and find other information about people and shows associated with it. A small entry on a global community radio page is not going to satisfy the appetites of most people looking for a definition of it, and judging by the forums these people are likely to be significant in number.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.193.115 (talk • contribs)
• Delete. I can't find any reliable sources about it, and none are present in the article. My opinion could change if the article is improved, but since I don't see any way to improve it mysekf right now, this is how I feel. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:00, 22 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. — Scientizzle 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shelley Blond

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

Non-notable actress. No coverage in reliable sources and fails WP:BIO criteria. Valrith 14:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete- Almost no information is provided, and what little there is would make more sense as a list than anything else. The lead section is the only section in the article, which lacks even a table of contents. Finally, the article has been tagged for expansion since March 2007, with little or no additions since then (5 if you count a bot edit, a revert, and this nomination, 2 if you don't). Therefore, it can be gathered that Shelley Blond has little notability in the community. There is simply not enough information in it to qualify it as anything remotely encyclopedic, and furthermore it merely takes up space on our servers. Arknascar44 ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 15:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is no limit as to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover and not bound by constraints of a paper encyclopedia and there's not practical limit of bandwidth. See also Wiki is not paper.--Oakshade 15:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In principle, yes, I agree, Wikipedia can have as many articles as it wants, but articles like Shelley Blond simply don' t provide enough information on the topic. If there was some more information in the article, then yes, I would vote to keep the article. However, as of now, it seems that deleting the article is the only option (unless someone adds something major to the article, and fast). Arknascar44 ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 01:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The original voice of one of the most, if not the most, popular video game characters in history. --Oakshade 15:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Arguably notable enough for inclusion (even if just barely). Article could use some fleshing out, but deletion is probably not the solution. Coren 15:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Her screen and videogame resumé falls far short of WP:BIO. Edison 21:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, minor actress with no notable roles. Perhaps if she had won an award for her VG acting, but she did not. --Dhartung | Talk 07:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would say Lara Croft in the original Tomb Raider, the version that made the game iconic, is a notable role. --Oakshade 15:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. OK, it was only a voice role, and only for the first game, but Lara Croft? Puts her over the line for me. --Groggy Dice T | C 17:26, 22 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 06:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brenda Radney

Non-notable musician who fails WP:MUSIC. Claim to notability is a runner-up spot on a contest to perform on the Grammies - since then, seemingly nothing. fuzzy510 02:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge into article on grammys/the competition. Not note on ownBalloonman 05:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — One of two runner-ups in a competition fails WP:MUSIC. The single "source" is a Yahoo! profile, and that doesn't qualify as being an independent, reliable source. *Cremepuff222* 18:55, 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 06:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lindsay Lohan's_third_album

Lindsay Lohan's_third_album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Another speculation-filled and mostly-unreferenced article about a supposed upcoming album. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Kurt Shaped Box 14:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOR, WP:V etc.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge Either delete or move sourced information (if one can find actual references) to Lindsay Lohan article.  hmwith  talk 15:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep A source is there now, but dunno, it's only one line about her in the thing. Kwsn^(Ni!) 19:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as gazing into the uncertain future until such a time as the album's name, track list, and specific release date are available from reliable sources independant of the artist and the recording company. See also Wikipedia:There is no deadline. -- saberwyn 21:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete based on the above mentioned Wikipedia:There is no deadline we should delete when sitting on the fence about semi crystal ballish weakly sourced articles. No need to scoop anyone. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - that a successful singer wants to release a new album and has been making overtures to people to help her do so is not a notable event. This is speculation, pure and simple (and the source seems to be her own wishful thinking, more than anything else). The article, too, is in horrible shape. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:11, 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 05:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violet Carter

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

non-notable fictional character, possibly a hoax--Google searches don't turn up anything useful. Created by the same editor who created Hertex (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hertex). Article was prodded, but creator removed tag. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as something that has all the earmarks of WP:MADEUP. What's with the Greek transliteration (which retransliterated gives "Fiomet Gastes)? Deor 16:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Can't find anything on Google. Seems to be made up, maybe a personal fantasy? Escape Artist Swyer | Talk to me 17:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Clumsy hoax.--Wetman 22:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No article exists on Harry Jones or his "tale of Violet Carter". Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:01, 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, no reliable sources. Fram 10:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hertex

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

Non-notable fictional characters, possibly a hoax. Was prodded, but creator of article removed tag. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per my comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violet Carter. Deor 16:41, 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. Peacent 02:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of American Idol spin-offs

List of American Idol spin-offs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - tagged for cleanup for ten months. The absence of even vandalism patrol ("for both television and cinema sluts" indeed) indicates the low level of interest in the article. There is an extensive navigational template that captures actual AI-related spin-offs and series. The bulk of the article, when it isn't veering off into weird bits about Arthur Godfrey and The Gong Show, consists of trivial mentions of AI in other TV shows or films and most egregiously tons of WP:OR entries about other shows which share details of format or style with AI but which are "spin-offs" nowhere but in the minds of the editors who added them. Otto4711 14:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete List of irrevelent entries, some inaccurate. Unreferenced. Lots of WP:OR. Escape Artist Swyer | Talk to me 17:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if you don't count the thinly disguised "In popular culture" section, many of the entries on this list are dubious as "American Idol spin-offs". Come on, the video game is a spin-off? (It's a tie-in.) Even if this article were pared down to true spin-offs, there would be, what, two or three entries? The topic of AI spin-offs can be covered more than adequately in American Idol and List of television spin-offs#P (where AI and two spin-offs are listed under "Pop Idol"). szyslak 19:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Doczilla 19:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. From the first sentence: "Whether they be official or not." Arbitrary and unsourced. The template serves the same function better. Resolute 23:18, 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 keep. KrakatoaKatie 12:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henryk Batuta

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

An article about a hoax on the Polish Wikipedia, with a few media sources. 588 Google hits including Wikipedia, mirrors, Polish Wikipedia et al. WP:ASR applies heavily here. References are inadequate. Delete or maybe merge into Criticism of Wikipedia.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - get rid of it per nom. Don't give him the publicity of a merge! Rgds, --Trident13 20:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable hoax. This is elaborate enough to be encyclopedic. DGG 00:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the media attention in Poland appears to grant minimal notability. We should ASR, but notability isn't relative to whether it's a self-reference. --Dhartung | Talk 07:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Henryk Batuta (hoax). It's notable enough as a hoax that duped major newspapers. It is the hoax that is notable. --Kimon^talk 14:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The mention in the Polish and British newspapers seems enough to show external-world notability, beyond the walls of Wikipedia. Since the article tries to document the history of the hoax, it might be worth adding to the article that the original was created by an anonymous editor in 2004, and we no longer allow anons to create articles. In general there is some risk of glamorizing vandalism when we publicize the former existence of hoax Wikipedia articles, but this one seems helpful as an object lesson, plus it's not in the English Wikipedia, so the risk of glamorization seems reduced. EdJohnston 17:31, 24 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 05:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide attacks in popular culture

Suicide attacks in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - the first nomination of this article closed "no consensus," with many of the keep voters earnestly asserting that the items on this unsourced list could be sourced. Three months and no substantive edits later, this remains a completely unsourced list, in addition to being an indiscriminate collection of loosely-associated items which may actually be suicide attacks or which may only be suicide attacks in the opinion of the editor who entered it (e.g. In the 1954 film adaptation of Animal Farm, Mr. Jones is seen planting explosives in the farm's windmill, but is not seen leaving the vicinity, implying he carried out a suicide attack.). Otto4711 14:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - violates WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#DIR --Hnsampat 14:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• The article's creator is neutral. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete edit war bait for one, two, what defines a "suicide attack" so that it gets on the list. Kwsn^(Ni!) 20:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT#IINFO. Masaruemoto 04:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's hard to judge the potential for such an article in the face of such a dreadfully poor realization, but it seems that it will always be awash in “original research” and cannot transcend being a mere catalogue without even more “original research”. —SlamDiego_←T 10:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It was given a fair chance to be sourced, and it failed. POV and OR implications aside, it's completely indiscriminate and a glorified trivia section. I doubt any of it is important enough to be merged. María (críticame) 15:24, 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 no consensus. Chaser - T 17:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violetta (performer)

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

It's dubious whether she passes WP:BIO. Under 100 ghits minus Wikipedia and mirrors, most of which are personal websites, not WP:RS. This is about a performer in circus sideshows in the 1920s without any limbs. I think this is a case of WP:INTERESTING more than anything else. Does have an entry on the German Wikipedia and one on the Finnish Wikipedia, both of which are unreferenced stubs. Unreferenced stub. Doesn't show how she is notable besides her deformity, which in itself is not notable. Perhaps her performances are, but I'm not so sure.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - a merge may be possible if anyone wants to do that.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment you searched under her real name. Search under her stage name and more hits generate, although it's difficult to filter them from other Violettas. A number of the hits look promising but my office filter doesn't allow me to view them. Otto4711 14:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment "Unreferenced stub"? LOL. Can this be merged somehow? On its own, its not much of an article. Freshacconci 17:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Google shows that she was notable mostly for being featured in Ripley's Believe It or Not!. See [23] and [24] (the only external link). I have no proof, but I have a feeling "Violetta" was an elaborate hoax from the beginning. How does she balance on that stool? In one of the photos in the first link I provided, note that the stool is about how long her legs would be. I have legs, and I can't balance on that. I suspect trick photography and/or mirrors. She's a non-notable sideshow performer, and possibly not a real one. I encountered this article a while ago while cleaning up Category:Possibly living people, which included her at the time. Who knows why I didn't nominate it for deletion then. WP:INTERESTING, maybe? szyslak 20:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Although limbless people do exist, there is little of note here, and this ultimately should be deleted per WP:INTERESTING. I guess that's why we have Ripley's Believe It or Not!: Wikipedia is not a directory of all information ever, as per WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING, so Ripley's, Cryptozoology blogs and Conservapedia exist to cover the strange, the dubious, and the crackpots. Freshacconci 20:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Even if she does have limbs and was faking being limbless in the photos, that has no direct relation to WP:BIO.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• I wasn't arguing for deletion on the basis of "Violetta" being a possible hoax. If she were a Wikipedia hoax, that would be a different story. I just brought up that possibility as part of a larger argument about notability. As in, a sideshow act from the 1920s isn't notable, and certainly not a fake sideshow act. Just because WP:BIO doesn't specifically mention that possibility doesn't mean it's not relevant. szyslak 01:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• See Category:Sideshow attractions. Are you saying that none of these people have notability? Otto4711 19:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• No, the subjects of most of these articles are notable. However, there are thousands of people who have performed in sideshows, most of them not notable. szyslak 00:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I now find this source initially published in London Life magazine January 27, 1940, which features an extended description of her act. Noting that even if she is a hoax (which I don't believe she is) we have an entire Category:Hoaxes and the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Otto4711 21:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• See my comment above. szyslak 01:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep this is copied from the german WP, and they are rather good at keeping hoaxes out. They are also have stricter standards than we usually do about human interest articles, and I would defer to their judgment when they keep one in. (They do seem to have a peculiar habit of not bothering to source their articles) DGG 00:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Personal pages are not RS, but the fact that many people are still interested in her so many ears after seems to be indentification of some level of notability. Therefor, week keep I'll say. Kneiphof 07:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I find there is a problem with verification still, which over-rides other considerations, though I would like the article to be kept otherwise. Tyrenius 12:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Otto found a source... but even from that source I see no evidence that this would ever be more than a microstub. With so little reliable info to start from, I don't think we should cover the subject. (I don't think the hoax issue is important, but the depth of coverage here is pathetic.) Mangojuice^talk 16:52, 25 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, default to Keep. (This does not prevent someone from being bold and carrying out a merge to Nighthawks.) Walton^talk 16:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nighthawks in popular culture

Nighthawks in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• Delete - indiscriminate collection of loosely-related pieces of trivia. The items on this list have little or nothing in common beyond someone who worked on them apparently thought it would be amusing to arrange some characters in a manner that resembles the painting. Strongly oppose in advance the inevitable suggestion that this be merged into the article on the painting. It's trivial cruft on its own and would be every bit as trivial and crufty in the painting's article. Otto4711 13:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Nighthawks and reduce to demonstrably notable instances. Шизомби 14:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Nighthawks per User:Schizombie. feydey 14:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - please cite multiple independent reliable sources that indicate that any of the items on the list are demonstrably notable. Otto4711 14:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As above I still recommend reducing the article to demonstrably notable instances when merging. These items per se are not notable, but describe the painting's importance and influence on popular culture. feydey 15:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Nighthawks The uses by other artists is the most interesting aspect of this picture. Any failures to meet Wikipedia's standards will remedied over time. Len 16:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Furthermore, I agree with nominator's opposition to a merger. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 21:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Articles frequently have a section "X in popular culture". This is useful and valid information in a study of culture, particularly the relationship between traditionally "high" and "low" culture. It shows the wider influence of a notable artwork. No objection to merging it with Nighthawks or keeping it as a valid content fork. Tyrenius 00:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - dozens of "in popular culture" articles have been nominated and deleted over the last several months and debate about the appropriateness of such articles is ongoing. The simple existence of a type of article does not serve to justify the existence of every such article of the type. Otto4711 12:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Nor does the deletion of other articles serve to justify the deletion of more. I am adding my view to the debate. Tyrenius 19:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, precedent is looked at in these sorts of debates, which, by the way, no one suggested you shouldn't add your view to, regardless of your view's reliance on such poor arguments as "this is useful." Otto4711 03:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge notable attested instances to Nighthawks, discard the rest. Nighthawks is one of the more important paintings of the 20th century, at least in the U.S., and it is definitely worth noting times that it has been invoked thematically, even in jest. I lean toward the idea of a paragraph approach to such mentions instead of a bullet list, since it's too easy to add any minor half-reference. Otherwise, Delete. --Dhartung | Talk 07:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, per Tyrenius, very popular painting, lots of connections to film noir, and art history. Modernist 20:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a notably parodied painting. The introduction to a book of conference papers on parody uses Nighthawks as its example of parody in art, mentioning that a parody of the painting by Michael Bedard inspired a parody of its own (Parody: Dimensions and Perspectives, ed Beate Müller, ISBN 904200181X). Gerd Gemünden's Framed Visions: Popular Culture, Americanization, and the Contemporary German and Austrian Imagination discusses a number of parodies and homages, including a film by Wim Wenders and the Helnwein painting with Marilyn Monroe and James Dean. This story talks about the painting's influence, and more generally Hopper's influence, on film. The Banksy painting with the boxer-clad man throwing a chair through the diner window can certainly be sourced. The article will need some gardening, but it's not as bad as most "...in popular culture" articles I've seen. —Celithemis 20:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds like you've found some interesting and encyclopedic information - complete with sources! - that could be used in the Nighthawks article - and you wouldn't need to add every single time it's been parodied. See also my solution to the "in popular culture" wars. Morgan Wick 19:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment In a way, the numerous popular culture references and spoofs speak to the notability of the painting itself. To lose that would be to lose what makes this painting notable or memorable compared to other paintings by the same artist, with the same theme, or from the same period. It would perhaps help, though, to cite to a review of a movie that references it, rather than merely to note it's in the movie. That would at least establish the reviewer thought it was notable enough to mention. Шизомби 13:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge(and redirect) to main Nighthawks article per Tyrenius... Ranma9617 02:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Total trivia fork article. Just an indiscriminate list. Biggspowd 21:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge the lot to Nighthawks and let the consensus there establish which instances are "notable" and which are not. I find it incomprehensible that the nominator considers the list as a whole to be "loosely-related". The common thread and the blindingly obvious cultural references are directly to the iconic painting; and far from "loose". The fact that the parody-creators (eg: The Simpsons) and direct-expositors (eg: Ferris Beuller) were inspired to the point of using the painting as part of the set make it notable. I would agree in a parallel case that every mention of or reference to the Mona Lisa in popular culture (TV, movies, books, etc. - could be hundreds of them) need not be exhaustively mentioned at that article, or in a separate article. But it would seem that a carefully screened list of, say, the top 10 or 12 cases (as determined by consensus) would make sense for inclusion (eg: The DaVinci Code). Therefore I think a goal of settling on a dozen or so instances of "Nighthawk sightings" would be appropriate at the nighthawk article. Delete after completing the merger - redirect is not needed since it is extremely unlikely anyone would go to the trouble of typing all that up in the search box to get there. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 15:40, 25 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heroin in popular culture

Heroin in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - article has been tagged for cleanup for a year and a half, needing sourcing. This is in the main a sprawling indiscriminate list seeking to capture, without attribution, every song, book, film or TV show in which heroin plays some role. Given the lack of interest in bringing the article up to standards evidenced by its 19 month old tags, it's time for the article to go. Otto4711 13:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete. After peeling away the original research, all that's left is a laundry list of bare-mention trivia. --Eyrian 19:44, 21 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. KrakatoaKatie 12:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stugots

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

Delete - orphaned stub, so tagged for the last seven months. No real assertion of notability for this fictional boat either within the series or in the real world. Otto4711 13:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge - quite a few google hits but this is Sopranos-cruft and does not deserve its own article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:30, 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 (the image is kept, but is an orphan until some editor uses it) - Nabla 13:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woman in the mask

Woman in the mask (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure whether the subject of this article, who was injured in the July 7 London bombings, passes WP:BIO. She has been mentioned in the news but Wikipedia is not Wikinews - this article seems somewhat unencyclopedic - and individually this has no prospect for expansion beyond a stub and she is not notable in herself - it's the photograph that the article is about. Delete or failing that merge. See also Google UK hits for "woman in the mask" and "london". Also Google UK results for her name, barely 1,200 - and this will include Wikipedia and mirrors.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Her picture and story could be used to illustrate the effects of the bombing on individual people in the main article, but as a stand-alone page this is of dubious worth.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not independently notable. Newsworthy does not equal notability. Otto4711 13:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm unclear about the standards being applied in this case. The subject of the article is the photograph, not a person. Therefore references to WP:BIO are spurious. In fact, Wikipedia does not have specific notability standards for articles on photographs (most likely because we only have a few dozen articles about photographs and most of those are clear cases for inclusion). Falling back to the 'General notability guideline' we note that "Significant coverage" is in fact a consideration, negating Otto4711's comment above that newsworthy does not equal notability (remember the subject is the photograph, not Ms. Turrell). I think the article does satisfy the other points in the general notability list. I think the impact of the photo is fairly well established and that this shows notability. My problem with this article is that it purports to be not about a single photo, but about several photos, of which we are only shown one example. Moreover, we are not told the name of the photographer or given details about how the photo was created. If this article was limited to a single photograph and provided better documentation of the impact of the photos and awards given, then I think it would clearly merit inclusion. TheMindsEye 15:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - the article's lead sentence is "The woman in the mask" became the name used for the subject of several photos, some by the Associated Press, that became iconic of the 7 July 2005 London bombings. (emphasis added). This, plus the fact that the remainder of the article is devoted to the identity of the person, including such details as her name and occupation and the circumstances surrounding her injury and recovery, indicate strongly to me that the topic of the article is the person, not the photographs. Quoting from WP:N, Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. If there are reliable sources that demonstrate that the photograph has become notable in the long-term, beyond an initial short burst of news coverage, then an article that is actually about the photograph can be written that includes them, including significant information about the photograph itself rather than the person depicted in it. Otto4711 16:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. Has there been news coverage of the photograph? JJL 17:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article deals with a non-notable subject and would be nearly impossible to expand. Put the photograph into 7 July 2005 London bombings and delete the article on the photo. Escape Artist Swyer | Talk to me 18:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There are several articles on iconic photographs. The article isn't about her, but the image itself. See Identical Twins, Roselle, New Jersey, 1967 --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete article, keep picture Redirect and put the picture on the 7 July 2005 London bombings page. Kwsn^(Ni!) 23:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete She did not plant the bomb, and she recovered from her injuries, so her relation to the newsworth event is peripheral. Per WP:NOT "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." The 2 newspaper references are inadequate to show that her having a strange looking first-aid dressing placed on her face and being photographed makes her or her photos encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an archive of every person or image who made it into a couple of newspapers. If an adequate rationale can be stated, the image might be used to illustrate the article on the bombing, or to illustrate an article on current first-aid dressings in Britain. Edison 21:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/merge unless more can be said about the use of the picture, as RAN suggests; otherwise I go with Edison this time. DGG 00:49, 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. Peacent 02:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of birthdays in Emmerdale

List of birthdays in Emmerdale (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - lists of fictional birthdays? Perfect for an Emmerdale fansite, unsuitable for an encyclopedia. If the individual character has an article then post the information there, but a standalone article is excessive. Otto4711 12:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:IINFO--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Otto Lugnuts 13:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, how did I miss this one? Agree with the nominator. --Tone 16:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete sheesh. JJL 17:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - listfluff! Rgds, --Trident13 20:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & per WP:FICT. Carlossuarez46 21:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and as noted above. Bearian 02:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - information can go on relevant character articles. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete FancruftLegalbeaver 17:19, 21 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. Walton^talk 16:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yanni Theodoridis

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

Completely unsourced for over a year, in total 24 google hits including Wikipedia and no google news, books or scholar hits. Should probably be considered 'unverifiable' or at least not notable. Addhoc 11:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete If that's true, delete as non-notable musician.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment the external links may not even be about him. In fact there are NO non-Wikipedia-related ghits about him as far as I can see. Possible hoax. Bear in mind however that the Greek language uses a different alphabet from the English language and the article may be mistitled.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment if you look at the creator's contributions, you'll see that he made quite a few edits to Greece-related articles, even George Michael (an ethnic Greek). However this does not mean that this isn't a hoax. In fact, this could be a hoax of the magnitude of Henryk Batuta.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have a feeling a post-war Greek jazz musician may not have a lot of Ghits whether he's notable or not. I've put a call in on the Greece Wikiproject. --Charlene 01:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment In response to Charlene's notice above, I did a search on the Greek Google site and I cam up with a few hits for this person as a Jazz musician. There is another Yanni Theodoridis (or more accurately in Greek: Γιάννης Θεοδωρίδης) with a multitude of hits but, it is a for a PhD in Psychology. --Kimon^talk 14:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment His phone number is 0030-210-8946240, now you can call and talk with him.It is a real person,unlike Batuta.
  • Comment Being a real person alone does not in itself merit that the article should be kept.-

h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Call him to verify it.What do you expect?

I'm suggesting the content of the article cannot be verified using reliable published sources. Addhoc 11:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. A biographical article about a living person that includes no reliable sources risks being incorrect. There are just barely enough Google hits to show that a musician of that time did exist and played the trumpet (so it's not a hoax). Lack of hits on Greek Google shows there's not much more we can do with this. Notability of musicians is usually shown through WP:MUSIC, and he doesn't meet those criteria. The claims for his 'legendary status' seem way over the top given the lack of sources. EdJohnston 16:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• CommentA person that doesn't have a website and is not active anymore means that he was not worthy in his time? Remember that the worldwide internet is a story barely 10 years old.And at the end, is musician any of you? How you can judge if he's notable or not? Squezzed

Yup, that's a reasonable question. Eventually google books will have a scanned copy of virtually every book ever published and this should make internet searches a more viable means of establishing notability. If you're interested, the second external link given in the article gives him a very brief mention using the alternate spelling of Giannis Theodoridis. Addhoc 17:27, 24 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 05:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Work time-out

Work time-out (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Looks like either a hoax or original research, no sources and cannot find any to support existence of this concept Davewild 11:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. WP:NN - no WP:RS, only WP:OP. --Evb-wiki 13:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete - possibly valid/notable concept but WP:OR, WP:RS are major issues.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. IP198 21:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Neologism or hoax. Bearian 02:02, 21 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. Mangojuice^talk 16:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who Killed Tom King?

Who Killed Tom King? (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• Delete - Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. AlanSmith17 12:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Nothing like this plot had ever been done before, it contains a full guide, which would not fit in the Emmerdale article. Thenthornthing 11:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Exceptionally weak keep - only because it contains some details about the out-of-universe aspects of the storyline. However, the obsessive level of in-universe detail is a clear violation of style guidelines and the article needs a massive re-write to emphasise the out-of-universe impact and reduce the plot details by about 75-80%. If the article is kept but not re-written, I would support deletion when it's nominated again. Otto4711 12:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Thenthornthing, as much as I hate Emmerdale, this storyline was the first "interactive plot" in Britain I believe. Bravedog 16:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep If the first of its kind in the UK claims are true, then I see no problem. However, it is very, very in universe, and needs to be hacked down a lot if it is kept. Kwsn^(Ni!) 20:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as absurdly detailed and wholly inappropriate. So non-encyclopedic that it might be best to start again. DGG
• Comment This is a nightly soap opera comprising oif over 300 (yes 300!!!) episodes each year. It is hardly a shorter 23 episode run of a US series. The programme covers so many minor and dragged out storylines to fill as padding throughout the year. This is just one of them. In a ratings ploy the producers plugged it alot - just as they did with the death of Trisha, plane crash, increase to 5 eps a week etc. As I stated before this has to go or be merged into the main Emmerdale article AlanSmith17 11:21, 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. Tyrenius 03:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of The Colbys episodes

List of The Colbys episodes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete Wikipedia is not a TV guide. ListcruftAlanSmith17 12:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as a reasonable entry in the well-established structure of lists of television episodes. See WP:EPISODE. Otto4711 12:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as above; this list is neither cruft nor anything like a TV Guide-style listing, this nom is misguided. TAnthony 13:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as there is clear precedent for articles such as this instead of trying to roll this information into the main article (and far beyond the scope of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). 23skidoo 01:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with The Colbys, an article that is not so lengthy that it can't acommodate the episode list. Oddly, The Colbys does not include an episode list, and List of The Colbys episodes does not include a statement about what The Colbys was. Let's join the two. Mandsford 02:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You have a point about the article size, and I prefer merging to deletion, but articles aren't meant to incorporate lists (especially this long); doing so would be counterproductive to the article ever improving in quality/status. And for the record, most episode lists don't have much in the way of describing the parent series, they just provide the appropriate link back (assuming most readers will have arrived there from the main article). TAnthony 04:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EPISODE "Such pages must still be notable, and contain out-of-universe context, and not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew" AlanSmith17 11:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, notability, the never-ending struggle! I would argue that the episodes are notable because the show itself is, and all the episode lists I can think of don't contain much more info than this (out-of-universe context?! It's a LIST). There are airdates listed, and I will actually put in short episode summaries when I have a little time and I imagine that will make the list more acceptable. TAnthony 17:08, 21 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. Consensus clearly in favour of this - early and non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 18:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List_of_American_Heiress_episodes

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

Delete Wikipedia is not a TV guide

• Keep as a reasonable entry in the well-established structure of lists of television episodes. See WP:EPISODE. Otto4711 12:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a summery of the series. Although, not complete, the show is still currently running.
• Keep per above comments. Bravedog 16:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I know it's not the best reason, but there are lists of episodes of lots of other shows. Useight 22:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as there is clear precedent for articles such as this instead of trying to roll this information into the main article (and far beyond the scope of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). 23skidoo 01:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'm glad to see someone brave enough to recommend the deletion of a list of episodes of a TV series. First, this type of thing is well-covered in the episode guides that are part of the show's website and the websites by fans. Second, Wikipedia shouldn't be a TV guide; unfortunately, it is, and that's one of its less endearing qualities. This is typical of deletion debates..."List of Japanese corporations"- bad!; "List of episodes of American Heiress"-- good! (And as a person who forgot to sign the first time, please sign your name if you're wanting to delete someone else's work... whether you agree or disagree with the article, it's not fair to the author if you remain unidentified).Mandsford 02:32, 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 05:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Przemysław Gidel

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

Non notable as per WP:BIO: a very amateur youth league, no achievements (even local). —Visor (talk · contribs) 11:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, sounds like local hero, an equivalent of college basketball star; soccer at that stage is not professional. greg park avenue 15:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Every week while pruning the new articles list I see a lot of sportsman: apparently being hired by the smallest club out there or competing in the tiniest tournament makes a person notable for some. This is a good example of what I call sportsbiocruft. It would be good to estabilish a precedence and delete them, considering that we have a much stricter criteria for inclusion for most other groups.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. --  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all the arguments made that junior athletes such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke (second nomination) just aren't notable. If one-time state record holders aren't notable, then just playing on a team doesn't make one notable. Edison 21:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: According to Polish Wikipedia, klasa okręgowa is a 5th (6th in some voivodeships) league in Polish football (soccer). —Visor (talk · contribs) 08:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, absolutely nothing notable in this article. Hero? Punkmorten 10:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The club he plays for are notable, but he is clearlyy not playing for their first team and presumably has not done so thus far as he appears to be playing for their Youth team. I doubt he is a local hero, just a case of a footballer being added too soon. Also a goalkeeper who has scored 5 goals yet no clarification as to how? ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 23:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How? While executing direct free kick, penalty kick or its series, I guess. See Peter Schmeichel with 10 scores. greg park avenue 16:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - as per nomination. Daemonic Kangaroo 19:05, 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 05:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wojciech Jurak

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

Non notable as per WP:BIO: a very amateur youth league, no achievements. —Visor (talk · contribs) 11:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, sounds like local hero, an equivalent of college basketball star; soccer at that stage is not professional. greg park avenue 15:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Visor. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. --  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all the arguments made that junior athletes such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke (second nomination) just aren't notable. If former state record holders aren't notable, then just playing on a team doesn't make one notable. Edison 21:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: According to Polish Wikipedia, klasa okręgowa is a 5th (6th in some voivodeships) league in Polish football (soccer). —Visor (talk · contribs) 08:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, absolutely nothing notable in this article. Hero? Punkmorten 10:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons as Przemysław Gidel, and the same again, this does not come across as a case of a local hero, just a footballer being added too soon, and there is no comparison with a college (presumably in USA) basketball player.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 23:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as per nomination. Daemonic Kangaroo 19:06, 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 redirect to Football hooliganism#Poland; already merged and section links to the transwiki. Sr13 05:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ustawka

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

A neologism/slang. Delete as per WP:NEO: no original research, not verifiable and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (Optionally move to Football fight.) —Visor (talk · contribs) 10:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:NEO. Jogers (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Violence in sports or Hooliganism, and use phonetic spelling "Ustavka" with explanation of its meaning - "ustawianie meczow" (pre-staging the games). greg park avenue 16:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Greg if referenced, delete otherwise.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per greg park avenue. --Lysy^talk 12:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. --  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I have added the details to the article Football hooliganism as these are apparently football related fights, and that article is where this information is most appropriate. The articles Violence in sports and Hooliganism are general articles whilst the football hooliganism article is specifically about exactly this sort of topic. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. There has been another incident during second game of semifinals for Europe's Cup between Widzew Łódź and Juventus Torino in Łódź, Poland, on April 20th 1983, when a drunk fan tossed a bottle hitting the line umpire in his head. The game was suspended for about 20-30 minutes while the umpire was being treated on scene. The alleged perpetrator was found by militia and paraded through the stadium led by six heavily armed guards, though, the common opinion was that they've got the wrong guy. Sorry, I couldn't find any references on web, too long time ago. greg park avenue 15:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NEO Marcin Suwalczan [our talk] 09:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, pal, but this is not Polish wikipedia and mere voting doesn't count here. You must give your reasons. greg park avenue 15:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

But he already did it. WP:NEO states about original research, verifiability and WP:WINAD. 'Ustawka' article fails all mentioned criteria. Visor (talk · contribs) 16:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. He did, however, some explanation in black ink would be helpuful. Otherwise it's just a guessing game and not everyone is up to it. greg park avenue 18:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki to wiktionary and then redirect to Football hooliganism#Poland as Tangerines has already done the merge. John Vandenberg 10:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note Transwikied to Wiktionary, see wikt:ustawka. Visor (talk · contribs) 14:22, 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. Peacent 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 7 Day Theory (2nd nomination)

7 Day Theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Ridiculous article that is pure nonsense and as unencyclopedic as one could imagine an article being. RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 05:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as a massive WP:OR violation. No reliable sources quoted, no assertion of notability. -- Kesh 05:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete That's not my article, but I am warring tired of trying to make that article look decient. Too many times, I tried to make this into Seven Day Theory, I tried to place reasonable information in the article, and tried to compromise with unwilling users. Go ahead, I am tired of these horrible articles with lack of creativity as explained in originality. LILVOKA 06:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Looks like a hoax to me. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 07:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it's something someone appears to have made up, and it appears to be numerology. No sources, totally unencyclopedic. It's no Paul is dead. --Haemo 07:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it may not be a, but it is complete WP:OR, has no references, and pure unencyclopedic nonsense. east.718 08:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The nominator followed improper procedure in sending this to AfD, here's the first nomination. east.718 08:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Grumble. I'll fix this. --Haemo 10:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's done; I hope no one complains about the re-bumping of this. --Haemo 10:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, missed that, sorry.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 14:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, I am somewhat surprised this survived two nominations. Basically an unsourced collection of trivia, and I see no reliable sources talking about this theory. J Milburn 11:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- WP:OR Thunderwing 11:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Crunch13 14:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — Interesting, but not verifiable. WP:OR, and no sources. *Cremepuff222* 18:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-- Sorry, but as someone who used to think that his life was filled with references to the numbers 7 and 11, I can say that one can manipulate numbers as much as it takes to find a pattern... including getting a job at a Seven-11, living in a place where the highway numbers added up to 7 and 11, etc.... It ranks up there (or down there) with the Bible Code.
• Delete albeit reluctantly. I maintain that, to a certain sector of society, this is a notable conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, it's that self-same sector which has made the article practically unusable and full of unsourced original research. Last time round, I tried to clean it up and introduce some kind of sanity into the thing, but this time around I don't think it can be done. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I THINK THINK THIS ARTICLE SHOULD STAY FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS

• THE INFORMATION IN THERE IS CORRECT
• ITS TRUE ITS A CONSPIRACY THEORY
• IF YOU DO ALL IT SAYS LIKE LISTEN TO THE SONG OR DO THE THE MATH ALL THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT
• TRUE, YOU MIGH NOT LIKE THE ARTICLE BUT THERES ALOT OF PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY LIKE THIS PAGE SO PLEASE DON'T DELETE THE PAGE SINCE PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIKE IT
• IT SHOULD STAY BECAUSE THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT BUT THE THING IS, YOU JUST CAN'T FIND THE INFORMATION ANYWHERE ELSE SINCE ALL THIS IS DONE USING MATH.
• SO PLEASE CONSIDER THIA AND SAVE THIS PAGE—Preceding unsigned comment added by Visalia (talk • contribs)

In response to those claims: (1) There's actually no proof that the information is correct (either in the sense that the conspiracy is true or in the sense that several of the things being claimed are true). (2) See the first response. (3) See the first response. (4) Whether or not we "like" the page isn't (or shouldn't be) relevant for those of us advocating deletion. What matters is whether or not the information is verifiable and supported by reliable sources, which currently it is not. (5) Where are the sources showing that people have done this? Without them, it's original research. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Original research, bad numerology. Edward321 03:37, 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.

[edit] Allied occupation of_Europe

The result was No consensus. Vassyana 10:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Allied occupation of_Europe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is a WP:POINT attempt to artificially lump together Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe 1939-1991 and Allied occupation of Germany 1945-1955, apparently in attempt to reduce the significance of the former. It had an associated category; I went through the category and found all its entries better described by one (and in few cases both) of these more precise categories.

In its current form, the article is non-salvageable WP:OR and ought to be deleted. Digwuren 09:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Keep This article is the main article for the Category:Allied occupation of Europe.

Bad faith nomination for two reasons:

1. User has also removed 80+ articles from the related category Category:Allied occupation of Europe. The nominator has a history of removing tens of backlinks to articles, and then taking them to AfD, claiming thet they should be deleted, as no article links to them. The nominator should have waited for the outcome of this process, before taking such desruptive action.
2. The nomination is part of a personal vendetta by the nominator, whose contributions to Wikipedia so far are limited to WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:ATTACK, WP:POV, WP:3RR, WP:TROLL and other forms of disruptions. The POV he is trying to push is narrow nationalistic agenda of "my country was more occupied then yours", or more generally "some countries of Europe were liberated by the Western Allies, while others were occupied by the Soviet Union", a nonfactual rewrite of the history of WWII and the Holocaust.

Also, it seems to be generally agreed that the nominator is headed for WP:ARBCOM and most likelly a WP:BAN well, I do not really like the prejudge what the com might or might not do. -- Petri Krohn 10:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. (Some of the former content of Category:Allied occupation of Europe has been placed in Category:Allied occupation of Germany and Category:Soviet occupation, the later is classic WP:POV. Both of these cats are now uncategorized.) -- Petri Krohn 10:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. The article and the related category is under attack and revert warring by the nominator. Before placing judgement, please see the hitories of the article, the related category and the article space edits by the nominator. -- Petri Krohn 14:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Seems the only person conducting a vendetta is Petri Krohn against ethnic Estonian editors generally, check out this page here: User:Petri_Krohn/Evidence and his efforts to get these people banned as sock puppets en masse: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Digwuren. Martintg 12:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• If you pardon my NEO, I would call the latter event the Big Sock Fishing. Digwuren 12:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• If Petri thinks that it is time for WP:ARBCOM then I would suggest him to start it.--Staberinde 15:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Obviously, he does not believe such an arbitration would go his way, and is thus seeking for extra-political means to get rid of people he doesn't like. Digwuren 08:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep- lead article for the Allied occupation categories Thunderwing 11:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that's definitely an idea. Let's create category: Estonian_Nuclear_Warfare_Against_USA, and article for it. Although the topic is total fantazy of a sick horse, the category justifies the article and vice versa. Suva 11:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - legitimate article although scrappily written at present. PatGallacher 11:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - an overview of the occupation forces in post ww2 europe is neededAnonimu 12:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• These forces fall into two rather distinct categories, and are thus covered. Take a look at Category:Soviet occupation and Category:Allied occupation of Germany. Digwuren 12:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What about austria, italy, iceland, denmark... all go in "allied occupation of Germany"?Anonimu 13:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Occupation of Austria, a partner of Germany in Anschluß and a long-time cultural relative, belongs to Category:Allied occupation of Germany. Brief presence of Allied forces in the immediate aftermath of World War II belong in the WWII-related articles, such as ... let me think ... perhaps aftermath of World War II. Digwuren 14:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention Greenland, the Faroe Islands and all the forces stationed in Western Europe in support of the "offical" occupation forces in Berlin until 1991. In fact there were quite many of these in category:Allied occupation of_Europe before the cat was nuked by the nom. -- Petri Krohn 14:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There has been no Allied occupation of Germany since 1955 when Bonn-Paris conventions entered into force. Since then, West Germany has been sovereign, and the American military bases on its soil are there in accordance with corresponding international treaties, to which West Germany itself is a party. (Don't forget to take a look at North Atlantic Treaty, to which Germany has been a party since the Bonn-Paris conventions restored its sovereign power to participate in international relations.) The remaining occupation in the East Germany was a clear-cut case of Soviet occupation of parts of Germany; no Four Powers' activity was in it whatsoever.

Your inclusion of Greenland and Faroe Islands are just red herring. But what else is new? Digwuren 14:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a red herring: You removed the category from British occupation of the Faroe Islands in World War II. I do not remember if we also had an article on the occupation of Greenland. I cannot find it, as you obviously have removed the category, if there ever was one. -- Petri Krohn 08:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. This is a transparent attempt to create a moral equivalence between the brutal Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe (and the imposition of Communism there, for decades), and the US/UK/French occupation of Germany and Austria in 1945-1955 (which led to the Wirtschaftswunder, instead). As such, it's misleading, and only meant to prove a point (whatever the point is, I don't really care). Turgidson 13:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Split per Turgidson. Should be deleted or split into two articles, one about USA, UK and co actions in Western Europe and other one about USSR doings in Eastern-Europe. Putting them together in one article is ridiculous.--Staberinde 15:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Now as I have little time I explain my point little more in detail. Biggest problem with article is that it puts together occupations during World War II and occupation after World War II. Concept of Allies of World War II applies after end of war only to occupation of Germany and Austria which main allies did jointly(although even there cooperation was quite "problematic"), in everythere else they acted independently and trying to make some arbitary connections is breaking WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Also could anyone explain to me how Allies could occupy Benelux, Greece or Palestine(British colony) then those were also members of Allies?--Staberinde 10:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: This article needs a POV cleanup. It is a one-sided view, weighted to the "occupation" viewpoint. — ERcheck (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What is the other side? The liberation of Europe? -- Petri Krohn 16:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• keep and rename to Allied occupation in Europe following World War II to cover the entire subject of World War II allies (Western and Soviet) occupations--which did not exist in a vacuum from each other. Hmains 15:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Petri's arguments seem to be convincing. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - this is not a good article at present, but is useful as a partner article to those on the Allied Occupations of Germany and Austria. There is a lot of POV in the article, but the solution to that is to edit it out, not to delete the article. If the nominator has deleted unjustifiably 80 articles from the related category, should he not be considered for adminstrative action? Peterkingiron 17:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - largely unreferenced, or taken from very biased sources. Plus, we have relevant articles for actual occupations of individual countries, so this is a transparent content fork. Biruitorul 18:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's not as much a fork as an unfork -- an unsourced synthesis of several distinct categories into one Big Ball of Mud. The obvious motivation is to deny that Soviet occupation was real, and qualitatively distinct from the occupation of what became sovereign West Germany and neutral Austria. Luckily, the Truth(tm) has Google on its side: [25] yields 475,000 results referring material from Soviet occcupation of Austria to Soviet war in Afghanistan, and things like the Kiev Museum of Soviet Occupation inbetween. Digwuren 08:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• • This is not a content fork, but a main article for the category for the "articles for actual occupations of individual countries". The invividual articles should be referenced from this article, with some content duplicated. -- Petri Krohn 07:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but only if it is immediately made the target of a significant improvement campaign. It's a valid historical concept and can be presented quite neutrally and encyclopedically, but I agree that what it currently is is a bunch of unreferenced POV nonsense. Renovate, don't delete. K. Lásztocska 01:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep clearly an article with this title is needed; how it handles its subject matter is another matter. JJL 17:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Split - awfully POV at present, and the limited information could be split into East/West or even specific country based articles. Rgds, --Trident13 20:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Split - Title is wrong, both France and Spain are significant parts of Europe and they were not occupied by the Allies. In fact Frane was one of the occupying powers in Germany, ditto for the UK. Ireland, Switzerland and Sweden were not occupied either. To say the Allies occupied Europe is not correct. So split and merge sections into country specific articles, such as Allied occupation of Germany, US occupation of Iceland, Soviet occupation of Poland, etc. Martintg 21:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. This article is really a POV fork as per reasons of Turgidson: "to create a moral equivalence between the brutal Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe (and the imposition of Communism there, for decades), and the US/UK/French occupation of Germany and Austria in 1945-1955 (which led to the Wirtschaftswunder, instead)". Martintg 21:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

moral is against NPOVAnonimu 21:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Come again? Biruitorul 04:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep seems to be a valid main article for many other post WW2 articles Alex Bakharev 21:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep On the WWII page, everybody always complains we have too much info in that article, and need to merge it into other articles. Many articles that are recently made are POV, it takes time to work them out.--LtWinters 00:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• The article really just duplicates existing country level occupation articles, at best it is merely a category, it adds no extra information that should be available in the individual country articles. It really is a content fork. Martintg 00:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a good summarization of all those countries' after the war, instead of chunks of information taking an hour to read on each one. Some of the countries listed don't even have those articles on them. And you are saying this is a category, we there are many individual articles, well I mean you could say the same of the WWII article and that we don't need it because there are subcategory articles for each topic mentioned in the WWII article. --LtWinters 13:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, improve and expand. First point in favour of keeping: since one guy's POV is another guy's NPOV, POV is not really a good reason to delete articles - only if they cannot be improved or expanded to get rid of it, deletion or merger is a possible way out. Looking at this article it is so obvious that improvement is perfectly possible that I agree this is a bad faith nomination. Second, who is to say that lumping together what the USSR and the Anglosaxons did in 1945 was not comparable. Example one: King Leopold III of Belgium is on record as having said that Americans and British (actually most of the first entrants in Belgium were Canadians) coming to Belgium in 1944 was an occupation, and not a liberation. Example two: I know people who even today consider the arrival of Russian troops a liberation, and their subsequent replacement by Polish ones an occupation. Hint: it is to do with religion. (Zełwągi) And yes, there is a second point I want to make for keeping this: most of this end-of the war stuff is now either in a limited number of articles that are getting too long, or in a string of stubs which usually start with the nice POV word "Massacre". Congratulations to Petri Krohn on this one: he really hit the jackpot big time. This article could solve a lot of the problems we are having, by incorporating that information. --Pan Gerwazy 14:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. King Leopold II of Belgium died on December 17, 1909. Where and when did he make the alleged statement about "Americans and British ... coming to Belgium in 1944"? Turgidson 16:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see that you changed now to King Leopold III of Belgium. Same question, though: where and when did he make the alleged statement? Is there a source for that? Turgidson 16:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a long list of articles where a particular brand of users seem to be very fast on the draw. Now for the occupation: I know that this is a very difficult part of Belgian history, which nobody really wants to live through again (people old enough to be interested do not write blogs or create websites). But there are books about it and Maurice Dewilde in his TV series paid a lot of attention to this political testament of Leopold III. Of course, they can be traced on the web, if you know Dutch or French: "Leopold nam ook een redelijk negatieve houding aan tegenover de geallieerden, die hij beschreef als "les autorités occupantes".[134]" 134 (at [26] this) gives links to several books in French and Dutch. There is no doubt whatsoever that he used "occupants" and that word later came back to haunt him and his supporters during the Royal Question (unfortunately, there is no English or German article on that constitutional crisis, only Dutch and French - and only the Dutch article mentions the testament - work to be done)--Pan Gerwazy 17:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "particular brand of user", " very fast on the draw" -- is that a criticism of my drawing attention to your incongruous statement about Leopold II? As for what Leopold III may or may not have said in his "political testament" (I still do not see any reliable reference for that claim, just some kind of a blog, and sorry, I can't read Dutch), I don't see how this affects one way or another the case for or against the article under discussion. Turgidson 18:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How is this related to the issue at hand? Why don't you take this to Talk:Leopold III of Belgium. -- Petri Krohn 19:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• delete b/c this article was created by copying fragments from already existing WP articles (compare Aftermath of World War II). This article is an example of selective soursing from WP articles to create a virtually new article supporting a certain POV. I don't care if the POV is legitimate or not, this style of writing (copying from sourses without any thought about how the content is presented in the encyclopedia as a whole) is at the level of 7th grade at best. :Dc76 10:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. See results of google scholar search: [27]. There is no such thing as allied occupation of Europe. It was invented in Wikipedia.Biophys 05:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

The article needs to balance between several POVs. The WWII occupation cannot be discussed separately from the liberation of Europe. As an example, we now have an article, with a POV title Soviet occupation of Romania, which also covers the events of the liberation of Romania. This article tries to avoid this POV, by pointing out (in the very first sentence), that the foreign troops entered Europe as liberatrors. Another POV issue is what constitutes an occupation? Are foreign troops stationed by agreement in a souvereign member state of the United Nations occupation forces? There is a point of view that such toops are in fact occupation. We should however avoid stating this as the only interpretation. On the other hand, the occupation of Berlin only ended in 1991, it can be argued, that troops outside Berlin and Germany, but in support of the front line troops also constituted part of an occupation. -- Petri Krohn 16:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S - There are strong arguments presented in Talk:Soviet occupation of Romania (and archives), that for something to be called an occupation, it does not have to be a military occupation in the strict sense. -- Petri Krohn 17:49, 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.