Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 19

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sean William @ 02:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2011 IFAF World Cup

2011 IFAF World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is simply a list of cities which have large football stadiums. It is not cited, and , in my opinion, it cannot be cited due to the fact that there has been no information about this subject. I think this article will be verifiable in 3 years, but it is currently baseless specuulation. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 20:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as original research, without prejudice to recreation come 2009. YechielMan 23:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete An article that lists the Faroe Islands as a possible host for an American football tournament is indeed highly speculative. Fails WP:RS and has twinges of failing WP:OR. Caknuck 00:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V, WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL--JForget 01:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone. Maxamegalon2000 05:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Replace this crystal ball with a snowball. --Evb-wiki 12:10, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gandhi Information Center

Gandhi Information Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Organization asserts notability, however, article has existed since August of 2005, and has no verified independent reliable sources which establishes its notability. The closest I can find are webpages with link exchanges and similar non-reliable methods. Most recently, User:Chrbartolf, whom I assume is its' Executive Director Christian Bartolf (and whose own bio article is currently being discussed at AfD on notability grounds,) has been spuriously removing {{fact}} and {{notability}} tags. This article has had long enough to establish its notability from independent sources with the possibility for assistance from a (presumed) intimately involved source. It thus fails WP:CORP. Delete. LaughingVulcan 00:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No reliable sources to show notability, fails WP:CORP. -- Kesh 02:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• My opinion. I've been the chief admin watching this page. Most of that job has involved minimizing "vanispamcruft". While I appreciate the efforts of the subject in promoting the work of Ghandi, no matter how commendable those efforts may be the fact remains that this organization has not met our current notability standards. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I think you should think about your view on "notability standards". Excuse me for removing tags: I have not been too familiar with Wikipedia's procedures, rules and regulations, because I am a newby. You find on the discussion page official web sources of Berlin. They can be added easily. Perhaps you should be more helpful as "chief admin", even if you do not recommend "those efforts", or else pass it over, "Will Beback". Chrbartolf 20 June 2007

Now hopefully the many additions and changes of the website will suffice. Chrbartolf 20 June 2007

Reply I can appreciate that you have put much effort into the article, and also speaking for its' notability on its' Talk page. However, this is not just "Will Beback's view," or my view. It is the view of the guideline of Notability and its' daughter page of corporate and organizational notability. Those guidelines have been arrived at by consensus on Wikipedia. Until they change, the fact remains that the primary way to demonstrate notability is through reliable secondary sources which are independent of any Conflict of Interest. Some examples:

• The Doctors Without Borders article cites "Bortolotti, Dan (2004). Hope in Hell: Inside the World of Doctors Without Borders, Firefly Books. ISBN 1552978656."
• The Nobel Prize article cites "Nobel Prize. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved April 1, 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9056008", and "Golden, F.: "The worst and the brightest", TIME magazine, 16 October 2000."
• The Bill_and_Melinda_Gates_Foundation article's references section seems especially well done, with multiple source both inside and outside their foundation (including references from CNN and Money magazine.

I can appreciate what you have said in the Talk page, that it is hard for a nonprofit or charitable organization to dig up reliable secondary sourcing. (My use of the above were from, admittitedly, very high-profile organizations whose notability probably would not be in dispute even if they had no references.) However, the question still remains: Where are the multiple independent secondary sources written primarily about the Gandhi Information Center which establish its' notability? (And please note, I have checked every link you've provided in the article and its Talk page - except that I do not read German, so I can't translate the Berlin plaque dedication-done below, run a fairly targeted Google Search, and hit other web search sources. Even though it's not my responsbility to source your article. I don't see any so far, though I am willing to be corrected.) LaughingVulcan 12:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Everyone can register his institution on the official Berlin-website: http://www.berlin.de/gewusst-wo/eintrag1.php

So that is not a question of notability. The centers homepage says, it has around 100 members. Under German WP Standards a Corporation as an indication is notable by size, when it has 1000 members or employees. I think you are not that much a newby as you are trying to make others think of you. I also believe, that you know very well, why there is no article in the German WP. And I am afraid that there are some more autobiographers hiding in the English WP, who are comparable to this case.--Kresspahl 12:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

...and in Berlin there is only a POBox and no premises except Bartolf's private home. And no entry with a phone book as www.telefonbuch.de ...

--Kresspahl 14:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• translation perhaps a translation of all the German titles etc & key phrase can be added, as briefly as possible. DGG 23:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

... just done so - thanks to your advice ... Chrbartolf 21 June 2007

• Delete - lacks reliable sources -- Whpq 14:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"The Federal Government has made fighting right-wing extremism a domestic policy priority, because intolerance, racism and xenophobia upset the internal balance of a democratic society. Although the overwhelming majority of people living in Germany reject right-wing and xenophobic activity, this anti-social behaviour needs to be actively confronted. In view of the variety of factors which can contribute to right-wing extremist ideas and behaviour, the Federal Government combines an active human rights policy with measures to strengthen civil society and social engagement and to encourage the integration of foreigners, as well as measures targeting right-wing extremists and their milieu. For more information (in German): Bündnis für Demokratie und Toleranz (Alliance for Democracy and Tolerance) (...)" (website of the Federal Ministry of the Interior of the German government: http://www.bmi.bund.de/cln_028/nn_122730/Internet/Content/Themen/Innere__Sicherheit__allgemein/PolitischeZiele/Racism__and__xenophobia.html Chrbartolf 22 June 2007

Just for explanation: the "Bündnis für Demokratie und Toleranz (Alliance for Democracy and Tolerance)" was founded by the German government on 23 May 2000 (day of the German Constitution). Gandhi Information Center is a member of it, active in the field "prevention of violence". Chrbartolf 23 June 2007

Just for information: The "Alliance for Democracy and Tolerance" now is an independent organisation linked to the Federal Ministry of the Interior of the German government ("eine selbstaendige Organisation im Geschaeftsbereich des Bundesministeriums des Inneren"). The Gandhi Information Center's activity focus ("nonviolence" and "prevention of violence") and status (non-profit society - "gemeinnuetziger Verein") qualified it to be accepted as member of this Alliance. In addition, the Gandhi Information Center is a non-governmental organisation which has actively participated in the German government Federal Foreign Office's 16th and 17th 2007 "Forum Global Issues". Chrbartolf 23 June 2007

Delete. Per a lot of things above. Astrale01^talk_contribs 18:48, 26 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. Bucketsofg 02:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saint John Sharks

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

Lack of asserted notability. Cannot determine whether its a professional or amateur league. Flibirigit 23:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete to the best of my knowledge, there are no professional ball hockey leagues. Non-notable recreational team. Resolute 23:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of sources to establish notability. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 23:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. --Djsasso 01:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete no more notable than a slo-pitch team. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 01:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as it is non-notable and lacking in terms of references. 70.72.171.181 02:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per everything above. — Wenli 02:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Lack of sources. oysterguitarist~Talk 03:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira 05:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Google search returns 6 hits, all for the team web-site which doesn't even have its own home URL. Does not appear to meet WP:ORG requirements for secondary sources. ColtsScore 14:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This appears to be an anon's agenda inspired creation. GoodDay 20:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Pparazorback 01:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as cruft, non-notable. Bearian 02:12, 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 with a recommendation to merge the article into The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Pax:Vobiscum 15:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benevolent Dictator for Life

Benevolent Dictator for Life (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Oh come on. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide. Delete, or at least move to another Wikimedia Project. This isn't encyclopedic. ~ Wikihermit 23:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep about a concept, with adequate sources. (The article is not about whom one might think it is, but I'd say keep even if it were) DGG 01:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

• Merge This concept seems primarily associated with The Cathedral and the Bazaar, and I suggest it be merged there. I don't see much to convince me it's significantly independent of the original essay. FrozenPurpleCube 02:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Per above. oysterguitarist~Talk 03:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect/"skim and merge" to Guido van Rossum.--Chealer 12:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• I think that should either be merged with The Cathedral and the Bazaar or left as an article. Andrew D White 13:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. Capmango 17:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Cwolfsheep 05:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Benevolent dictator#Open source "benevolent dictators". Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 14:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete after merging, per above. -- Bigwyrm 03:44, 26 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. Already transwiki'd to the Commons. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 22:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery of Heads of State Standards

Transwikied to the Wikimedia Commons. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:NOT a gallery of images. Resurgent insurgent 00:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, useful images of flags. -N 01:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per above. oysterguitarist~Talk 03:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:USEFUL is not alone justification to keep an article. There is strong precedent for allowing this content to be accessed via Commons rather than Wikipedia itself. --Dhartung | Talk 06:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as wiki is not an image gallery. The flags would make sense in the conxt of articles for the particular country of office which it represents. -- Whpq 14:46, 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. Sr13 10:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bytch Killa: Houston's Finest Autobiography

Bytch Killa: Houston's Finest Autobiography (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The Man Without a Face (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

These articles are sourced entirely from Houston Hype Magazine--a magazine that I cannot find any evidence of existing through Google or library databases. Other than Wikipedia, I find a fanboard mention of Man Without a Face[1], which cites our article as the announcement of Houston's Finest Autobiography. If this is not a hoax, there are real notability and verifiability concerns to deal with. Unless these concerns can be met, delete. NickelShoe (Talk) 23:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Evb-wiki 23:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - crystal ball, and concerns on reliable sourcing -- Whpq 14:46, 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. Two major problems: The first paragraph is completely synthesis, and the second half of the article defined where "good will" was used, rather than defining it. Sr13 04:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good will (philosophy)

Good will (philosophy) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article has the feel of original research. The creator of this article previously created good sense as a POV fork of common sense (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good sense), and this article looks like an attempt to do the same thing: note the sentence in the intro "This is referred to as good sense (practical judgement) or just plain common sense." Any valid philosophical content is likely to be better covered in other articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I believe the person nominating this for deletion missed the main point of the article: Good Will is based on the concept of the Golden Rule.--Doug ^talk 23:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. While a couple of concepts are sourced the assimilation of this material to support the article is strained and slanted. It fails WP:NPOV and contains conclusory assertions that appear to be based on WP:OR. --Evb-wiki 23:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• A good way to show Good Will is to give generous credit to other people and not to take much credit on a project yourself, even if you did most of the work. This will retain their Good Will and get them to back you on your next project. Good will is being lavish in distributing recognition to other people, especially those that helped you considerably. - since when did WP become the place to go to for such advice? The whole page is WP:OR. There was also a line Good Will is to always assume good faith on the part of the other person's intentions. Since when did WP guidelines start appearing in articles? Out and out delete xC | ☎ 04:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.Dilawar (t) 17:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - the article has been completely reworked.--Doug ^talk 12:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR, and rather confused OR at that. Deor 13:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment from nominator. The article has been reworked somewhat, but it's still WP:OR. Much of the cited material doesn't even mention the concept of good will, and the article synthesizes its sources to come to an original definition of good will. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment from the original author of the article. This then makes for a good basis for the article that other editors can now expand upon and make improvemnents. Almost every line has a citation reference source, but of course there is room for improvements. This then is an opportunity for other Wikipedians to input, since now it has an excellent start.--Doug ^talk 19:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A novel synthesis of material obtained by googling "good will". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:NOR Bucketsofg 12:05, 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 04:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soda Pop (Beyonce Song)

Soda Pop (Beyonce Song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I have been unable to find any reference to this 'new single' online, using Google. Searching for "beyonce" "soda pop" -britney (Britney Spears apparently has a song of this name) returns only 364 hits - none relevant, as far as I can see. Delete as a hoax or crystallballery. Kurt Shaped Box 23:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Clearly violating WP:CRYSTAL. ~ Wikihermit 23:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above and wake me up six months from now. YechielMan 08:51, 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. Wizardman 15:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Francesco Dionigi

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

Dionigi is not notable: his sole claim to fame is that Petrarch addressed a single letter to him. The bulk of this article consists of a rumination about climbing Mount Ventoux, and the material belongs there. Article was prodded, but creator removed prod tag. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Remove the irrelevant material and what's left is "Francesco Dionigi was an Augustinian monk," which is not enough. I see no hope for expansion with relevant material. Deor 00:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep/move Petrarch did not pick a nonentity as the recipient of this famous poem and there is material to add--I've begun but I may not have time to finish. Most of the content of the article does belong better in a separate article on the very famous poem. I'll move it when we're done, and add a little content on Dionigi in the meantime. DGG 01:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm fairly sure those works are by Francesco Dionigi da Fano, a writer of the 16th-17th century (note the publication dates of 1594 and 1612 for the works you mention in the article, and this catalog entry for the author [2]. Petrarch's friend probably did not live that long. I agree with you, though, that Petrarch's poem/letter may deserve an article of its own. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right on that.DGG 03:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I also note that Petrarch's friend Francesco Dionigi da Borgo San Sepolcro was also associated with Boccaccio, so there might be enough out there to write an article about him, but so far the only source I've seen that treats him as an individual is Giuseppe di Stefano, "Dionigi da Borgo S. Sepolcro, amico del Petrarca e maestro del Boccaccio," in Atti della Academia della Scienze di Torino 96, classe 2 (1961-62) 272-314. Even the Cambridge History of Italian Literature only mentions him once, as the recipient of Petrarch's letter. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Please note the newly created Birthday of alpinism, which includes a bunch of the material from Francesco Dionigi. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Completely different article - see Talk on the article.--Doug ^talk 12:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The same facts, from the same sources, do not make a "completely different article" because they are hung on the most dubious of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see any reason to keep this, at this point. Famous people have written a lot of letters to friends. Brianyoumans 19:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There is no information on him in this article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Move to an appropriate title for the letter (and rework this correspondingly). There's no claim of notability for this guy, only the letter. If DGG can add more material on the monk, that may be fine, but I wonder how much is known about him? A redirect from his name to the letter would be sufficient if nothing else can be said about him. Rigadoun (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There seems to be nothing in this article about F.D. and his life. Perhaps something is recoverable, but it is not here and the direction of the article does not seem hopeful. If some new information is found and reliable sources are added, the article can be created. At the moment, there's nothing here worth keeping. Bucketsofg 12:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak move and rewrite per DGG and Rigadoun; but if it's not rewritten, it should go. I suppose Ascent of Mont Ventoux is the proper new title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Could possibly be merged in Petrarch. There is no source for this "Birth of Alpinism" claim though. Savidan 17:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Coldwell's actual source appears to be a Wikipedia edit, unsourced, to a list article. It is entirely possible that some mountaineer said it sometime. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, I have been doing some further investigation as to the original source of this. When I started the article of "Birthday of Alpinism" and Petrarch being the Father of Alpinism in good fath I assumed this to be true since this has appeared for 3 years in Wikipedia under the articles mountaineering, Petrarch, and Mont Ventoux with no objections or rebuttals from any Wikipedians. I assumed in this time period there has been thousands of other editors that viewed this and none disapproved these facts. It has also appeared in European Wikipedia under various languages with no disputes (i.e. German, French, Italian). I am trying to locate others that have verified this, since this was started 3 years ago by others. Keep in mind also this is an entirely different subject than Francesco Dionigi, the monk and close friend of Petrarch.--Doug ^talk 18:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a Reliable Source, take 521. (As for this being a "different article", I leave that to the judgment of passing editors. As for me: Credat Judaeus Apella, non ego. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That's also irrelevant for whether this article should be deleted. The claim remains in the mountain article (where I added a source), and in the foreign-language mountain articles. None of them have articles on this guy, and for good reason. Rigadoun (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• What does Francesco Dionigi have in common with mountaineering?--Doug ^talk 17:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to elsewhere: based on what's in the article right now, this person is quite clearly not notable in his own right. Moreschi ^Talk 18:30, 27 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" 16:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manheim Murders

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

Although the article is quite well-written, I don't see anything here that differentiates this crime from any of the other terrible crimes that occur all-too-frequently in the U.S. Joyous! | Talk 23:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete although we really need some sort of guideline for what makes a crime notable. For whatever reason this one got some national coverage, while the triple homicide that happened in my community was barely reported statewide. It's sort of a mixed bag, crime coverage, that is. --Dhartung | Talk 23:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a news service. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Dhartung expresses the dilemma I too think needs addressing; though he & I often come to different conclusion in individual cases, we are neither of us satisfied with the criteria In some case the coverage is so great as to make the article an obvious keep, but in others the odds of sourcing vary. The basic criterion for sourcing is generally met, for we only need enough sourcing to write an article, and even a local paper provides that. We should try to find some way of avoid the 30 of so repetitive discussions of these articles a week individually. I suppose we need a Homicide Workgroup, though it sounds like a movie title. If we start one, could we have a moratorium of further nominations so there's a chance to work something out? (Although of course deceased articles that might meet the standard can be ID'd on the evidence of their discussions and removed from the morgue.) DGG 02:07, 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 redirect to creationism (soul), as clear consensus reached, including agreement by nominator.

[edit] Creatianism

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

Not notable, obsolete, highly obscure misspelling of "creationism". Only 195 hits on Google for "creatianism" [sic], the overwhelming majority of which are typographical errors where someone plainly intended to say "creationism". This is a non-notable term, seemingly based upon an extremely obscure and obsolete usage basically cribbed from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Creatianism [sic] is not an accepted term in contemporary theology or religion, nor has the Encyclopedia Britannica continued to use it since that 1911 entry, because the then-highly-obscure and debatable usage, which failed to gain currency even a century ago, was completely overtaken by increasing usage of the word "creationism" almost a century ago. Kenosis 21:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete - Per nomination, especially the fact that it is mostly spelling errors. The small amount of information that may be useful can be used within Creationism. Orangemarlin 22:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect - Into Creationism. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, and redirect pro forma. YechielMan 22:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Creatianism is a completely different theory from creationism. The idea that the soul is created by God at conception (rather than existing beforehand or being a product of conception itself) is one of the main differences among the various Christian sects. But if this is deleted, do not redirect. This would be confusing to anyone searching for creatianism, since it's perfectly possible to believe in creatianism (which only deals with the soul) while being firmly against creationism (which deals with material matters). This would be like redirecting Norman to Mormon because they sound similar. --Charlene 23:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Nonetheless, creationism has been the usual term for "the idea that the soul is created by God at conception." (It heads the relevant entry in my, admittedly not entirely up-to-date, copy of The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, for example.)Perhaps we need to move this article to Creationism (human soul) or similar, with a disambig note at the top of the main Creationism article. Deor 00:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment/ Deor is correct about this. "creatianism" is simply an alternate spelling or misspelling that is obsolete at best, or worse, highly misleading when set in early 20th Century speculative theology contrasted with traducianism as rendered by the 1911 Britannica. The correct term is "creationism", as seen in, for example New Advent, sense #3 of "creationism". And all this belongs, today, in the article on creationism, or in an appropriate topic fork from that article as suggested by Deor. ... Kenosis 01:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as nominator. Redirect to Creationism (soul), per the research and suggestions provided by Deor and Flex farther below. ... Kenosis 23:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Per --Charlene FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 00:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirecting and merging into creationism (soul), would seem to be a reasonable option. Slightly late in changing due to circumstances outside Wikipedia. Sorry.)) FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 23:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Move as explained by Kenosis and Deor. DGG 02:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork and OR. FeloniousMonk 04:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Creatianism is the proper term for this concept (and contained in various theological handbooks) about the origin of the soul. It is distinct from Creationism and was never covered under the article of that name - hence all shouts about fork is nonsense, just as about OR - this directly taken from an Encycopledia for a start. The article needs a lot of work. Google hits are not a proper criterion as the internet is full of ignoramuses. Redirecting it is also POV pushing, seeking to include everything under the not well respected term creationism. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Even as it is obscure, it is an existing term in the field of theology. As such it is obviously encyclopedic. If someone wants to learn what Calvin meant when he preferred creatianism over traducianism, why should we refer her/him to an unrelated article only because it has a similar name? On the other hand, if we deleted it, we would commit the encyclopedic analogue to the sin of omission. --Friendly Neighbour 09:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete So obscure as to not be in the OED. •Jim62sch• 09:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (See new vote below) - I'm not opposed to Deor's Creationism (human soul) Creationism (soul) suggestion with a redirect for this alternate spelling, but while it could be mentioned in Creationism a la WP:SUMMARY, it should definitely be a separate article rather than merged totally. The topics share a name but are quite different in their substance. --Flex (talk/contribs) 11:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

*Merge and Redirect to Traducianism. Should not be redirected to creationism since they are different things, creationism relates to the origins of life while this refers to the origins of the soul or somesuch. Info could easily be included as a minor opposing point in Traducianism. WLU 11:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: In case of such a merger I would prefer a title a la Catholic Encyclopedia "Creatio/anism and Traducianism, though I prefer a separate article or one comprehensive article on the origin of the sould (comprising all three theories). In case of one article, it needs an appropriate overhaul. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Creatianism is a stub at best, and if it is a minor theological point, just a rebuttal or alternative to Traducianism, it should not dominate the page by sharing the title. Having a title like 'Creatianism and Traducianism' wouldn't work on wikipedia and would require a different title. As is, the creatianism article is too stubby to be equal with Trad. WLU
    • Comment - Fair enough (though it's not a minor theological point). Then we should retain separate articles for the three distinct theories. However, it is no proper way to include one theory in the article on another and mention only one in the title. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and cover briefly in Creationism as one of the alternative meanings of that term, if a main article is justified it could go under Creationism (human soul) or similar, perhaps Creationism (soul) which at present redirects to Traducianism, breaching naming policy by pointing to its opposite. .. dave souza, talk 11:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I took the liberty of fixing Creationism (soul). I wouldn't object to that becoming the main article and Creatianism becoming the redirect. --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: I wouldn't object either. As long as it is clear that Creationism and [[Creationism (soul) are two different concepts. I don't know why it is difficult to understand that two different concepts have two distinct articles. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Creationism and creatianism do seem to be alternate spellings for the same thing in this context, whereas creatianism is never used of anything but the soul AFAICT. The former is found in the Catholic Encyclopedia[3], the Schaff Herzog Encyclopedia[4], Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology[5], etc., while the latter is found in Adolf von Harnack's History of Dogma[6], Augustus Strong's Systematic Theology[7], August Neander's General History of the Christian Religion and Church[8], a 2005 article on theological differences between two notable Dutch theologians[9], Britannica (as cited above), etc. In light of these published alternate spellings of the same term, I'd suggest, as above, that a redirect is the most appropriate solution. If a merge with traducianism is preferable, then a new page should be created Origin of the soul (or similar) to discuss the different theories without adopting a position implicitly. --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Good point, Flex. If anything, the redirect should be in the opposite direction to properly reflect the creationism vs. traducianism debate, which is a very old one. Note New Advent, sense #3 of "creationism", which is identical to the usage purportedly applied to the misspelled "creatianism", and that most of the more in-depth dictionaries include this same sense of the word under their definition of "creationism". AFAIK, none of the dictionaries, none, even include the word "creatianism", and if any do at all, it would be a simple redirect to "creationism". This attempt at defining the premise as "creatianism" is, unfortunately, a non-sequitur bordering on or constituting WP:OR. We can't legitimately use a century-old aberration of spelling to redefine this sense of "creationism" in WP; it's simply not a credible presentation of the topic because the concept (creationism as against traductionism) is already a very standard use of the normal spelling of "creationism". ... Kenosis 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Flex, alternate spellings for the same thing only in the sense that creationism might be used for the soul thing while creatianism can only refer to the sould thing. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: Right, but it does seem that creationism is the more common (and in terms of contemporary usage, almost exclusive) spelling and should be given priority (cf. WP:NCON). --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment: All right. As long at the distinction between the material orginin and soul origin concepts are clear - which was my overall aim in starting this - and as long as Creatianism is mentioned in the new article as a variant, I am okay. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Kenosis, Reversing the article-redirect relationship is fine by me (I didn't reverse it already only because doing so would have confused this AfD). Anyway, one of my points was that "creatianism" is not a misspelling. Rather, it is an alternate spelling for a technical term that appears not infrequently in published, reliable sources (though not in any of the standard dictionaries we have consulted thus far), and therefore, it is not original research. Hence, Creationism (soul) should start out something like "Creationism (sometimes creatianism) is a doctrine in Christian theology concerning the origin of the soul." --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment:. Flex, excellent background research IMO. Very impressive that you found those 19th century uses of "creatian" and "creatianism". I notice that "creatian" is used in Strong's Systematic Theology to describe inter alia, the position of the Roman Catholic Church, which in the 20th and 21st century has spelled it "creationism". I don't believe it's our function in WP to be resurrecting archaic usages in such a way that the reader unfamiliar with speculative theology would be freshly inclined to use the spellings interchangeably with respect to this sense of "creationism". I fully support the approach you just proposed-- perhaps an additional brief note to the reader of Creationism (soul), to the effect that "creatianism" is an archaic spelling, might be helpful in keeping it in perspective. Incidentally, it would be interesting to find out whether "creatian-" was ever used in any publications that dealt with the creation-evolution debate. Along this line, I do notice the following: a 1921 usage in the context of discussing soul, a very interesting discussion by Aubrey Lackington Moore dated 1890, and also a 1983 usage of "creatianism" in Is God a Creationist?: the religious case against creation-science by Roland Mushat Frye. ... Kenosis 15:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment: The Moore passage does still seem to be using "Creatianism" with respect to the creation of the soul only AFAICT, even as he talks about evolution and creation (he was writing before the creationism controversy got into full swing). Is the Frye reference (do you have a link?) a misspelling, a reference to soul origins, or an alternate spelling for the creationism regarding the material world? --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment: What was most interesting to me was Moore's statement "if we can explain creation in terms of evolution, I cannot see why we cannot so explain the Incarnation." If one reads into the following page from the link, he's asserting a gradual or continual unfolding of consciousness, manifesting in layers in an evolving world, rather than the more typical view of broad swipes of a divine sword, so to speak. But this is off topic of the status of this article on creatianism. I agree he was writing before the creation-evolution controversy got into "full swing". As to Frye, I don't know, it came up in a Google-book search but the text isn't displayed. ... Kenosis 16:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Comment: It is a bit off topic. I was just wondering if we could rightly say that "creatianism" only referred to the origin of the soul, or if it was an alternate spelling for creationism in general. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Comment: This is what I was attempting to get a handle on. Absent clear evidence that "creatianism" extended into the creation-evolution debate or into the "theism-deism" debate, I support a redirect to creationism (soul) as you and Deor have proposed. ... Kenosis 17:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Comment (Off-topic) I was trying to find some source on the etymology of the word last night (until I realized it was rather late), but I would hazard a guess that it was derived from the Latin creare and animus, "to create" and "soul". FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 00:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
                • Comment: I respectfully disagree that the etymology is necessarily off-topic. Both creatian/creatianism and creation/creationism are derived from the Latin c.1386, from creatus, pp. of creare "to make, produce," The choice of "-ian" or "-ion" is also of Latin origin, as both are descended from accepted suffixes in the Latin (though "-an" and "-ian" also comes separately through the Old French). In general, "-ion" (or "-tion" for words that don't already have a "t") is applied when turning an action or condition into a noun; while in general "-an" or "-ian" is applied when describing a membership in a class, provenance, etc. So the original choice would appear to be, very roughly speaking, between using "-ian" to denote membership in the class of the created, or using "-ion" to denote the consequence of an act of creating. Either way, "creatian" and "creatianism" gave way to "creation" and "creationism", and the latter has evidently been the dominant usage for the past century or so. ... Kenosis 03:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge per Flex...it's a minor, archaic spelling variant that didn't even make it into the OED. Guettarda 13:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have struck this vote for now as it is self-contradictory. Flex didn't vote for Delete or Merge but for Keep. I will notify the voter of this, so that he can voice his actual view. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't object to that becoming the main article and Creatianism becoming the redirect. --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC) That's a merge. Guettarda 13:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment That's a lot of ifs and thens - state your vote clearly. Do you want a merge? a delete? a keep? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment I take it that Guettarda wants to delete or merge (which one? merge into what?) so I strike his faulty reference to Flex. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Do not edit other people's comments. Editing other people's signed comments is borderline vandalism. Editing people's comments in an AFD against an article you started is totally unacceptable. Guettarda 13:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
            • So is using foul language when someone points you add your contradictory vote. I didn't mean no harm but you start yelling at me. Thank you very much. You are basically misusing Flex's good name - I take it that you prefer to have this article merged with traducianism as Flex pointed out in his last post (not in his vote) Is that correct? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
              • No, I think that a minor archiac spelling variant should be deleted, but failing that it should be merged per the comment by Flex. Which is what I said in the comment that you chose to strike. It is unacceptable behaviour for your to delete opinions which differ with yours. Guettarda 13:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
                • Okay, I take it now as clarified that you prefer to have it deleted but if nbot it should be merged according to the proposal of Flex. Stop shouting at the messenger - it was your ambiguity, not mine. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reverse the redirect from Creationism (soul) and list as an alternate spelling, or merge to Origin of the soul, which would cover creationism, traducianism, pre-existence, and reincarnation. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thanks for making clear that you changed your vote somewhat. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Traducianism and move the whole lot to Origin of the soul, putting in various redirect and other uses templates at the top. We should really take this over to one of the Theology wikiprojects for their comment, I for one am uncomfortable with someone of my low level of knowledge on the subject making or advocating for changes when I'm not sure how important or obscure it is. I'll drop them a line. WLU 14:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would then suggest merging Creatianism (whatever the name), Traducianism, Pre-existence (and subsequently Accounts of pre-mortal existence) into Origins of the soul, and to make the first (disambig) line on Creationism link to "Origins"? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reverse the redirect from Creationism (soul). I don't see any problem with having separate articles for the various theories--most religious encyclopedias do, don't they? Perhaps "Origin of the soul" could be created as a list page linking to the various articles, but smooshing them together into a single article of that title seems unnecessary. Deor 14:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In answer to your question, some do and some don't. The Catholic Encyclopedia[10][11] and the Christian Cyclopedia[12][13] give separate entries, while The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia describes the theories under "Psychology" and Schaff-Herzog under "Biblical Conceptions of Soul and Spirit". So I think either approach would be fine. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Creationism (soul) as per above. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 05:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Creationism (soul), with "Creatianism" given as an alternate spelling in the lead sentence per Flex.Proabivouac 19:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Should be kept, but not with that title, which is archaic, not well known, and as Jim62sch points out, not in the OED. Either move to Creationism (soul) or to Origin of the soul, perhaps after merging with Traducianism. It should be clearly distinguished from Creationism. ElinorD (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Unless I'm counting wrong here, there appear to be:

6 requests to delete ((including one to "delete or merge")

10 requests to redirect/merge into another article (six appear to be requests to redirect; four to "merge", including a couple "delete or...")

3 requests to keep the existing article.

After reading comments and research by Flex and Deor and others, I too am inclined, even as the original nominator, to redirect. There appears to be a developing consensus that creationism (soul) is an appropriate title for for the counterpoint position to traducianism. Is it too early in the process to move this article to creationism (soul) and begin a parallel article until after this AfD is closed? ... Kenosis 19:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree - quite the AFD page; Kenosis' suggestion makes sense to me. WLU

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indrapura

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

Article is of unclear importance. No notability is asserted. "Indrapura" is the name of several southeast Asian cities, but I think this article is about a play. Multi-tagged since Feb 2007. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• comment - I'd really just like to see if someone can establish notability and sources for this article. It's on a Malaysian play, and while I'm in favour of including that sort of info on en.wikipedia, I'm curious as to whether this particular one is notable. Also, I don't know how to do this next bit, but I'd like to see this article renamed Indrapura (play), or something, to make space so that someone could someday write a proper article on Idrapura the city (or cities?). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It appears to fail WP:N and WP:SOURCE. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this appears to be a production of a student theatrical organization at a university, itself of dubious notability. --Dhartung | Talk 23:14, 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 10:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marcie Tentchoff

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

I first nominated this article for deletion ten months ago. The result of the discussion as no consensus. Since that time, there has no change in the notability of the subject - and, a minor correction in punctuation aside, there has been no change in this sixteen word article. I maintain that Ms. Tentchoff fails to meet WP:BIO. In short, she is a writer who has yet to publish a book. Her most significant recognition to date would appear to be an Aurora Award - one of ten presented more than six years ago - for a single poem. Victoriagirl 21:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Although I think there's a slim argument based on the award (best Canadian short-form sf/fantasy work of 2001) there doesn't seem to be any independent confirmation of her notability beyond that, certainly too little for an article. The information itself is duplicated in Aurora Award. --Dhartung | Talk 23:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete minor poet who won an award for a poem. 115 unique Ghits, no hits from what could be considered a reliable source, destined to remain a stub forever. Ohconfucius 09:30, 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. Sr13 04:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Greco

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

Fails WP:BIO Suitship 21:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; unencyclopedic tone, dubious notability. YechielMan 22:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - aspiring racecar driver awaitng financial backing. --Evb-wiki 00:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• I don't understand any of this, why has this been started in the first place? This makes absolutely NO SENSE. There are so many ridiculous things going into Wikipedia everyday and this guy comes along after falling off his wagen and says the Greco page should be deleted. And now there is support for the notion? This is a mean spirited attack by someone who first hid behind an IP address and now two other people are agreeing with him. Wow. Amazing.R H Pearson 02:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see Wikipedia's notability requirements. --Evb-wiki 02:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Go ahead then, you win. Please empty my user and talk pages while at it. I am done here. We know who we are and what we are currently achieving. We do not need wikipedia to justify ourselves. Congratulations to he who feels this is a moment worth celebrating. R H Pearson 02:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please also see Wikipedia's guidelines concerning conflicts of interest while you're at it. --Evb-wiki 02:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. fails WP:BIO. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because it isn't well written and isn't notable. — Wenli 02:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not a notable driver, just an aspiring one. Delete per Wikipedia is not a soapbox Ohconfucius 09:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• I find all of this a curious personal attack now. This page has been here for well over a year and the comments made here are that it is not well written (a personal attack on me) and the driver is not notable comment is a personal attack on David Greco. I think that someone who has actually raced cars is notable, and I think that wanting to continue the career is worthy of mention. There are many other drivers who have pages who are in similar situations but we don't see their pages nominated for deletion do we? R H Pearson 13:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Can you link to any other such "aspiring" drivers in junior formulae? I'll personally consider a driver notable once he reaches a race seat in Formula 3 or a test seat in GP2. A test in FR isn't notable. It's not personal, I'd hold all drivers to this simple standard. -- Suitship 02:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Has anyone considered suggesting a re-write? Would that make it work? 24.202.85.2 19:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as aspiring is really non-notable. When he gets backing, then he can get an article. Bearian 02:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this guy has made races already, has had results. He aspires for more. What is wrong with that? Rprm2007 11:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - aspiring, but not yet there driver. Didn't compete in 2006 and not likely in 2007 either. And no reliable sources to boot. -- Whpq 14:53, 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 10:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pirooz Kalayeh

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

An article on an artist and musician who fails WP:BIO. Kalayeh's "Ficition" [sic] is limited to blogs and on-line periodicals. His comic books and music are issued through lulu.com. Victoriagirl 21:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 00:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for lacking notability and a non-neutral tone. The profusion of external links without internal links is a strong indicator. YechielMan 08:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced article about an individual with dubious notability, in violation of WP:SPAM and WP:EL Ohconfucius 09:39, 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 redirect. Sr13 10:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of airports in the Palestinian territories

List of airports in the Palestinian territories (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The list is completely unncessary since there is only one item on it and no potential for expansion. Beit Or 20:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep unless there is a specific prohibition against one-item lists. It does seem a little inane to have a list of a single item like this, however I could see keeping it for the sake of consistency, in keeping with the other lists of airports by country, or in this case, pseudo-country. I also am not familiar with the situation at all and don't know if there possibly exist more airports within palestinian territories, so can't speak for the statement that there is no potential for expansion. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • List of airports in Gibraltar, instead of being a one-item list, redirects to Gibraltar Airport. Beit Or 21:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Then just redirect to Yasser Arafat International Airport by that same reasoning. No AfD required to do that. Same net effect and leaves the list article intact for possible future expansion. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Palestine, that should be enough.--JForget 22:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Yasser Arafat International Airport per above. -- Karl Meier 22:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per above, unless someone can find a second airport (and I don't think there is one). YechielMan 22:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect is an elegant solution that allows the article to be reactivated should another airport open up. I couldn't find the text online (at least in English) but a 1998 "Gaza Airport Protocol" between the GOI and PA seems to cover the airport's operations and probably limits the number to one. The recent Hamas/Fatah split may mean that one could be built in the West Bank. In any case the airport is not presently operational. --Dhartung | Talk 23:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Dhartung. — Wenli 02:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Arkyan & Dhartung. Carlossuarez46 22:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Dhartung and Arkyan, Tewfik^Talk 20:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. It works well enough for Gibraltar, so... -- ChrisO 09:24, 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 speedy delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aids on a Plane

Aids on a Plane (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced and unverifiable; prod tag was removed without comment MisterHand 20:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Smells like a Snakes on a Plane hoax. Even if it were real, there is nothing to suggest notability. Even IMDB has no "in production" record of such a film--Ispy1981 20:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I have to agree smells like a hoax, and if not fails WP:N. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• I've had enough of these <censored> Aids on a <censored> Plane! In other words, delete per WP:CRYSTAL. YechielMan 22:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fakes on a plane. --Dhartung | Talk 23:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax on a plane. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 00:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom et al. Snowballs on a plane. --Evb-wiki 00:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It is not notable, written very badly (in fact, like a hoax), and doesn't cite any references. — Wenli 02:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as entirely a hoax, or a non-notable film yet to be made. The link to the photo of what looks like a film poster seems to give the game away, as I doubt a film would be in pre-production if it's supposed to be released in August. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete more like jokes on a plane. --Haemo 05:31, 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. Basically a client listing. Sr13 05:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamilton Hodell

Non notable modelling agency; non-notable clients. --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Article, as it is, is a wreck, just a list of names. That said, I hardly think Emma Thompson or Stephen Fry count as non-notable. Their website suggests this agency discovered both.--Ispy1981 20:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete without prejudice to recreation with sources. Google News Archive shows some results in passing demonstrating A-list clientele, but there isn't much about the agency per se. --Dhartung | Talk 23:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete a laundry list disguised as an article. In desperate need a complete re-write. delete in the meantime. Ohconfucius 09:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - regardless of notability or reliable sources, the current article isn't the base from which an article can be built. -- Whpq 14:55, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Let's WP:SNOW such hoaxes, please. Fram 13:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Ricks

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

This seems very much like a hoax. Article borders on ridiculous; cursory Googles turned up nothing. Oh, and a PROD was removed, so I brought it here.Iknowyourider (t c) 20:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails criteria in WP:BIO and WP:RS.--Edtropolis 20:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• "All sources were lost in a 2005 fire"... must've burned the references to that Us Weekly title and all the other stuff, too. Google says "what?" Editor says delete as completely unverified and probably (he said, in an understated manner) a hoax. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as patent (but stylish) nonsense. Clarityfiend 21:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a badly-written article that fails WP:BIO. — Wenli 02:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Pax:Vobiscum 15:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raise the Death

Raise the Death (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable un-sourced self-produced pseudo-album. Contested prod. ➪HiDrNick! 20:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional keep if someone can translate some ghits from Spanish on the band Athanator. No, you're not seeing things, either. The band has an article. If those are third party reviews that suggest notability, keep both. If not, delete both.--Ispy1981 20:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• delete i put this up for speedy originally, funny enough. so random. i ususally just weigh in on discussions here. the point of wp:music isn't to allow every notable band to have a page about every album they burned on a cd burner in their friend's basement. The album itself has to be notable and verifiable and this is certainly neither. fails wp:music. no independent sources about this album, if nothing else. Barsportsunlimited 00:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. There're tons of GHits for the band, suggesting that they themselves are notable. I'm quite fluent in Spanish, so I can tell that many of the Spanish-language GHits for the band are non-trivial, third party mentions. Therefore, if the band is notable, so are their albums, per WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. WP:MUSIC notwithstanding, WP:N is very clear that "a topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic." Athanator clearly qualifies, but the self-published CD is about as notable as that novel I've been working on for all these years. This "album" has no verifiable sources and indeed was probably burned a few times on someone's PC. Of course, we'll very know that for sure, seeing as how there are no reliable sources. The whole idea of inherited notability is nonsense, anyway. R. L. Stine is a notable author of childrens' books, but not all of his books are notable. Jeopardy! is a notable television program, but not all of its seasons or episodes are notable.

• Keep. The band seems reasonably notable, and the article is more than just a track listing. As noted above, WP:MUSIC is transitive in this one regard: if a band is notable, then its albums are (usually) notable. —C.Fred (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to the band. There's no sources here, which fails WP:V. Just because the band is (ostensibly) notable, doesn't mean unsourced articles about individual albums with no secondary coverage. — Scientizzle 03:13, 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 speedy per G11. Sr13 04:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King Solomon (Prague)

King Solomon (Prague) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Reason: Promotional article about restaurant for turists in Prague. Restaurant is not well-known in Prague and I think the topic of article is not notable. At Czech Wikipedia is also AfD (started by autor of the article who understanded that article is not notable) and article will be probably deleted Dezidor 19:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Blatant advertising, anyone?--Ispy1981 20:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course! Sr13 04:58, 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 contra the meats -- Y not? 23:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Novoselsky Valery

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

Vanity- the only contributor to the article is User:Valery_novoselsky, which violates WP:AB. Notability is also in question, per boilerplate text. Dewrad 19:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

{{afdanons}}

• Delete. I have copyedited it, but still tagged for notability after noticing that all (?) the 'reference' links do not point to sources about the subject but simply to the website's homepage. And even if they were... I doubt that would be enough notability. - Nabla 21:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Valery novoselsky 10:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Valery Novoselsky Valery novoselsky 10:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction! Updated links on Roma Diplomacy Programme and European Roma Information Office (ERIO) lead to the pages, which contain my name. You can check them now.

— Valery novoselsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep. That was me who asked Valery himself to write the article 'cause I have no much time. He is one of the most famous Gypsy activists, journalists and so on, he does really much for our society, he also sometimes represents it. He works with such projects as ERIO, Roma News Groups, and Roma education project too. That's not his fault that he does and makes much but almost nobody didn't guess to write about him. Most of us knows him so we didn't ever thought that's important to write about him somewhere. I was the first one who decided that he should be in the list of Roma persons. RomanyChaj

— RomanyChaj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, she makes MUCH in ru.wikipedia because she has weak English, here she gives infromation for en.wiki-authors on Romani personalies. RomanyChaj

• Keep. The information about my colleague Valery Novoselsky will be soon published in "Biography Romany Dictionary" in UK among the other 50 biographies of the most outstanding Romani people who have already contributed to Roma movement and the Romani culture most of all during the history. And the information posted in this article on Wikipedia is very little in comparison with the article about Mr. Novoselsky submitted for publication in mentioned book. For the reference, please, call to 0044-207-6096047. More about me on http://www.npage.org/article48.html Valdemar Kalinin

— Valdemar Kalinin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep The biography is relevant for a wiki article. I just reorganized and wikified the article and I added references. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 12:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This user as many edits, yet almost all are within Romani subjects, Special:Contributions/ Desiphral - Nabla 14:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Hello! My name is Oleg Kozlovsky and I am the Head of the International Union of the Baltic States and the CIS. On behalf of our organization I recommend you to keep the profile of our friend and colleague Novoselsky Valery on Wikipedia. He indeed deserves a lot of gratitude for what he does for all Roma people and my message in his support is very little token for that. Nais tuke, Valera! - Thank you, our brother! Sincerely yours, Oleg Kozlovsky. E-mail: belarus_roma@yahoo.com Belarus_roma

— Belarus_roma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep. I am cooperating with Mr. Novoselsky on-line since 2001 in the sphere of Roma media and communications and can say only good words about his job, as well as about him as a person. We were participating together in a recently held seminar "Roma and media" conducted on 1-2 June during the Roma Festival Khamoro in Prague, Czech Republic. I would also like to confirm that the activity of his moderated Roma Virtual Network is a great support for our media organization - Roma Press Agency (RPA) in Slovakia. PhDr. Kristina Magdolenova, Executive director of RPA. http://www.rpa.sk Magdolenova

— Magdolenova (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete. Fails to meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). —Psychonaut 14:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Discussion: for what it's worth, an earlier version of this article was speedily deleted. But guys, come on. The bottom line is that you aren't allowed to write articles about yourself: see WP:AB. Full stop, no exceptions. As such, Valery, please stop editing articles about yourself (and I guess your work? Is that covered under AB?). Dewrad 15:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Creator of dozen of mail-lists w/o indication how many read his mails (there's a claim, inflated in Wikipedia twice, but its reliability could be questioned). Conflict of interest, NN, self-bio. Pavel Vozenilek 02:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Argument against the statement of Pavel Vozenilek. There is the indication on how many read the messages posted on the listserves there: just take a look on the column "Group Information" (middle of the left side of an Introductory page), then you will see "Members:", then their number. For example, start with Listserve on Roma rights issues and you will see!

• Regarding the allegations in "self-bio". It was written by Hannah Slavik, the editor of a newly published book "Roma Diplomacy", where you can find my bio. Roma Diplomacy Book. However, the text of this publication is not on-line yet, so you have to review the hard copy of it. Valery novoselsky
  • In that case, the article is a copyright violation and should be deleted immediately. However, the fact that you have a biography in a published book does give credence to your claim of notability. —Psychonaut 10:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. My name is Yvonne Slee. I am the Coordinator of The Romani Life Society of Australia. http://www.geocities.com/romani_life_society/ Valery Is doing a magnificent job for Roma people and is a good friend and colleague of mine. His motivation to help Roma comes from the heart and his important network is one of only a handful where Roma can communicate with one another. Please leave his profile on Wikipedia. Keep up the great work, Valery. —sintezza 9.30pm 23 June 2007 AEST — sintezza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I've moved some comments to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 June 23/Articles so as to keep the discussion of the possible copyright violation in one place. I hope this is OK with everyone. The question of whether to delete the article, and of how to resolve the issue of possible copyright infringement in the meantime or in the event that the article is kept, are separate matters. —Psychonaut 14:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Since the main problem is that I posted the info on my work and my person, the best solution in this case would be for someone else among my friends who are active on Wikipedia to post the same info, wikify it, reference better, then this info in a form of new articles will certainly survive. Otherwise, both of all will loose the time in meaningless on-line discussions. Valery novoselsky

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

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

The result was Delete -- Y not? 23:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sk8er Girl

Sk8er Girl (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An article about a bootleg Avril Lavigne album (one of many that turn up on eBay from time to time). I'm actually unsure as to whether this should be deleted or not (WP:MUSIC is non-specific on this matter). Listing it here to find out. Kurt Shaped Box 19:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment This could go either way. Per WP:MUSIC an album is notable if the artist is notable. Is a bootleg album fall into this category? I dunno. Was it anything that was recorded professionally? Was it just a fan at a concert that recorded it? Personally, I'd say keep if it was recorded professionally from the concert, and delete if it was not. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 19:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have this one myself - but I'd say that the live stuff was probably taped straight from the radio (if that helps). I used to have the mp3s of that radio session, so I'm guessing that they're from the same source. --Kurt Shaped Box 20:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Found one site that has this bootleg, Rick's Bootleg Trading Page.--Edtropolis 20:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep Supposedly one of two albums recorded live? I think it passes WP:MUSIC. ~ Wikihermit 22:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless reliable sources showing notability are added before this AfD ends (and note Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works says not to link to copyright violations). The current article is unsourced so it fails WP:V. WP:MUSIC says about albums: "If the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." The musician did not "make" this album, she made a radio appearance (according to the unsourced article). Bootlegs do not inherit notability like official albums which almost automatically get attention when notable musicians made them (which must have been a consideration for the WP:MUSIC quote). Anybody with a recording device can make a bootleg of something. It would have to establish notability by itself, for example with references showing it has been the subject of multiple reliable sources per WP:N. PrimeHunter 00:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per PrimeHunter. bootlegs are not inherently notable, just like the majority of demos. It will warrant a place if it becomes a commercial release of the BBC, but not until then. Ohconfucius 09:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete THe bootleg has not received significant outside coverage, in fact, I get results that come from forum IDs, hence it's not notable.--Kylohk 15:44, 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whitney Houston's 7th studio album

Whitney Houston's 7th studio album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Another unsourced, unverified, speculative, crystalballery and original research-filled article about an upcoming album. Kurt Shaped Box 19:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom.--Edtropolis 20:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Right now, it should be only mentionned in Whitney Houston until more sourced and official stuff comes around (if it happens).--JForget 22:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. When the "confirmed tracks" section lacks sources, that's a clear indication that someone's been looking into the crystal ball. The album will be notable pretty much on release, I'd say, but it isn't yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There is too much secrecy surrounding this album for anyone to draw conclusive facts; no possible way to cite a reliable and concrete source--192.139.71.69 10:44, 22 June 2007

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

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

The result was speedy deletion. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haalderen

Site appears to be a joke, referring to a small village in Holland that suffers from a bad smell, unknown to scientists but "they already have some suspects like the Janssen family. Article also refers to Haalderen as "the worst hamlet in the Netherlands" and "some gothic cults that torture the nearby towns. Their ringleader is probably Rudie "Goth" Janssen.". Fails WP:BOLLOCKS, and probably other criterea relating to joke articles. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:39, 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. Peacent 05:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joel Hayward

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

This article has been rewritten at least once, but is still dominated by the controversy surrounding the cynical misuse of a naive and poorly supervised masters' thesis by holocaust deniers. There is not much else to say, because the sources are also dominated by this one event. Per the recent changes to WP:BLP and WP:NOT, I believe this should be merged to a section in holocaust revisionism which gives fuller context and does not pretend to be a biography. The fact that the subject is clearly upset by the way the article has been sued in the past to promote an agenda is also a factor. Guy (Help!) 19:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I concur. This article is a coatrack for the main issue, not a biography. It is best treated as a possible merge candidate. The amount of detail required would be, I propose, so small as to justify a so-called "smerge". --Tony Sidaway 19:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment From the article talk page: "Dear Groupthink, I think what you have written and others have tweaked is, as it reads at this point in time, fair. Thank you for that. Joel Hayward." Zagalejo 00:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If the disapproval of the subject makes a difference ... DGG 02:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep because he doesn't like it? Wow. That's a new policy, where do I find it? Guy (Help!) 08:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  Don't be obtuse, what he obviously meant was "if the subject disapproved before but doesn't now makes a difference..." Groupthink 12:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

yes, I don't thing the approval or disapproval of the subject makes a difference one way or the other--his career is out there and we are the ones who can see it objectively, not the subject. DGG 04:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep He appears notable enough, perhaps even without mention of the thesis controversy, though I do not believe such an argument to be necessary. Maxamegalon2000 05:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's only fair to point out that while I have been accused of making edits to this article (specifically to the pre-OTRS-delete versions) that have been unfavorably biased, I can't help but observe (based on language in the nom and recent edits to the article) that the nom of this AfD appears to be favorably biased toward the subject at hand. Even the blp subject thought my rewrite was fair, and (actually his comments came after an edit by JzG, my mistake) While I do think fuller context is called for (which is why I myself put the unbal tag at the top of the page and added expand tags) I disagree that the thesis controversy dominates. Even if it does, none of the objections raised by the nom or by Tony Sidaway are unfixable. AfD is not supposed to be a soapbox for calling for improvements to an article, it's supposed to be used as a tool to cull unimprovable articles.
  
• I think we need to cut to the heart of the matter. I've been avoiding bringing this up directly, but I think it's past time that the elephant in the room were directly addressed: The last sentence in the AfD nom is very telling. In the wake of the Brandt debacle, is it now WP policy that unless sanctioned by a BLP subject, biographical material on living persons is to be suppressed removed with prejudice? Groupthink 06:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• The word suppressed would cause me to ignore your input were I a closing admin, so i suggest you consider a different term. As you will see if you read my nomination, I do not argue for removing of the information (or suppressing it in your terms), I advocate merging it to a wider article which is not presented as a biography, as we are beginning to do wiht more and more "biographies" which are in fact just a document of a single contentious incident. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• All right, suppressed is too strong a word, but the question's still valid: Are the warts of a BLP off-limits?. As for the coatrack accusation, like I said above, that issue can and should be easily fixed by expanding the later sections of this bio. If Stopped At Stalingrad is worth keeping, then so is this article. Groupthink 12:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I can't answer on behalf of Guy, however in my humble opinion there are widespread concerns about biographies of living persons who are mostly notable for a single event in their lives, especially if that event was unfavorable. At the moment the WP:BLP policy doesn't fully reflect this, not least because there isn't enough consensus. Addhoc 16:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The "single event in life" argument is a plausible reason when the event is an unfortunate personal or accidental event. When the article is about a scholar, and the single event is about the validity of his work, that's something else entirely. What does apply & is said below, is that the article has to take into consideration all of his work--I respect JH for wishing his career as a whole to speak for itself. As for personal preference as a factor in keep/delete, that was an unbelievable mistake, and I hope will soon be recognized as such--an open invitation to positive and negative bias: "she's only borderline notable, but she likes the article, so keep" vs. "she's only borderline notable, but she doesn't like what we say, so delete it." Such is normally considered the hallmark of the worst sort of commercial pseudo-journalism, and we properly reject using biographical sources for notability that work in such a way. DGG 04:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Thing is, this article is not in fact a matter of "single event in life." I spent some time doing some research on Hayward today, only serving to confirm my "keep" vote below: Hayward is plenty notable even if the controversy about his masters thesis had never occurred. As it did occur, it is appropriate to include it in this article, but there is plenty more besides that. Getting late here where I am, but I'll add a couple of the pieces I found earlier today before I turn in, and more to follow tomorrow. --Ace of Swords 06:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for now - per "if Stopped At Stalingrad is worth keeping, then so is this article". Addhoc 16:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comments. I wish I'd read WP:COATRACK more thoroughly before chiming in here. If I had, I'd have expressed a good deal more umbrage than I did. First off, WP:COATRACK is an essay, not an official policy. It also doesn't apply. The essay primarily talks about disguised ad hominem attacks; one of the examples it uses is "George Washington visited/slept/worked/ate at XYZ; George Washington was a terrible general and a lousy President, he owned slaves, lied about chopping down a cherry tree, and.... (many following paragraphs all about George with little if anything to do with XYZ)." Well that's NOT AT ALL a fair comparison to my rewrite. Now to be fair, I do agree with the essay's point that it's not fair to put the balancing/expansion burden on others, which is why, despite my desire to be done with this article, I have done some expansion work myself. However, and I cannot emphasize this enough: More can still be done! This article is far from unsalvageable and should be kept. Groupthink 14:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He's a very well known modern military historian. You argue the problem is it is dominated by one event, then suggest subsuming it entirely into that one event. The guy writes military history today, he's very well known outside of the web for his works on Stalingrad. The web reporting on him is dominated by this single event, and now it's proposed Wikipedia have the author eaten alive by one incident. No, he's a military historian of sufficient repute to merit a Wikipedia article about him, not have him shoveled off into the web fracas raised about him as if he didn't exist outside of the internet. KP Botany 15:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep While I admit that I do not know which recent changes are being referred to in WP:BLP and WP:NOT, I do not see anything in these two policies indicating that this article should be deleted. I write this recognizing that the entry once lacked balance. While I believe more emphasis should be placed in Mr Hayward's post-graduate/professional work, I think the balance tag can now be removed. We have now a short, well sourced article on a historian of note. Victoriagirl 16:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable historian who meets WP:PROF, regardless of the controversy. Active editors on this job have also been working well and hard to improve this article and remove its imbalances, and were doing so even before its nomination for AfD. Let them keep working. --Ace of Swords 21:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. A notable subject even without the controversy. With it, even more so. But to merge this with holocaust revisionism would be to ignore the non-controversial parts of this subject's career, to say in effect 'the only interesting thing about this guy is that his Master's thesis caused a furore'. There's more to him than this attention-grabbing topic, and the article is beginning to grow to reflect this. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Subject meets WP:PROF and notability criteria. He is notable enough through mentions in textbooks on history, and various other publications as well (I will have to source these!) --SunStar Net ^talk 09:49, 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 04:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skateimpact

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

Non notable small business. Being the only anything shop does not make it notable. What we need is WP:RS and none have turned up. Obina 19:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete NoIMPACT Guy (Help!) 19:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete The article speaks for itself. YechielMan 22:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also WP:NN, spammy and fails WP:WEB. --Evb-wiki 00:22, 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 keep. Peacent 05:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prostitution in Sweden

Prostitution in Sweden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article seems to cover everything already mentioned in this article. It contains only three sentences, and anything significant in it not covered in the Crime in Sweden article can easily be moved over (though I think the Crime in Sweden article pretty much says it all). DearPrudence 18:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Unnecessary and redundant fork; just a stub. A Redirect to the main article would be a good idea. Eusebeus 19:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. There are quite a number of "Prostitution in ..." articles. <KF> 21:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Special:Prefixindex/Prostitution in might also be useful here (I readily recognize that the fact of there being sufficient material to craft a standalone Prostitution in article with respect, for instance, to China, does not alone suggest that Crime in ought never to comprise the whole of the prostitution text [there are surely some countries/territories/states for which Crime in in sufficiently short and Prostitution in should be sufficiently simple as to counsel merging]; I mean only to suggest that there are even more articles of the series than the Special:Whatlinkshere adduced by KF includes). Joe 04:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep for now. As there does seem to be some potential for expansion it would likely have been more beneficial to mark this article for improvement, such as with an {{expansion}} tag, to see if there is any interest/potential for expansion. I would suggest doing so, and if there is no improvement within a reasonable amount of time, like a month, renominate it under the valid premise that it is just a redundant fork. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• This is a stub, a legitimate one, but whatever... --Striver - talk 20:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a stub, but the topic is covered much more in-depth in this article. I can understand keeping it and expanding it, but it would have to be expanded a great deal to warrant its own article when the information is already adequately covered elsewhere. --DearPrudence 23:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I move the information to the more specific article, leaving a "main" template. --Striver - talk 18:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep whether prostitution is considered a "crime" is dependent on jurisdiction, it is unreasonable to expect people - especially those who may be from countries or regions where prostitution is legal - to be expected to find it in Crime in Sweden; the same for Homosexuality in Iran, Christianity in Saudi Arabia, Abortion in Ireland, Divorce in the Philippines, which I would not expect to have to look to those countries' "crime" sections to find out about these (perhaps because all those are legal in California where I live). Carlossuarez46 22:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. --DearPrudence 23:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per above--Sefringle^Talk 06:12, 23 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 Das Delete. Speedy criterion A7. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Das Phrogge

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

Looks like standard band vanity - no sources. Bachrach44 18:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Probable WP:COI, the author has no other edits. YechielMan 18:53, 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 delete all. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tristram Whitman

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

Non-notable footballer; never played in the Football League. Mattythewhite 18:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Danny Kedwell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Aaron O'Connor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Danny Knowles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete all - nominator appears to be correct, there's nothing else special about these guys, hence non-notable. - fchd 18:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo 19:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all three - as per nomination. Daemonic Kangaroo 19:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Whitman, Delete O'Connor & Kedwell - Whitman played for Doncaster Rovers, an English league team (and should therefore be notable, but correct me if I'm wrong!), other two never played league football. GiantSnowman 20:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Appearences for Doncaster were in Conference. Mattythewhite 20:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Whitman appears to barely make the grade - his last appearance with Donny Rovers was in November 2003, just after they'd won promotion to the Football League again. It would be good to confirm any actual League appearances that autumn before he returned to non-league football. -- BPMullins | Talk 20:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Rothmans annual shows no appearences for Doncaster after their return to the League. In fact the article and the Soccerbase page (not that that site is that reliable in my opinion), show he was already on loan at a non-league club. - fchd 21:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Then, delete all three. (Thx - no Rothman's handy over here.) -- BPMullins | Talk 22:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all three. None of them is notable. Having played for a team in the third English division is a far cry from any notability. JdeJ 21:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well.. third division is well in notability. All the way down to fourth is. Mattythewhite 21:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a matter of opinion. A "normal" encyclopedia would only note major world players like Messi, Ronaldinho, Zidane. Wikipedia is of course much wider but I don't see how a player who has never played is the highest league in any country is a notable player in any way. JdeJ 21:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Its not a matter of opinion. If you have played in a professional league, such as Englands The Football League, which is down to the fourth tier, a player has notability for a Wikipedia article. Mattythewhite 21:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that an official guideline? If so, where can I find it? JdeJ 21:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is.. try looking at WP:N. Mattythewhite 21:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's at WP:BIO, notability of athletes; "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis" This makes any player who has played in the top four divisions of English football notable. (These three don't appear to meet this, so Delete, by the way).EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed whilst it might be a matter of opinion whether or not the WP:BIO policy is stringent enough, the fact is that it does exist and it is policy..... 07:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Can someone with a Rothmans have a look to see if Danny Knowles ever played for Gillingham? If not, he could be added to this Grays Athletic-themed AfD as well. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I don't have a "Rothmans" but www.allfootballers.com does not show a Danny Knowles as having ever played for Gillingham so he should be an AfD as well. Daemonic Kangaroo 04:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a Gills fan, I can confirm that Danny Knowles was on the books but never made it to the first team. As I was once taken to task by another user for saying "I know this because I support the team" in an AfD, I should point out that Neil Brown's site and Soccerbase support the statement..... ChrisTheDude 07:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note I've added Danny Knowles to this AfD. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all four. None have played in a fully-pro league, and all are currently at a club which isn't in a fully-pro league.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 13:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 04:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patient Registries at Slone

Patient Registries at Slone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Pure advertisement for a series of undisclosed clinical trials. Not suitable for dedicated article. Delete please. JFW | T@lk 17:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. My PROD already removed by article author. Ford MF 18:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopaedic, as noted, an advert not an article. Guy (Help!) 19:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 20:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as it fails WP:ADVERT. — Wenli 03:03, 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 SPEEDY DELETED by JzG (talk · contribs) - CSD G11. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PRS: Myeloma

PRS: Myeloma (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Plain advertisement for an ongoing clinical trial. No mention of study agent, unlikely to be so notable as to warrant an independent page on Wikipedia. Delete please. JFW | T@lk 17:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as advertising. Ford MF 18:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it's advertising. Acalamari 18:53, 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 delete. Sr13 04:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slappatrasta

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

Border patrol EP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Both articles were moved from prod. Notability of the band is not established. The band appears to have only one release, which does not seem to meet WP:BAND. --TeaDrinker 17:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete until they have notability. Never did concerts also.--Edtropolis 18:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:BAND completely. No assertion of notability whatsoever. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- Fails to meet WP:BAND and WP:CITE, as the article has no sources other than the band's site and their myspace page. Eddie 20:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per everything said above. — Wenli 03:05, 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 Redirect to School District 37 Delta. Non admin closure. All the best. The Sunshine Man 17:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Devon Gardens Elementary School

Devon Gardens Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A virtually empty stub for an elementary school with no claim of notability. It's only purpose seems to be a vandalism target. Was part of a block AfD nomination just over a year ago, here, and was kept overwhelmingly, but given that nothing at all has been added in the past year, I'm not sure this article (or the others that were part of that original block) serves any purpose. Resolute 17:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Also, I had thought about a merge/redirect, but really, there is nothing to merge here. Resolute 17:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete if it stays unsourced, which is likely to be the case. Resurgent insurgent 18:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Re-direct to School District 37 Delta - Article has no verification and does not establish notability - and that does not look likely to change any time soon. The existing school district article can be expanded to cover any verifiable information about this school in the long term. Camaron1 | Chris 20:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to School District 37 Delta. Alansohn 21:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. Eusebeus 21:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per Alansohn. There have the full description of one school at the District 38 article.--JForget 22:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 22:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to SD 37 Delta, allow for recreated article later. Noroton 23:28, 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. The users who contest the deletion say that there are sources to prove the existence of this disease, but none have been found. Sr13 17:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gruv's disease

Gruv's disease (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete. No evidence that this condition exists. Google search for "Gruv's disease" only brings up this article, and there is no sign of "Dr. Chico Gruv" in Google or Google Scholar. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 17:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not create this article, but I think a member of my family did. I've been having trouble myself finding information on Gruv's disease. I never heard of it until my uncle was diagnosed with it recently. I have found barely anything published about it. All I know really comes from a few photocopies of medical journal articles my aunt has, and a 1988 Miami Herald article. I am hoping that someone out there will know something more and expand this article. Tylerbag 18:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Tylerbag, I have access to most medical journals, if you could give me the name of the journal, year of publication, titles of the articles, I could find these and back up this page. Someguy1221 23:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• You mean Graves Disease. Redirect.--Edtropolis 18:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Did you even look at the two articles before suggesting a redirect? "Graves disease is a thyroid disorder characterized by Goiter, exophthalmos, "orange-peel" skin, and hyperthyroidism", while "Gruv's Disease is a rare neurological disorder characterized by sudden, brief outbursts of anger. Dr bab 19:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC).

• Delete. Listed sources do not appear to address the topic, in addition to other concerns. Serpent's Choice 19:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Some diseases with much fewer than 6000 documented cases have more than zero ghits, and apparently PubMed has never heard of the name "Gruv." Someguy1221 23:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I very much sympathize with whoever it is that has a relative with "Gruv's Disease" but there are no web pages about it. My son has a rare disease called Diaz-Fedder Syndrome. It is very much like autism. There are some 400 cases out there, I've been told by his doctors, but not a single hit on Google to show. I can understand the frustration. Jumpygirl 00:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I've heard of Gruv's Disease before. I vaguely remember it being mentioned on a Discovery Health Channel program several years ago. The description in this article indeed sounds very much like what I can remember back then.Hellno2 17:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Additional Comment. It is possible that whoever wrote this article did not spell "Gruv's" correctly. That may explain why there are no results when a Google search is conducted.Hellno2 17:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• delete - without any hits on google or pubmed, it is unlikely to be a published disease. And if it's not published, it's either WP:OR or a hoax. Debivort 18:29, 23 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. — Scientizzle 03:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Makoto Sakamoto

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

The article is only a few words long it is completely un-sourced and unreferenced and is of no notability at all in the wider music world Jjamesj 17:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and WP:MUSIC. YechielMan 22:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Y not? 23:30, 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 No consensus. I think WP:NOT is a very strong argument here. And usefulness per se does not mean it's worthy of inclusion here. Nevertheless, I think we ought to have a big AfD for all of these things, including much larger items such as List of postal codes in Germany etc. Maybe even a poll somewhere like WT:NOT. That'll ensure that we're not wasting time discussing individual ones. -- Y not? 23:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of postal codes in Belgium

List of postal codes in Belgium (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 56 ZIP codes, this is unencyclopedic. Punkmorten 17:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per precedent. There was also an AFD for a list of postal codes in Nepal. YechielMan 17:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete sheesh. JJL 18:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a violation of WP:NOT#DIR. Acalamari 18:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this is the job of the Belgian postal service. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per WP:NOT#DIR. Eddie 20:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I'm sure that this and the Nepal group are someone's test case for getting rid of lists of Zip Codes. However, the World Almanac has, for years, listed the zip codes for American cities of 5,000 or more people, and it's considered a useful reference. Wikipedia has compiled the planet's only list of this information, and this falls in the category of reference material. No, it's not intended to be interesting reading, any more than a list of the Dewey Decimal System codes would be. It's something to be REFERRED to, and that's why they call it a REFERENCE. Maybe it is the job of the Belgian postal service to keep track of its postal codes, but it's not our job to delete the information just because we don't plan to write to Belgium, or Nepal, or any other place outside our beloved U.S.A. Mandsford 21:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per precedent. Even the US zip code lists were deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of ZIP Codes in the United States by state) and the deletion subsequently upheld at a DRV. The same reasoning applies here. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Well, if a list of U.S. zip codes was deleted, I guess poor Belgium and Nepal aren't far behind. No reason that we can't have stuff for grownups too. Wikipedia should be a place you can find an address AND the place look for which Pokemon cards are missing from your collection. Wikipedia is on the way to becoming a library with only one shelf for reference books, and the world's largest collection of comic books. As Steely Dan said, "The things that pass for knowledge, I don't understand." Mandsford 23:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per Mandsford. Clearly WP:POINT-driven... Ranma9617 02:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as useful --Pgreenfinch 18:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - it's worthwhile, useful and not really hurting anything as long as there is a "current as of X" tag on it. Guroadrunner 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. —Kurykh 23:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tim LaRoche

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

Delete - does not appear to meet the WP:BAND criteria Oscarthecat 17:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nonnotable. Whoop-dee-doo, he appeared on a major television program! So did I (seriously). YechielMan 18:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per Yechiel. Eddie 20:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- he does meet the WP:BAND criteria. Criteria for musicians and ensembles point 9) Has won or placed in a major music competition". Out of the thousands of people who tried for the contest he was one of the 10 finalists. 20:01, 19 June 2007 (EST)— Thenetimp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Weak keep I think that it is notable enough to pass WP:BIO; however, needs some major cleanup and references added before becoming acceptable. — Wenli 03:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - appears to be written by individual in question. --Zpb52 23:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

So why can't an individual write their own profile if they are living, wouldn't they have the most facts about themselves? Seems like a lame reason for a speedy delete. He did write the text, but I was the one who created the profile. The current text is more of a place holder until I can meet with him to iron out a better profile. 1:35, 21 June 2007 (EST)— Thenetimp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Here's why : Wikipedia:Autobiography --Oscarthecat 22:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, just for the record, this profile is 90% something he wrote, (I added what information I knew), I can say from what I know of him (i've been his friend for 15 years), that the text is accurate. And to quote the link gave to autobiographies "Writing autobiographies is highly discouraged. It is not impossible to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography, and they are not strictly forbidden." and "However, every Wikipedia article must cover its subject in a neutral, fair, and comprehensive way in order to advance knowledge of the subject as a whole." The article in my opinion is quite neutral. It gives some basic facts about who he is, and his goals. Very neutral. I am in the process of looking at other bios(for format) to write something that is more informative, but in the end a bulk of this text that is here may not even exist in the final biography. 21:16, 12 June 2007 (EST)— Thenetimp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete. Fails WP:NOTE and is non-notable (wait, that means the same thing.) Astrale01^talk_contribs 21:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 04:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] YouTubeMobile

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

Apparently, this seems to be an Advert. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advertising.--Edtropolis 17:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, it has no sources but blogs and threads.--Edtropolis 18:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and probable WP:COI; the author has no other edits. YechielMan 18:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per nom. Eddie 20:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I never like using this argument, but per nom. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — Wenli 03:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I expected it to be talk about some new feature of YouTube, however, all it does is stating a compatiability list. It really is indiscriminate information.--Kylohk 16:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not of encyclopedic interest. Pascal.Tesson 16:50, 23 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.— Scientizzle 02:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forkhead Box Audiobooks

Forkhead Box Audiobooks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

4 non-wiki ghits, none of which establish WP:NOTABILITY; no claim of notability in article. Previous AfD in 2005 closed with no consensus. Kathy A. 17:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. per nom. --Edtropolis 19:10, 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 to keep them all, not having any real agreement to do otherwise; this is without prejudice to relisting individual ones, like those which may be content-free after ripping out irrelevant entires, as many have suggested. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs about Melbourne

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

Trivial information, where most songs listed actually don't satisfy the restraint of being about the city. Fits with WP:NOT#IINFO. This nomination was inspired by a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather, where most of the place-lists were left out. Included:

• List of songs about Birmingham, Alabama
• List of songs about Jerusalem
• List of songs about Los Angeles
• List of songs about Chicago
• List of songs about California
• List of songs about Detroit
• List of songs about Manchester
• List of songs about New Orleans
• List of songs about New York City
• List of songs about Pakistan - renomination
• List of songs about Seattle
• List of songs about Sydney
• List of songs about Toronto

Bulldog123 16:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom per proposal Wikipedia:Overlistification#Trivia and/or Trivial Lists --Bulldog123 17:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Though the quality of the lists may vary, they are not of necessity trivial and do consist of verifiable, factual information which, in my opinion, is suitable for an encyclopedia. Lists such as these provide a good place for the type of information that new editors tend to add to the main articles about cities (which, in those articles, would be trivia). Whereas a "list of songs about love" is clearly unmaintainable, a "list of songs about New Orleans", could be a great factual resource if improved. --Dystopos 17:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. At a minimum this nomination is too sweeping, as demonstrated in only the first two cities in question, Birmingham, Alabama and Jerusalem. At least some of these lists do seem to have encyclopedic value, unlike the examples given of "overlistification." I believe some of them have also survived previous challenges. -- Rob C (Alarob) 17:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• This is a tough one. Songs about certain locations actually could serve to illustrate good points about them, but not ALL locations fit this bill. I have looked at all of these lists. The only one which makes a solid attempt to justify its existence in an encyclopaedia is Sydney. Therefore, I recommend: Delete all except the Sydney article as lists that do not really demonstrate anything about the cities or the songs about the respective cities. Merge the information about Sydney songs to an appropriate article (Popular culture of Sydney?) but do not merge the list except for one or two illustrative examples within the prose. ("My City of Sydney" is a major Sydney song, e.g.) GassyGuy 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep these. The buck stops here. I consider cities to be sufficiently relevant to escape WP:NOT#INFO, and I can imagine how such lists could be useful for a variety of reading interests. I cannot say likewise for songs about the weather. YechielMan 18:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Cities might be relevant but songs that actually amount to really being about cities are no more than a handful. This makes the true lists under-extensive. Bulldog123 08:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now but remove all entries whichi are not backed by a citation showing that independent sources consider them to be about the city in question. Songs about cities is encyclopaedic, but as noted many of these are just songs that mention the city (or allude to it) apparently added by fans of the band looking to spread the word. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all This fails listcruff and is is original research --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 20:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: WP:LC ("Listcruft") is an essay and Wikipedia:Overlistification is a proposal. Neither carry the weight of established policy or guidelines. And although there may be original research on some of these articles, that is a matter for normal editing, not for AfD (unless you believe that these articles can only be created by violating WP:OR). --Dystopos 20:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Yes I understand that WP:LC is not policy, however WP:OR is. Additionally, if there isnt' anything to establish notability on this list, then the WP:LC argument becomes valid, and should be deleted. What purpose does this list make? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 20:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The content of an article, whether comprised of original research or not, is a matter to be corrected by editing, not deletion. It's not a bad idea to cite the arguments made in these other essays and proposals for the purposes of this discussion. My point is that "fails listcruft" is not an argument in itself because "listcruft" is not an accepted guideline. --Dystopos 21:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. I bet I could go through the archives and find at least 100 articles deleted because they were listcruft --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 21:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And I could point out the language of the essay itself "The term is most often used in AFD debates concerning list articles. Its use is controversial." - To the extent that the essay explicates WP policy with regard to lists, that's great for discussion. But I think it's necessary to explain what you mean by 'fails listcruft' since listcruft is not an agreed-upon standard. --Dystopos 23:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Votes should be by policy, not essay - for example, it would be fine to say eg "Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:OR as an example of listcruft", and maybe explain why the list is in one's own opinion not able to be formed without WP:OR creeping in, but not Delete per listcruft, as the latter has no community consensus. Orderinchaos 02:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as listcruft. I can't take any more of these "list of songs about..." Useight 01:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable subjects suited for lists, all or almost all of them. List any that might not be.

Listcruft -- a term that can be applied to any list one dislike, or to all lists if one dislikes lists in general; we might just as rationally say articlecruft. The only reproducible meaning of listcruf is: "I !vote delete." DGG 02:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The list of songs about Melbourne and Sydney published in the Melbourne Age and Sydney Morning Herald could form the source for those articles. However, that might be considered to be a copyvio. Capitalistroadster 02:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This has come up before . As I said the last time, I think the lists are interesting and useful, it is also useful to have such lists to redirect information that would otherwise clog up main article space. --Melburnian 04:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Question Can someone describe what a "song about a city" is without relying on original research? Is it a song that mentions a city in a lyric? A song devoted to a city? A song who's lyrics are entirely about a city? This area gets fuzzy. I think its fuzzy enough to justify simnjim's "Original research" comment - and even fully support it. Bulldog123 04:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Melburnian. These have been nominated before (especially the Sydney one, where an attempt was made to back it up) and they were kept. Let's not engage in continual AfDs until things are deleted - that's not on. The lists are interesting and useful, and no different to a compilation of the "X in fiction/X in the media" sections that appear commonly in Wikipedia articles, and no one has any problem with them. The "original research" claim is really not the case - the subject matter of most songs is so obvious, that you only need a bit of common sense to know what it is about - and if it is obvious, it doesn't come under the banner of "original research" - read the policy. Only where the words and references to a city are obscure should original research even come into it. Finally, the nomination is far too sweeping and generalised. Let's keep all of these for the moment - there is no reason to delete them. JRG 05:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, there is a difference. "X in fiction/X in popular culture" make an attempt to succinctly describe the appearances of X in fiction or pop culture, which is much more the business of an encyclopaedia. These "articles" attempt to list every instance of something without giving any reason why it is encyclopaedic or significant to do so. GassyGuy 05:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If listing the appearances of X in pop culture is the business of an encyclopedia (and I wouldn't say that it is), then these articles are central to that business, are they not? --Dystopos 13:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but those sections do not (or at least, should not) just list the appearances, but describe the significance of those appearances textually. A mere list of appearances in pop culture is just as unencyclopaedic as these lists. GassyGuy 04:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That would have no significance on the fate of this list. We can easily do some work fixing some of these up, but a mass deletion isn't going to help anyone. JRG 10:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I can easily tell you from experience, calls for "cleaning up" almost never work. Deleting and then forcing someone to recreate (when allowed) a more fine-tuned list has worked numerous times. Bulldog123 02:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Relist Too many lists to meaningfully argue the merits of keeping each one.Garrie 06:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all and relist individually any that dont appear to have more than 10 entries which cant be sourced as JzG outlines. John Vandenberg 13:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This is a no brainer to delete (please keep in mind that I already !voted earlier in the discussion). 1. This fails WP:LC horribly. Here is a copy/paste from the WP:LC page as an example of Listcruft: List of songs containing the sound of a woodpecker . By simple substitution, that can be List of songs about <insert word here -- in this case, city names>. 2. Fails WP:OR, which I would like to remind you, is OFFICIAL POLICY in wikipedia. Wording from WP:OR: It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; Without a reliable source to each and every song name listed on each and every one of these lists, it does not pass WP:V, and is deemed original research. Since wikipedia has an offical policy of not allowing original research, there is no other conclusion than to delete all of these lists. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Once again, original research is an issue to be corrected by improving the article, not be deleting it. Furthermore, this type of list does not introduce an analysis or synthesize an argument, it merely collates factual material. There would only be a reason to delete based on WP:OR if it were impossible to create a list that can't be objectively verified. (And, as I've mentioned already, WP:LC is an essay, not a guideline. --Dystopos 14:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• You are just going round and round in circles reiterating what you have already said. At least I elaborated why this should be deleted. And you can't correct these lists by "editing" to remove the WP:OR. The only thing you can do, is provide WP:RS to support them being on the list. Otherwise it's original research, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't deny that. Point in question. In the Lists of songs about Birmingham, Alabama, is this song: Billy Joel, "We Didn't Start the Fire" who says it's about Birmingham, Alabama? The author? Holy $H|t...that's original research. Provide a souce as to WHY it's about Birmingham, Alabama. Along with that, provide a source to EVERY songs as to WHY they are about their respective city...otherwise it's original research, and should be deleted. I'm getting a little tired having to re-explain this to you over and over. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• OK, so "We Didn't Start the Fire" is not a song about Birmingham, Alabama. Edit the list. Other songs are indisputably and verifiably about the city, such as "Tuxedo Junction". Your arguments (and I continue to explain this because you seem not to understand) are reasons to edit the lists, not reasons to delete the articles. --Dystopos 15:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm going to leave them the way they are, because in the state they are now, they are going to be deleted, and I want them deleted. If you want them kept you better get in gear and provide sources for WHY those songs are about the cities in question, or edit out incorrect songs. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• OK, one last time... article quality is NOT A REASON FOR DELETION. See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons for deletion. The subject of our discussion is "can these articles be improved." not "have they been improved yet?" --Dystopos 18:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

But original research is. Can you or anyone please define the encyclopedic value of a song about a place? Why should New York, New York be in the same list as The Boxer by Simon and Garfunkel. The lyrics of the latter are here: [14]. Bulldog123 18:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

An answer to Bulldog's specific question may be found in the article The Boxer: "Simon sang the song to open Saturday Night Live on September 29, 2001, the first live SNL show following the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City." A song doesn't have to contain the name of a city n times, or include it in the title, in order to be closely associated with that city. So I join Dystopos in advising that edits are more constructive than zaps in this case. (I already voted "keep.") Also want to thank sumnjim for detecting the error in the Birmingham list, although I could wish he had stated his finding a little more plainly. -- Rob C (Alarob) 19:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This will be my last edit, as I've said my peace. I'm assuming that the WP:OR is going to hold up, because it is obviously that. FYI under songs about new orleans is the song: * "Truckin'" by the Grateful Dead. In that song, it meantions Bourbon street, but the song is about the band being on the road, from their own mouths (read the article of the song), so that is another example of someone just putting anything that has even an iota of reference to the city, ie: original research. Honestly, if you want these lists kept, source any songs that aren't obviously about the city (ie: the many songs called "Chicago" are obviously about Chicago), and remove any that really aren't. I have no qualms of keeping if that's done. The way that the lists are now, just don't cut the mustard. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 19:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is that these lists are lists of primary sources, which are allowable with descriptive information (which is understandable by a person without specialist knowledge). To say a particular song is a "song about X" may or may not involve a level of understanding - my view is that if the song is obviously about something, it should be self-explanatory; however, if it involves some sort of analysis to understand that a song is about a particular issue, it needs a verifiable source so that we can understand that. Deletion is not the answer to these sort of lists if OR or verifiability is the problem - what is needed is a major cleanup - and the articles will probably need a lot of footnoting to be reliable and verified lists. JRG 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• WP:OR is only a deletion criterion if an article can not be written without relying on original research. If the article needs improvement, then improve it, or tag it for improvement, or leave notes on the talk page. Deletion is another matter entirely. --Dystopos 19:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, basically this is listcruft. What's the criteria for including a song into this list, anyway? Too vague. Lankiveil 09:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

I would think the criteria is fairly straight-forward: the song has to be about a city of some description... if sourcing is the problem that's not an issue for AfD - that's an issue for improvement. JRG 10:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all - I'm concerned about the WP:OR possibility of this, as well as WP:NOT#IINFO (some songs have nothing else in common). Re most of these cities, a few would indeed be about, or directly alluding to, the city. Whitlams' "Melbourne" (and various others with Melbourne clearly in the title) and Crowded House "Four Seasons In One Day" are probably the only verifiable ones (and I think one would need to verify each) for that city, while many others in the list which I know personally are not specifically about Melbourne and some just casually mention it or some part thereof. Orderinchaos 10:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment (on "List of songs about Melbourne"): The criteria for inclusion is given in the preamble to the list:

"This is a list of songs which mention or are about Melbourne the capital city of Victoria, Australia, the suburbs of Melbourne and nearby locations."

The great majority of the songs are listed in the references given from The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and Triple J and by definition are not original research (by us). It would, however, be handy if a citation was given against each entry, as it is difficult at the moment to pick up OR entries without having a bit of time to spare. --Melburnian 14:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all - in line with the many, many recent deletions of song lists. There is little or no regard in these lists as to whether the song is "about" a subject. Merely being mentioned in the lyrics of a song does not mean that the song is "about" the thing the lyric mentions. To respond specificlly to the notion that these lists should be kept because of the existence of articles and sections of "X in media" or "X in popular culture" and no one has a problem with them: in fact, many people have a big problem with such sections and articles. The sections are quite often tagged for cleanup and/or removal as trivia, editors frequently split them off into separate articles because they are clogging up the main article and when nominated for deletion such articles are quite frequently, almost uniformly, deleted. Otto4711 16:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly - it's not a "List of songs which happen to mention X". Orderinchaos 02:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and source. Part of a place's culture is in its reflection in the arts (including music); songs and other arts about a place are an encyclopedically relevant collection of related things: how the place is seen by commentators whose commentary is music rather than prose. These need to be trimmed and sourced, however. Merely mentioning the town does not make it "about" that place, this ought not be a List of songs with XXXX in their lyrics - that would be unrelated. Carlossuarez46 22:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point Carlos; well said. I completely agree. JRG 12:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the place effects the music, but there is no proof this music is representative of the genre of the place. So....what ends up being the reason for keeping the list isn't exemplified by the list at all. Bulldog123 20:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep all per Carlossuarez46, who explained it very well. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all per Yechielman and Carlossuarez above Johnbod 11:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons said before--Freepablo 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the list issue wins me. If we allow song titles or even song content to determine WP articles then we can just keep going without end. Any songs that are genuinely relevant to the locale in question should be included in an article about the place itself as a single sentence - where it will make sense to that article, or be deleted. Agnetha1234 08:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain how it is "to determine WP articles"? I assume some of these were probably pop-culture spinoffs from articles of this sort - they would have come from the article about the city, not the other way round. JRG 12:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. What I mean is that when a title or the content of a song mentions a topic X, is that enough to justify a list article in WP about "List of songs about X"? If it is, then many/most words of all songs including mention of a given topic could then become the topic X in question for such a list article. It would have no end. I can see why people attached to a topic X would like to see such an article preserved, but I worry that if such lists endure they can just mushroom to encompass any topic that is ever mentioned in a song title or in the words to any song. If a song is really that importantly connected to a topic (eg Melbourne) - I would rather see it there. WP:LC seems meant for articles like this one but I appreciate others like list articles like this and they prefer to edit not delete, but my personal preference for such lists in WP, certainly about something as voluminous as words contained in songs, would be to delete. Agnetha1234 14:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too keen for a blanket ban on all these lists. A city with a worldwide renown for its music scene such as New Orleans could well warrant a list of songs that are genuinely about the city (as opposed to mentioning it in passing), and one that would be too long to go as a subsection within the city article. Sydney, on the other hand, has no such level of international reknown, and I would be rather surprised if the average person on another continent had heard of any of the songs that are genuinely about the city (I only recognise one song on that list, and that one isn't about Sydney, it's more about a peninsula in Turkey). If these lists are kept, I would suggest they are expanded to include information on the song and why it is about the city if it is not obvious (e.g. "Strawberry Field" was a Salvation Army home in Liverpool where John Lennon used to go). Preferably with cites. Average Earthman 22:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're American? I don't agree with you on different cities having different criteria. Wikipedia is meant to be international, not American-based or anything else-based, and this means that not only New Orleans, but also cities like Sydney are welcome to have such lists in Wikipedia. By all means they need cleaning up, but to exclude cities like Sydney is to take away the internationalism of Wikipedia. We can't simply restrict the encyclopedia to something that only Americans have heard of. JRG 23:50, 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. — Scientizzle 02:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passage Meditation

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

I prodded this article, but the author asked me to reconsider. For the sake of WP:NOOB, I'm going to consider this a procedural listing. YechielMan 16:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear YechielMan: thank you for reconsidering. What does it mean then that "this is a procedural listing"? Does that mean the article will not get deleted? Or do I still have to do something? Thanks

It means that when the closing administrator counts votes, he should consider my opinion to be neutral. (AFD is not really a vote, but that's another discussion for another time.) I have raised concerns with Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. These are tricky problems and may require a substantial rewrite of the article to fix them. YechielMan 17:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

From original submitter: I have edited this page to include more secondary references of why this is a notable entry. This is my first attempt at putting something onto Wikipedia so if I have done it wrong, please bear with me! I found out about Passage Meditation by attending a retreat about it and was surprised to see that there was no description of it on wikipedia since it seems to me to be a legitimate method of meditation that is different enough from other methods to warrant its own definition in wikipedia.

• Keep. Notable. Passage meditation is the practice of one of the most popular authors on yoga, Eknath Easwaran, whose books have sold lots of copies. (His book Meditation is in the ninth printing of its second edition[15]). — goethean ॐ 15:30, 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. Punahou Carnival has more hits, and that's not notable. Sr13 03:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University of Melbourne Scavenger Hunt

Old AFD here

Wikipedia is not for things made up at university one day. This yearly contest is unsourced, not notable, and consists primarily of trivia and long lists of winners. Wikipedia is not a forum for self-promotion, or even promotion of the event one organizes. >Radiant< 16:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Good grief! What the...? YechielMan 16:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the event is simply not notable. Acalamari 19:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per Yechiel. Eddie 20:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Oh yeah a scavenger hunt, sounds like something for the school website, not wikipedia. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Comes up with a grand total of 10 Google hits of which 8 were Wikipedia and mirrors and a 9th was a Boing Boing reference to a vibrator being one of the articles on the hunt. [Google News and Google News Archive come up empty. [16] Severe problems with verifiability with the article. Capitalistroadster 02:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — Wenli 03:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Well sourced. ExtraDry 05:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. There is only one article which could be considered an independent reliable source, and is more like an interview, so therefore not notable. Arguable that it could be in a more broader article about these types of events. Assize 08:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as pure schoolcruft. Highly unencyclopedic. MER-C 08:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. John Vandenberg 13:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Move My Move/Merge opinion from last time still stands.Garrie 21:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like it might be a fun event, but not enough independent sources to indicate notability. Lankiveil 09:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment 5 Sources is not enough for you? ExtraDry 12:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment, I don't consider "Slashdong.org" or "Dave's Block" to be reliable sources. The other references given are mainly either passing references to scavenger hunts in general, or discuss various incidents of mischief pulled off by uni students before this particular hunt even began. Lankiveil 12:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC).
      • Comment I don't either but excluding them there are 7 WP:RS. Like them or not they are WP:RS ExtraDry 12:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment, I'm not sure if you're being rhetorical or not. Most of the "RS" are on the "Prosh Week Events", not on the actual scavenger hunt itself. And again, apart from maybe #7, most of them aren't about the hunt itself, they're about other things that happen. The Graham Kennedy kidnapping is also irrelevant as it happened decades before this hunt supposedly began. Lankiveil 15:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC).
• Keep, per the reasons it was kept at the last AFD. This event is notable because it is arguably the biggest of its kind in the world, and is constantly dogged by controversy. This is exactly the sort of article that makes Wikipedia well-rounded. Drett 15:32, 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 03:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deaths in the Harry Potter series

Old debate here.

Original research and trivia. >Radiant< 16:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as Radiant! said, it's original research. Also, some of the deaths aren't even notable anyway, such as the Flobberworms. On top of it all, it's unsourced. I see no reason to keep this article. Acalamari 18:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Oy. What can I say? I know Harry Potter has taken over the world of Muggles, but this list is just beyond excessive. YechielMan 18:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Each of the individual book articles have their own plot summaries which should cover most deaths in the series, making the usefulness of this article very limited to a general audience. A lot of the deaths listed are not notable/important anyway. Camaron1 | Chris 19:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 20:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I can only add my agreement to the good points already made above. JdeJ 21:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with the appropriate articles - although I may suspect that it is mentionned in the plot section.--JForget 22:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This edges toward plot summary, which is a violation of copyright. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as fancruft. Useight 01:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FICT, WP:N, and as fancruft. One could also cite WP is not a memorial, but that would overly dignify these fictional characters. Carlossuarez46 22:11, 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 03:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs about firearms and weapons

List of songs about firearms and weapons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Relisting with previous WP:NOT reasoning. Saved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather afd because of this previous no consensus afd: Confused nomination. Bulldog123 16:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom and per proposal Wikipedia:Overlistification#Trivia_and.2For_Trivial_Lists. Bulldog123 16:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete "The result was other." - W.marsh. (Chuckle.) Let's get rid of all these cruft articles, including List of songs about nuclear war. YechielMan 16:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per proposal, I agree that we need to stop overlistification(lol) by deleting stupid lists like this one 86.17.154.138 17:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it's original research, unsourced, and a useless list. Acalamari 19:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Acalamari. --Dezidor 20:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 20:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Use correct process If it is desired to change WP policy to eliminate articles on lists, the correct place is the village pump. If it is desired to change the criteria to eliminate lists about the subject of songs, propose that at the appropriate workgroup; But if it is proposed to eliminate this particular list for some particular reason, please give the reason. If the reason is that you think it's stupid, please explain, as I don't think that's one of the usual criteria; if you mean it's useless please explain where that criterion is to be found and how you have come to this conclusion. Indiscriminate deletion is as bad as indiscriminate addition. DGG 02:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic like most of the songs about... lists; no exception seems to be around to save it. Carlossuarez46 22:00, 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. Notable individuals affiliated with the station can be listed at its page. MastCell ^Talk 20:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WXYZ-TV Personalities Past and Present

WXYZ-TV Personalities Past and Present (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a repository for lists of nn people. Clarityfiend 16:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge with WXYZ, list like that are generally found in the main station articles (i.e if I remember one example WHAM-TV).--JForget 22:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Piperdown 00:17, 26 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 03:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theory of elementary waves

Theory of elementary waves (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable crackpot theory; documented in one "Physics Essays" article from 1996, other Google hits are largely listserv posts Bm gub 16:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails criteria in WP:SCIENCE.--Edtropolis 16:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Has been debunked several times, but that probably doesn't raise it to notability. Clarityfiend 18:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn. JJL 18:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 20:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as it makes me cry for real science, and per nom. Please folks, it's articles like this one that gives us a bad name! Bearian 02:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not because crackpot theory but the article really sucks. Pavel Vozenilek 02:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• delete per above. Crackpot theories could be interesting for historical reasons i.e. flatearth etc, but there is no justification of the notability or historical value of this one. Debivort 18:37, 23 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 Reginald Arvizu. MastCell ^Talk 20:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Immanuel One Twenty Three

Immanuel One Twenty Three (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

contested prod, non-notable clothing line of a rock star that is "upcoming", might be worth mentioning in the band or singer's article, but doesn't need its own article MECU≈talk 16:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect: to the main article. Right now, this is both a WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V violation.  RGTraynor  16:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Do whatever. I'm no wikipedia expert, I just use it as an encyclopedia. But seeing as I had some info I thought I'd share it as it will probably become notable in the future. Jjmoreland 22:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, given that no one has addressed the question of reliable sources with regards to notability. --Coredesat 03:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paddy Tunney (1956)

Paddy Tunney (1956) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Subject of article is non-notable; no reliable secondary sources Pathless 15:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete with comment Only ghits found are for subject's father. Is it even worth merging the info in this article into Paddy Tunney? --Ispy1981 16:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Paddy Tunney.--Edtropolis 16:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete without redirection. Redirection would be pointless, as no-one will search after Paddy Tunney (1956). Dr bab 19:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC).
• Delete - not independently notable and no one's going to use "Paddy Tunney (1956)" as a search string. Otto4711 18:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - of course he is notable! He has done much for both Irish traditional music and tourism in Donegal, which is perhaps a small enough region by world standards, but nonetheless is a place of note. Perhaps it could be redirected to a different title. --Letterkennyboi 20:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep _ Notable as he is chair of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. End of.--Balloholic 23:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Are there multiple independent reliable sources that attest to his independent notability? Because as of right now his article is sourced by a website associated with Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann (not independent) and the website for the secondary school where he teaches (also not independent). All very well and good to say "of course he's notable" but there must be sources to back up the assertion. Otto4711 13:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Per Dr bab. Astrale01^talk_contribs 21:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It would be keepable if a source were added. --86.40.194.11 22:35, 27 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" 22:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ouais

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

Non-notable arabian mathematician. I flagged this article for speedy delete, but the user removed it. No google hits.--Edtropolis 15:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also possible WP:HOAX. Using the full name, I got only one ghit. And unless our guy has popped out of the grave to post about Microsoft and Google...--Ispy1981 15:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• I also want to add that this is possibly a coat rack.--Edtropolis 16:31, 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 02:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nations Of War

Nations Of War (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - No assertion of notability, no reliable secondary sources for verification, only provided sources have been the usual glut of link directory sites. Most of article is game guide material. DarkSaber2k 14:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. DarkSaber2k 14:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - Doesnt seem like a very notable game Corpx 15:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete THe only references mentioned are of its official website, a search engine check reveals only some forum entry. Also, the nations of war phrase seemed to be mostly used by politicians in the results. Hence the game is not notable, lacking reliable sources.--Kylohk 16:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• delete in the absence of sources to establish notability, which seems unlikely. — brighterorange (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No references to secondary sources and written rather poorly for Wikipedia. Xtreme racer 00:33, 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 02:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Monzo

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

This is a vanity article. 68.101.247.157 and 12.135.154.12 are either Joe Monzo himself, or other users whose edits consist mainly of adding external links to Tonalsoft to various articles. Od Mishehu 13:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per nom. --BozMo talk 14:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I would not say it meets A7 but however it does seem non-notable and as mentioned by the nominator does appear to have a conflict of interest. The Sunshine Man 14:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Adds no value, failing WP:NOTE and WP:COI applies.Pedro |  Chat  15:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no notability established for the subject. I'm amazed the article lasted this long, as it was created in 2004. Acalamari 19:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 20:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• NO DELETE Not a vanity article. Monzo is in fact a active music theorist (cf. yahoogroups), author (I have the book), programmer (I have used the program), and composer (I have heard his music played at concerts). Non-notable? How is this determined? As 21st century music theory is only in its infancy, how do you know what is notable or not. It is in fact arguably notable, given the progress in just the past few years in microtonal software and notation (e.g. Sagittal), in which Monzo has been either the primary theorist or actively involved with others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.210.150.30 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• No Delete Monzo has done a huge amount of research in music theory and history, and has published a vast amount of it, along with much highly original theory, online both on his websites and at the Yahoo Groups related to microtonal music and Mahler. He is also IMO a significant composer, especially of microtonal music. It would be great if someone who knows more than me about Wikipedia would do whatever needs to be done to the page to give it a solid existence at Wikipedia.Starky32 02:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ... and his software (Tonescape) really rocks!Starky32 02:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - This article is lacking sources, and has been heavily edited by its subject, but despite this, I do agree with those above who consider him notable. If you're interested in tuning, you've probably heard of him. His Tonalsoft website is quite good, one of the best on the subject, and has been around for quite some time. I think he's notable, but unfortunately I don't have any sources with which I could verify or contribute to the text of the article (which is why my vote to keep is weak, rather than strong). Hopefully someone else can dig up sources on him. - Rainwarrior 03:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the COI and N issues above. Eusebeus 07:55, 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 Small + Regionals and Love and Rage (Australia) and merge Australian Labor Students into National Union of Students of Australia. It was unanimous that the first two articles should be deleted but there was no consensus on ALS. It is an editorial decision, for the talk page of National Union of Students of Australia, whether Australian Labor Students should be resplit or remain as a merged article but with no sources, and an article that is redolent of OR, I would expect that any recreation would feature in a fresh AfD coming soon to a computer near you! TerriersFan 03:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Labor Students

content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not verifiable in a reliable source, as it contravenes No Original Research Croster 13:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Update I am also nominating the following related pages because they all follow the same criteria, per User:GarrieIrons:

Small + Regionals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Love and Rage (Australia) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Croster 06:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert-Update Removed National Broad Left, Non-Aligned Left, Left Alliance per Rebecca. Croster 08:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Croster 13:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete For a student organization, notability is sketchy. Only 700 google hits, and not much from reliable third party sources. YechielMan 16:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom and ors. Another waste of electronic space article. Thewinchester ^(talk) 22:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless verification is provided in full.Garrie 23:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Are we going to see Grassroots Left, Independents, National Liaison Committee and Student Unity all listed? They are all unsoureced / undersourced.Garrie 23:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Google News Archives comes up with four references. [17] Seems to be faction of the National Organisation of Labor Students and possibly worth a mention in that article. Capitalistroadster 02:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It isn't a faction of NOLS; it was a major faction in its own right, which later merged with NOLS to form a new group. If you're going to vote to delete something, please make sure you at least know what it is you're voting to delete. Rebecca 07:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - put a mention in the NOLS article, but nothing more. JRG 05:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • See above. Rebecca 07:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Post-Update votes start hereCroster 06:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Split into their own respective AfDs.
  • Australian Labor Students was a major national faction, and as with the others, has received coverage in the mainstream media accordant with that standing. National Broad Left is a similar case. Neither of these should be here at all.
  • There are, I would argue, enough sources to warrant keeping Left Alliance (Australia) and Non-Aligned Left. I suspect these may need to be slimmed down, as some of the material there seems to be OR, but there is enough there to have a good, sourced shorter article explaining their history and influence.
  • I can't really find any sources to back up Small + Regionals and Love and Rage (Australia). These would seem to me to be fair candidates for deletion. Rebecca 07:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert-Update votes start hereCroster Croster 08:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note - All three are now non-existent, or defunct, student organisations, with little hope of acquiring Verifiable, Reliable sources and thus becoming devoid of Original Research. Croster 08:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Australian Labor Students, delete Small + Regionals and Love and Rage (Australia). The first one is clearly notable; the latter two, while interesting, there's just no reputable sources about. Rebecca 09:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Australian Labor Students and delete the other two. I havent been able to find any proof of the other two; not enough to warrant a merge. John Vandenberg 12:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Australian Labor Students, delete Small + Regionals and Love and Rage (Australia) per Rebecca. The first has won a number of NUS elections in various guises and forms and hence would be notable and sourceable. Orderinchaos 10:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There are no secondary sources cited, therefore the subject is not notable under WP:N. Four incidental mentions in a newspaper ain't enough to constitute non-trivial mentions. Schools and churches get deleted here even when they have double or triple the mentions of these subjects. Assize 11:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Australian Labor Students, delete Small + Regionals and Love and Rage (Australia) per Rebecca. JRG 00:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to National Union of Students of Australia. Australian Labor Students is at best borderline notable, but it is clearly part of the target article, for which sources can surely be found. --SmokeyJoe 02:01, 26 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 02:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Cass

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

This is a borderline speedy deletion to me. He owns a few websites and was part of a local, citywide film festival. But that's it. Metros 13:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Added speedy tag because it was created today. Corpx 15:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. as tagged.--Edtropolis 16:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of reliable third-party coverage. This, however, is clearly not a candidate for speedy deletion as notability is most certainly asserted in the article. Pascal.Tesson 16:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the subject is not notable enough to warrant an article. Acalamari 19:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 20:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-Article looks like it was written by a fan.--JForget 22:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes delete - despite a few days to clean up and show appropriate notability this has not been achieved.--VS ^talk 13:55, 23 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 02:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 14 tracks and a 40oz.

14 tracks and a 40oz. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Compilation album of non-notable bands on a non-notable label. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Not sourced and not notable. Less than 15 unique ghits for "14 tracks and a 40oz"...mostly mirrors. --OnoremDil 13:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails criteria in WP:MUSIC, WP:RS, and WP:VERIFY.--Edtropolis 16:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the nominator said why: a compilation of non-notable bands on a non-notable label. Acalamari 19:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per CSD A7 Since no notability is even asserted in this article. A1octopus 22:56, 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. Sr13 02:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jessie James (murder victim)

Jessie James (murder victim) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Boy shot dead. Tragic - yes. Encyclopedic - no. Wikipedia is not a news site. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete-WP:BLP1E states that we shouldn't keep articles about people famous for just one thing-in this case, his murder. There are many, many murders every year, and most of the victims aren't sufficiently notable to warrent inclusion. This is one of those cases.--Rossheth | Talk to me 14:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of every murder victim in the world, nor is it a newspaper mirror site, nor is it a memorial site. Edison 15:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per above Corpx 15:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete After a lot of consideration. Cited and notable(ish) but as per User:Rossheth fails WP:BLP1E Pedro |  Chat  15:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete clearly per WP is not a memorial. Eusebeus 15:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. per ↑.--Edtropolis 16:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry, it's a shame the guy was killed in this manner, but being murdered doesn't make someone notable in itself. Fourohfour 16:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable event. --Dezidor 20:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • How so? Thousands of people are murdered every day. If he was part of a gang war like the article says, that is even less notable. TJ Spyke 00:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above (except Dezidor). Eddie 20:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete While I feel sorry for his family, this boy's death doesn't seem at all notable since people get murdered every day and there is nothing special about his death. TJ Spyke 00:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I was going to nominate this myself several months ago after I noticed MadMax had created many articles/memorials about murder victims. I previously nominated one of his articles which then got deleted, he appealed at DRV but the deletion was supported. There are dozens more on Wikipedia like this created by the same editor, some of the names don't even get a single Google hit. If anyone has the time or inclination, there are a lot of others that need to be deleted. He appears to be going through a crime encyclopedia and adding every non-notable victim to Wikipedia, unfortunately I don't have the time to check all his articles. Stacey Queripel is one I remember. Saikokira 01:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment; rather than going through the AfD for each individually (if the response is likely to be as overwhelmingly in favour of deletion as it is here), if they clearly breach the guidelines, it may be worth nominating them in bulk via the appropriate channel. Fourohfour 10:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and pretty much everyone else. Maxamegalon2000 05:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. CAN 23:10, 23 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. —Kurykh 22:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Onyxia Wipe

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

NN meme. This is a humorous clip relating to World of Warcraft released out onto the web. The clip was discussed (as a side topic) in an article on Kotaku, a blog, but one with a bit of a profile. Still, that's all the reliable sources we have, and that source isn't really about the video clip, but rather, about one of the principal actors in it, and it doesn't attribute any importance to the clip, it just discusses it. Delete per WP:V and WP:N. Mangojuice^talk 13:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete; no evidence that this particular video has achieved the level of note that Leeroy Jenkins did, which makes it just another video of a raid gone wrong. This may not always be the case, but for now that's where it stands. I've played the game, and I know nothing of this one. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, insufficient evidence of notability on this one. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I love WoW, but I've never heard of this, and it's just not notable... --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 20:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 20:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• mild Keep - For raiding guilds, this is a classic. On different servers, etc. But, it might be merged into a list of such things from WoW as opposed to a seperate article. 75.3.235.72 10:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As a fellow WoW'er, I can appreciate the entertainment value of this, however, it's not encyclopedic, doesn't have any reason to have an article, and not even worthy enough of being merged into the original WoW article...it's so far away from a Leeroy Jenkins --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 12:30, 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, only refs seem to be promotional. Sr13 02:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emagination

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

Small web design company, seems to have only local notability in Baltimore. Lurker 13:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:Notability, lacks proper references per WP:Attribution and WP:reliable sources. --►ShadowJester07  13:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable and article seems promotional Corpx 15:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable and unverifiable and seems to a peacock article. DarkSaber2k 15:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reconsideration Requested - References added to establish WP:notability and WP:attribution.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I realise there wasn't a clear consensus, but merging this content back to Pentax K mount would make that article excessively long, and WP:USEFUL is not a valid reason to Keep. Walton^talk 12:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Pentax K mount lenses

List of Pentax K mount lenses (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; this list is incomplete and arbitrary ("just a selection".. selected how?). The information included is trivial as there is no critical commentary or cultural context. If some of these lenses are very popular or notable in some other way, a short list of those with an explanation of why they are important would be appropriate in the main article, Pentax K mount. — brighterorange (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Listcruft. Wikipedia is not a directory.--Edtropolis 14:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I moved this content from the Pentax K mount article about a month ago to clear it up. I agree it is listcruft, and really doesn't serve much purpose. --Imroy 14:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• My point of view - I and many other users of Pentax K mounted cameras have used this article as reference in searching and buying lenses. I think this is useful article! No hard feelings but this list is not selected, it is collected from the field and is as good as it gets at the moment, hopefully it gets even better in the future. --Bowsbows 18:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but it's useful is not a valid reason to keep an article. -- Kesh 02:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge back to Pentax K again. 70.55.86.40 04:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to Pentax K. Valuable research tool; encyclopedic. Fg2 10:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Listcruft. Move it to a Pentax K-centric site if it's so useful. Morgan Wick 19:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, and make exhaustive. Instead of saying "it's useful", I'll say, "it's informative and appropriate". If we have lists of every episode TV shows, every paper published by certain academics, and every junction on certain highways, I don't see why a list of every lens for a certain mount is so wrong. Lists like this make Wikipedia more valuable, not less so. Where else on the web would you find such a thing? Stevage 05:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Where the hell do we have "every paper published by certain academics"? In any case, Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not an indiscriminate collection of "informative" information or a directory. I'm sure people would find a website on this information if they looked for it, and if it existed. After all, Wikipedia is not the entire World Wide Web. Morgan Wick 01:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm, I just came across Suplex. I think we can safely conclude that no information is to trivial, random or off-topic to belong, so long as that article is deemed acceptable. Stevage 04:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Again, Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Policy (which WP:NOT is) is not negotiable. Morgan Wick 05:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
        • My argument is: It's informative, appropriate, and enhances the encyclopaedia. Hence keep. But make it comprehensive. Apologies for the diversion. Stevage 03:13, 28 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 02:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs from Freaks and Geeks

List of songs from Freaks and Geeks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - another indiscriminate directory of songs with nothing in common beyond having been heard in an episode of a TV show. Otto4711 13:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom.--Edtropolis 14:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT, list of loosely related topics. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 20:55, 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. —Kurykh 22:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eli Albert Tharnish

Eli Albert Tharnish (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Orphaned and potentially non-notable. ck lostsword • T • C 15:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete:, fails WP:V. This article has been tagged for nearly a year now; it's shown no prospect of improvement.  RGTraynor  13:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I've spent a few moments trying to cite the one claim in the article and can't. His notability, on-line at least, extends about as far as Wikipedia.Pedro |  Chat  15:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 20:55, 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. —Kurykh 22:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of obscure baseball records

List of obscure baseball records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The topic itself provides no realistic criteria for inclusion. What defines obscure? And who recognizes these records? If they are recognized by Major League Baseball are they really obscure? This borders more on trivial facts of curiosity. Tecmobowl 00:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete but save some of it somewhere. The title is misleading and it's become a collection of junk, but some of this material is probably worth saving in some context. Matchups 01:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Not Nearly As Weak A Delete As All Of That: per nom, fails WP:NOT as a completely indiscriminate heap of information, fails WP:OR as a collection. Toss in that these "records" are almost completely from the 2006 season and don't remotely reflect the full sweep of baseball history. These aren't even statistical accomplishments of the sort normally deemed to be "records," but pure trivia that's infinitely expandable. No doubt some bored, lonely wonk will discover that the Milwaukee Brewers starting infield on July 9, 2007, will for the first time since the 1944 season consist entirely of 6'3" right-handed throwers, but I can't for the life of me see how Wikipedia would be bettered by the information.  RGTraynor  13:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, perhaps, into list of rare baseball events or whatever that link was? ~Crowstar~ 14:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: These aren't records. They are "fun facts" and don't deserve and article. DCEdwards1966 14:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-But, some facts on this page may warrant inclusion on their respective players' pages. I suspect that the notable, worthwhile ones are already there.--Rossheth | Talk to me 14:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as miscellaneous information. None of these are really records. Theyt are just random collections of statistics which no one, a priori, would have considered to be worth recording and preserving. An example is the claim that two opposing pitchers together had the most letters in their last names of any game. In fact it is doubtful that many of the claims are even true, since these truly random collections of facts would not have been accurately tracked in searchable records. These sound like the inane things on-the-air color men and statisticians dream up to avoid dead air. Edison 15:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as random and subject to interpretation as to what constitutes obscure. Eusebeus 15:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There's a reason these are "obscure" facts - they don't even qualify as "records" in the common sense of the word. As stated above, this is just a collection of rather random trivia. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments Yes, most of these are from 2006. That's a weakness of the current version of the article, not a reason to delete. Also, a very large amount of archival baseball material has been computerized, so I suspect that the claims really are true. (I've already voted Delete on this steamroller, but nonetheless feel compelled to try to keep things straight.) Matchups 19:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Suspicion absent documentary evidence isn't worth much in Wikipedia terms, is the rub.  RGTraynor  20:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP:ILIKEIT, but rules are rules. YechielMan 22:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Indiscriminate collection of information, not even records, "obscure" is subjective. But perhaps some of these stats could be relocated to different articles? Useight 01:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: They'd certainly be interesting trivia for the player articles in question.  RGTraynor  12:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete obscure implies not notable, but anyone can invent "records": let's just change one of them: On October 6th, 2006, Randy Johnson of the New York Yankees faced Kenny Rogers of the Detroit Tigers in game 3 of the American League Divisional Series. It marked the first time ever that both starting pitchers in a post season game had previously thrown a perfect game in their career. It marked the first time that a pitcher of a perfect game started against a pitcher with the same name a famous country singer who had a hit duo with Dolly Parton.... The mind boggles...Carlossuarez46 21:57, 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, and kudos to the creator for not being offended and taking the situation calmly. Sr13 02:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SPORCalc

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

Neologism coined by one chemistry department. Check out the single reference: it's just a term mentioned in one section of a research paper. It seems to be a scientific method used by one handful of postgrad students in their ongoing research. Possibly worthy of encyclopædic mention when this particular neologism is used and accepted by the wider scientific community: but not yet! EuroSong ^talk 08:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - as nominator EuroSong ^talk 08:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Retain/Discuss - The Substrate Product Occurence Ratio Calculator has been cited in many scientific articles and is a chemical infomatics method as described exactly on Wikipedia. The term SPORCalc is often used and referred to, in the literature. This page is linked from the OpenBabel project. The name maybe indeed an Neologism and indeed Wikipedia might not be an appropriate place to have the description of the method, but the above nominator could have the politeness to address the contact name referred to on the SPORCalc page. (SPORCalc was developed by a group of senior research scientists working for the University of Cambridge, WellcomeTrust, AstraZeneca and recently the Univeristy of Erlangen-Nuremberg ...and none were graduate students!)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.188.117.50 (talk)

Apologies if I did not know the exact origins. Anyway - if this term is "often used and referred to in literature", then it may indeed be eligible for Wikipedia inclusion, depending on the extent of the references. However, those references must be provided. It has to be shown that the term "SPORCalc" is notably used. Please do not take the deletion nomination as any kind of slight against the research carried out. It's just that we need independently verifiable references. EuroSong ^talk 01:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: I come up with three hits on Google Scholar. That this term exists I concede, but that it is notable, in any degree of general use or has verifiability beyond its creators, remains to be proven.  RGTraynor  13:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per RGTraynor & WP:NEO. Eusebeus 15:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• As the originator and author of SPORCalc and one of the people who maintained the page - feel free to delete it if you like, it's your Wiki :-) <e-mail address removed>
  • It's nice to see an article's creator take a deletion discussion so calmly. By the way, it's not a good idea to post your e-mail address on Wikipedia like that -- if you want to sign a post, just type four tildes (these things: ~~~~). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, neologism that maybe just isn't notable yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• delete If it is widely used why do i find no papers on Medline? In GScholar, the hits are: 1 conference paper, 1 web posting, and two comprehensive reviews both of which refer to a 2005 paper that's not listed in the article, but is probably the key published work. I added it.DGG 02:52, 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 Keep. Non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 20:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unrestricted Warfare (book)

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

I think it would be pretty strange to delete this article suggesting that it is a CIA conspiracy or something like that, given the print version was the last version to appear. Just google around on the internet for the basic information if you want. It is an important book. Many concepts in security policy emerged from it. I will grant you that article could be written alot better. I suggested doing so at the discussion page. After I suggested so, the article was tagged for deletion (without further discussion).

The deletion policy page list several reasons articles should be deleted:

- violation of copyright That is not the case here.

- content that does not belong in an encyclopedia This article is a reference to an important book. That makes the topic encyclopedia-worthy.

- content not verifiable in a reliable source I would suggest that the two folks asserting the article or the book is part of CIA disinformation conspiracy (and therefore the wikipedia article should be deleted) should provide some evidence of that fact. I would okay with having a section of the article noting this as a controversy. However, just because they believe something don't make it so. Extraordinary claims require evidence.

-Unreferenced negative content in biographies of living persons. N/A to this article.

I will grant you that article could be written alot better.

The article should be something like this:

1 Intro 2 Authors 3 Version 3.1 Chinese Version 3.2 FBIS Version 3.3 FBIS abridged version 3.4 Print Version 3.4.1 Cover & Subtitle Controversy 3.4.2 Introduction Controversy 3.4.3 Publisher Controversy 4 Overview of the Concepts 5 References 6 Other Links --Purpleslog 14:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

keep - I agree with Purpleslog. Do not delete this entry. This book gives an important insight to one school of thought in the Chinese military. It is thus an important book (and has been referenced, talked about, etc.).--A517dogg 12:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

delete - It's not clear whether this meets the Threashold criteria from Wikipedia:Notability (books)It's from an unknown publisher, published apparently in translation without the supposed authors consent, and claims to have been translated by the CIA. Checking notability critera beyond the threashold:

"Criteria

A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:

1. The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,.... such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews.... (I don't see any evidence of this.)

2. The book has won a major literary award. (no evidence of this)

3. The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture ... (no evidence of this)

4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. (There was ONE (not multiple) symposium at John Hopkins - but you needed a "SECRET" security clearance to attend.)

5. The book's author is so historically significant..." (Don't think so)

Most importantly - there is nothing reliable about any of the sources on this book, nothing verifiable. Smallbones 15:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• keep The article needs cleanup. But this does appear to be an important book, as a LexisNexis search for it and the authors turns up numerous results, for example:

China strategy targets soft U.S. underbelly: media, markets; The no-rules warfare tactics also target America's dependency on technology as a way to hurt a more powerful foe., Grand Rapid Press (Michigan), April 22, 2001 Sunday, ALL S EDITION, NATIONAL; Pg. A10, 932 words

Beijing considers exploiting America's reliance on technology , The Star-Ledger (Newark, New Jersey), April 19, 2001 Thursday, FINAL EDITION, NEWS; Pg. 10, 674 words, DAVID WOOD, NEWHOUSE NEWS SERVICE, WASHINGTON

China military considers nontraditional 'weapons'; Document suggests computer warfare, Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA), April 19, 2001 Thursday, NATIONAL; Pg. 18, 607 words, By David Wood; Newhouse News Service

China Ponders New Rules of 'Unrestricted War', The Washington Post, August 8, 1999, Sunday, Final Edition, A SECTION; Pg. A01, 1380 words, John Pomfret, Washington Post Foreign Service, BEIJING

... the authors also made news in 2006 ("Unrestricted warfare", Washington Times, 2006-03-31) when they visited the united states; the article refers to them as "Two of China's most notorious military strategists." I also find the JHU symposium compelling, as this book is the only one they mention in the description of the conference. (Also, Smallbones is wrong: there was a security-clearance track but also a general attendance track the prior day... but I don't see how that matters.) — brighterorange (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: This book is on Amazon with a sales rank of 84,000, which isn't terrible, and it's reviewed by some notable flag officers, so it certainly isn't spurious. That being said, I'm not hugely sold on its notability.  RGTraynor  13:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It is 8 years old, so its time in the limelight may have passed. But notability does not expire. — brighterorange (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep China is the major rival to the US as a world power, and a recipe for how China could defeat the superior conventional military power, issued by officers in the People's Liberation Army, and now taught in the US service adademies per the reference I added to the article written by Jeffrey W Bolander in the Marine Corps Gazette, shows it to be a highly notable book. The strategy is to spread US forces thin as has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and to use economic warfare and terrorism, rather than trying to refight WW2 by building a Navy, army and air force to challenge the US in conventional battles worldwide. It should not be judged by the standards of the next bestseller, but by the standards of the 1942 Victory Through Air Power (Amazon sales rank 517,000),the 1925 Mein Kampf (Amazon sales rank 4600), or the 1890 The Influence of Sea Power upon History (Amazon sales rank 978,000). Edison 15:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Amazon is irrelevant altogether except perhaps for judging current fiction or self-help where there may be no better measure of popularity. comparing books in different subjects is useless, as is comparing books on the same subject each published in a different century. There are however published works about this book, and that's sufficient. DGG 02:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The general argument for deletion strikes me as a manifestation for Wikipedia's strange hostility toward the printed work and toward books as such. As someone who works in publishing, I have to say that those criteria for book notability ought to be taken to the Black Lagoon and buried under a log to rot. Not made into a major motion picture? Jesus H. Christ! And someone else raises an Amazon sales rank figure. Sales figures may or may not play a role in the natoability of a book, but Amazon sales rank is not seriously regarded an a meaningfull figure, except in a rare case like John Scalzi.--Pleasantville 11:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this is about content, content authored by two intelligent Chinese colonels nearly ten years ago. The Amazon book is a hack job by some capitalist opportunist when the text in its entirety is freely available on the web, so stop focusing on the lame book and its cover art. There are two versions of the text, one summarized with commentary (such providing context to the authors' bias against Soros... and why aren't you picking up on that, sysops??), and the other in its complete form. This text is akin to valuable books like Brave New War, Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife, among many others. But maybe those reads are bad as well because of the Air Force / Counterterrorism pedigree of the first author and the active duty status of the second. Grow up. WestridgeRunner 18:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for not meeeting notability criteria for books.--Samiharris 17:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

How so? I gave several citations to non-trivial reviews (Washington Post, Washington Times, Times-Picayune) above, which would seem to satisfy the first criterion. — brighterorange (talk) 18:00, 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. Prodego ^talk 19:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs from InuYasha

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

Delete - another list of songs with nothing in common beyond happening to have been played in an episode of a TV show. Similar to a number of recently deleted lists for shows including both incarnations of The Office, Skins and others. Otto4711 13:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Listcruft.--Edtropolis 13:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT#INFO. YechielMan 16:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with InuYasha, this list can easily be integrated with the parent article.--JForget 01:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Pure deletioncruft and it's debatable whether it's suited to be merged with another article, let alone the main InuYasha article... Ranma9617 02:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• "Deletioncruft" is not so far as I am aware a valid rationale for keeping. Otto4711 13:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into InuYasha, and integrate it into the article. --Nyletak ♥ 05:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with InuYasha - I found this page whilst looking specifically to know which songs are played in which episodes, so it's useful information.--TenMinJoe 09:16, 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. Riana (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs in the Karaoke Revolution series

List of songs in the Karaoke Revolution series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - songs don't become notable for having had a cover version performed in a karaoke game. Otto4711 13:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unnotable listcruft. --Nonstopdrivel 13:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that songs do not become notable for having been covered in a karaoke game. However, the songs that appear in a game like Karaoke Revolution are integral to the game - it's comparable to a listing of locations in an MMORPG, characters in a platformer series or magical abilities in an RPG. The songs are critical elements in the gameplay and not just an incidental soundtrack, and I feel that warrants a list as it is too long to include in the article about the game. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, because list concerns popular game series, is easily verifiable, is convenient, and is useful as a reference. --164.107.222.23 19:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: As important to the games as a track listing is to an article on an album and too lengthy to include in the main article(s).--SeizureDog 16:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to close; it's been a week, and there are three arguments for keep that refute the nomination and no refutations of these keep votes after several days now. --164.107.222.23 20:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I am against a lot of the "list of..." articles and this is on of them. Astrale01^talk_contribs 23:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Your "reasoning" sounds more personal than anything else. --172.132.121.61 00:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or merge with main Karaoke Revolution article. Factual information about a major game series played around the world on multiple game systems and concerns the core element of the game. So, either keep or merge, but no good reason to delete. --172.132.121.61 00:36, 28 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 12:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gezelligheid

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

The article doesn't cite any sources. I don't believe a word should have it's own page on the assumption that it's untranslatable. If it's an important part of Dutch culture, it should be merged. Calamarain 12:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Dutch culture if sources can be found. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, no matter how hard people may try to make it so. --Nonstopdrivel 13:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per above - not a dictionary Corpx 15:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete That link to the Dallas nightclub perfectly illustrates the Wikipedia:Spam event horizon. This article causes more trouble than it's worth. :) YechielMan 16:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A cultural phenomenon, not a "word" has its own article here. Of course the article must be improved, first and foremost by giving a definition in the opening paragraph. <KF> 17:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Reading the article, it is a specific concept. As the article says, there are cognate concepts in other cultures, and I'm trying to think of a common name to bring them together. DGG 03:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. There is too a page on the German word Gemütlichkeit which is similar. I am Dutch and I know that many Dutch believe that this word is untranslatable into English. I do not know if they are right because I do not know enough English for that. I think that this page can be kept if more is said about it than now. There is a longer explanation of the word in the sci.lang archive on page http://groups.google.com/group/comp.std.internat/browse_frm/thread/5509ef54ad4c49f7/0217de8d8a190018#0217de8d8a190018. :wimdw: 17:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm also from Holland and I'm also familiar with the fact/myth that the word is intranslatable. I've never seen this supported by any evidence or source. That's why I originally requested sources for the article. Many (most?) of the words of any language don't have a simple one-on-one translation, it's nothing special and certainly nothing worth of an article of his own. Calamarain 12:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Article is mostly OR, and is essentially a dictionary definition anyway. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:25, 28 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 01:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs about tequila

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

Renominating this article per this AfD closure. "Song about tequila" is not an encyclopedic topic, and so it is not worth keeping a "List of songs about tequila"; cf. WP:LC. In the context of the tequila article, this list just amounts to a collection of trivia; see also WP:POPCULTURE. I see no room for improvement of this article. --B. Wolterding 11:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 12:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non encyclopedic. David 12:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - trivia sections/lists have no place in Wikipedia see this for more info. Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 12:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Since citation of WP:NOT was a bit controversial in the previous nomination, I would like to further specify this to WP:NOT#DIR, "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". --B. Wolterding 12:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as pure WP:LC, WP:TRIVIA, WP:NOT#DIR, WP:NOT#IINFO, et cetera. Although I must admit, "Tequila Makes Her Clothes Fall Off" is one of the best song titles I've ever heard... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete One tequila. Two tequila. Three t.. oh delete. --Bren ^talk 12:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:INFO and WP:NOT#DIR. --Kyoko 12:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per my esteemed colleagues. --Nonstopdrivel 13:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- as per ↑.--Edtropolis 13:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as an arbitrary list with little added value.-- danntm ^T _C 15:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It is a list of trivia. Many of the entries are not strictly about tequila. It is not an encyclopaedic treatment of the valid topic tequila, but rather an unencyclopaedic treatment of the non-topic songs about tequila. GassyGuy 17:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an information repository. Otherwise we'd have List of songs about notebooks, List of songs about waves etc. CloudNine 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 20:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unnecessary trivia, but interesting though.--JForget 22:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and add to the every growing list of "lists of songs with the letter 'e' in the title". Useight 01:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for same reasons given in other afd Bulldog123 21:48, 23 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 01:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris R. Notarile

Chris R. Notarile (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Independent film producer - as in, producer, actor, director, writer, shoe shine boy and so on in self-made films. Some perhaps reasonable, but none show evidence of commercial release, and there do not seem to be any proper independent sources. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for now. Being a jack-of-all-trades doesn't make you notable. If subject achieves notability at a later date (e.g., with commercial release of film), article could be reinstated. Shouldn't this AfD also include Niki Notarile and Blinky Productions for the same reasons? Possible walled garden in the works? --Nonstopdrivel 13:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, fails WP:V given that all his "fame" is from a single source, as well as WP:COI; take a look at the principal editor, whose sole Wiki activity is pushing this fellow. Niki Notarile's been nominated independently.  RGTraynor  14:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I was on the fence about this one, but none of the citations appear to be from reliable sources. MikeWazowski 14:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG, RGT. Eusebeus 15:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG. "[I]ndependant film" seems to be a euphemism for "home movies". --Calton | Talk 03:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG. Just misses being a speedy candidate by having worked as an intern on some episodes of the TMNT series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Marge to Blinky Productions Article--Brown Shoes22 22:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't be much point to that, it's up for AfD too and looks nearly certain to be deleted unless there's some kind of miracle from above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:37, 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. There seems to be general agreement that Wikipedia is not a memorial applies if the fellow isn't otherwise encyclopedic. There is the question of his representation in a film. Like his role in the hijacking, this can be (and is) dealt with in relevant articles without having a biography. There therefore remains the question of whether the biographies of living persons policy applies to this recently deceased person. There seems to be a broad assent to this notion, and I believe it's credible. This would suggest that our existing coverage in Flight 93 National Memorial, United 93 (film) is adequate. --Tony Sidaway 19:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Guadagno

He died in the 9/11 attacks. While that is very sad, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and he appears not to be notable except for his death. The article is rife with speculation, indicating that people assume he would have fought the terrorists, without any actual proof. Suggest deletion, or redirecting her name to some relevant article. >Radiant< 11:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination, and from reading the article I gather it has turned into an incentive for anyone desperate to dig up even the smallest bit of info on his life: "a <URL> offers more details" - yuck. Resurgent insurgent 11:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:NOT a memorial. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Google news archive [18] brings up numerous results. Needs a complete rewrite though for the article to become encyclopedic. Delete per WP:BLP1E and Rossheth. --Bren ^talk 11:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As for reasons above. However, I note that Wikipedia's articles about 9/11 don't have a list or listing of the persons who died in the attack. There is a link to a website called "Project 2,996" which was a memorial last year for each of the persons who died. I spent a lot of time reading about the different persons, starting with Edelmirio Abad, and there are a lot of interesting stories there. Some people died instantly, such as on the 97th floor of Tower 1. Some endured the misery of being trapped, such as the ones at the RiskWaters conference in Windows on the World. There were many heroes, such as Welles Crowther, the "man in the bandanna", who should have an article of his own. Wikipedia is not a memorial, however, and while a decision about which victims are notable and which aren't might seem cold-hearted, it's not. I'd like to see an ongoing WikiProject on 9/11 as a compromise.Mandsford 11:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Start with WikiProject Terrorism, I would think. There was a WikiProject for the 9/11 truth movement that was deleted as POV. There was also the fork which I think is now known as http://sep11memories.org/. --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-As with all the 9/11 victims that have come up on AfD lately, the guideline WP:BLP1E is appropriate. The only thing notable about him is the fact that he died in a famous event. Not notable in himself.--Rossheth | Talk to me 11:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as for all 9/11 memorials. These are getting old fast. --Nonstopdrivel 13:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: per above. Have I said yet that I love WP:BLP1E?  RGTraynor  14:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Pretty much covered by the above, not a memorial, the guy was not notable in his own right, and being a victim of a notable disaster does not make one notable. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia ia not a memorial, and WP:BLP1E allows deleting of articles about people notable for being involved in one incident (would this allow deleting an article about Lee Harvey Oswald, I wonder?) Ddespite the fact he has had substantial coverage in multiple newspaper stories and other reliable sources, Wikipedia is not a news story archive. "..it's easy for his friends to imagine that he was involved in what is believed to have been a heroic effort by passengers to thwart the terrorist hijackers.." shows the speculative nature of the article. Edison 15:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep WP:BLP1E clearly doesn't apply because it's part of a policy on living persons. Wikipedia is not a memorial is irrelevant because of Guadagno's notability (read the policy). Guadagno was portrayed in a feature film and two cable TV movies. It's easy to find news stories about him [19], [20], [21]. And he was in the news again last month [22]. Guadagno is obviously notable. There's no good reason to censor this article. Steve8675309 01:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I dont believe WP:BLP1E should apply strictly for people currently alive. This is still a biography. What else was this 9/11 victim noteworthy of during his life, besides Flight 93? After death, I do understand the Wildlife Refuge built a memorial in his name, but I don't see why that would make him notable based on that. As for the feature films, the character based on Richard Guadagno was not portrayed by Richard, instead played by actors. Even then do feature films specifically mention him by name? I haven't seen United 93 in a while but the airline passengers were just airline passengers. As for comparing Richard Guadagno to Lee Harvey Oswald; Oswald was notable in several events, has 114 citations on his article, heck I even learnt about him in my year 9 history class - in Australia! He is a well recognised historical figure. WP:WAX. I continue to stand by my delete. Never forget, though unfortunately delete off Wikipedia. --Bren ^talk 06:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Response Feel free to lobby to change the policy (WP:BLP1E), but right now it applies to living people only. And Guadagno is the primary subject of multiple independent secondary source stories (see links above). That makes him notable (WP:BIO) and negates the 'not a memorial' argument. Regarding the Flight 93 passengers in general, they aren't notable for dying, they are notable for thwarting a terrorist attack. Steve8675309 22:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unnotable except in regard to his death. --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment on Notability A few months after Guadango's death, a U.S. congressman introduced a bill to name a federal building after him [23]. The bill had 135 cosponsors. It passed the house, passed the senate unanimously, and was signed into law by President Bush. Can anyone explain why the president and hundreds of congressmen and senators would take time to write, sponsor, and pass a federal law about Guadagno if he "appears not to be notable"? Guadagno meets Wikipedia's notability criterion and any other reasonable definition of notability. Steve8675309 20:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:N & per Steve. Carlossuarez46 21:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: He was mentioned in official federal reports as having an active role in trying to take over the plane. Has been portrayed in film. Plenty of notoriety to keep this active --XLR8TION 04:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Celebrated victim. —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! _{hold seance} at 06:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Richard is not among those that made phone calls. Nonetheless, he is subject of numerous news articles [24] and web sources [25] that demonstrate notability and I think provide what we need to make a proper biographical, encyclopedic article. Not all 9/11 victims have the same notability, but what passengers on flight 93 did before their death is notable. As such, it has been portrayed in film, and been subject of extensive coverage by reliable sources. That's definitely not the case for most 9/11 victims. All that said, the article needs a lot of work to bring in up to acceptable standards, with proper referencing and all. --Aude (talk) 12:54, 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. A suitable redirect may be arranged. See reasoning in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Guadagno. --Tony Sidaway 02:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Glick (September 11, 2001 attack victim)

He died in the 9/11 attacks. While that is very sad, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and he appears not to be notable except for his death. The article is essentially void of encyclopedic content, telling about his wife, student fraternity, and a few details on the 9/11 attacks already covered in our actual articles on the topic. Suggest deletion, or redirecting her name to some relevant article. >Radiant< 11:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete basically per nomination. Resurgent insurgent 11:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:NOT a memorial. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-As per all the other 9/11 nominations, tragic, but WP:BLP1E is clear that we should cover the event, not the person.--Rossheth | Talk to me 12:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete from Wikipedia since there is no notability beyond being a 9/11 victim. However, this article is considerably better than the one on the 9/11 Memorial Wiki which is currently locked. Is it possible to request that they update it with this? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as for all 9/11 memorials. These are getting old fast. --Nonstopdrivel 13:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I feel sorry for all 9/11 victims, but it's time to move on. 9/11 victims are not important to Wikipedia.--Edtropolis 13:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete its sad, but Wikipedia is not a memorial site.-- danntm ^T _C 15:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - his name is still recognizable as one of the passengers of Flight 93 who attempted to take back the plane. Numerous news articles written after the attacks referenced him, some extensively. He is a prominent character in two movies dramatizing the events of Flight 93 (United 93 (film), Flight 93 (TV film)). United 93 was just released in 2006, and was a major film. The point being, this is not just an anonymous victim of the attacks. ATren 15:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Note also, there is another Jeremy Glick with ties to 9/11, so removing or redirecting this Jeremy Glick may lead readers to the wrong article - and this other Jeremy Glick is actually a controversial 9/11 figure who had a well-known run in with Bill O'Reilly. I don't know if that should be a consideration or not, but I'm just raising that as a possible issue with a delete or redirect. ATren 18:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• • That is actually a good reason to merge & redirect, as Edison indicates below. Yes, he did those things, but so did several other people. >Radiant< 09:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. At best he warrants a mention on the article about the flight - and he's already got one there. Perhaps a redirect to the flight is appropriate. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect To United Flight 93. Arguing for keeping the article are the facts that he relayed important info to authorites from a phone on the plane (but so did 11 others) and he stated that he was going to participate in the attempt to re-take the plane (as did a number of others) and that he was apparently depicted in movies about the event. A narrative account of the events on the plane is better contained in a single article, rather than in articles about each participant, when their individual actions are not documented, and he is not well known other than for his participation in this historic incident, so because Wikipedia is not a memorial, and not an archive of news coverage of people who had were written about for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, a separate article is not needed. Edison 16:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per ATren, second choice redirect per Edison. Newyorkbrad 16:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete What would happen if we put every person who died in 9/11 on here? Seriously, ~Crowstar~ 16:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per ATren. Well known figure. In response to crowstar: What would happen if we put nobody who died in 9/11 on here? We wouldn't be an encyclopedia, now would we? Carlossuarez46 18:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • We still cover the event, nobody is disputing that. >Radiant< 09:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because Glick is notable. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to people who are deceased. Wikipedia is not a memorial doesn't pertain because of Glick's notability. Steve8675309 02:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • BLP does apply to the recently deceased. >Radiant< 09:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't see where it says that WP:BLP applies to the "recently deceased". Could you please point out where BLP states that? Steve8675309 22:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this is not the notable Jeremy Glick. The page Jeremy Glick should probably remain as a disambiguation page, though. --Dhartung | Talk 05:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Please see Another 9/11 Flight 93 passenger's AfD --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 18:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment-there have been a number of more recent AfDs on 9/11 victims (here, here, and here), and it seems that the consensus has changed over the notability of these people.--Rossheth | Talk to me 20:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: He was mentioned in official federal reports as having an active role in trying to take over the plane. Has been portrayed in film. Plenty of notoriety to keep this active --XLR8TION 04:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Celebrated victim. —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! _{hold seance} at 06:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There is a very large number of reliable sources that are about Jeremy, including hundreds of news articles [26] and thousands of web sources. [27] That's not the case for all 9/11 victims, but he is clearly notable and notable for something he did before his death. That includes the phone call to his wife. It was through his phone call, and those made by a few other passengers, that they learned what was going on and decided to do something. Doing something in this situation is also quite notable, and something that makes him more than just a "victim". Contrary to myths and rumors out there, NORAD was not at all in position to intercept the aircraft. The plane crashed at 10:03 am, but NORAD was not notified that Flight 93 was missing until 10:15 am -- well after the time the plane already crashed. If not for the notable actions of Jeremy and the others, Ziad Jarrah would have had no problem reaching the intended target, the United States Capitol. 9/11 was sure horrible, but would have been something else if they too crashed the plane into the Capitol. What Jeremy did is definitely notable, notable enough to be portrayed in several films, be mentioned in numerous newspaper articles, and other reliable sources. WP:NOT a memorial and WP:BLP do not apply to notable people, which Jeremy clearly is. Though the article is completely unsourced and needs a bit of work to bring up to expected standards. --Aude (talk) 12:21, 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 keep. Wizardman 15:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edward P. Felt

He died in the 9/11 attacks. While that is very sad, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and he appears not to be notable except for his death. The article mostly covers a press release from the company he was working for, and again a few details about the attacks themselves that are covered far better in such articles as September 11, 2001 attacks. Suggest deletion and/or redirecting his name to either the company or the attack. >Radiant< 11:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Resurgent insurgent 11:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as failing WP:NOT a memorial Guy (Help!) 11:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep/Merge - it appears that his story was featured on CNN and hence may be notable for making the 911 call. Also, the part about the white smoke coroborates the idea that the plane was shot down. Keep or merge into September 11, 2001 attacks. Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 12:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge relevant portions (i.e., 911 call) with September 11, 2001 attacks, cheerfully Delete the rest -- as for all 9/11 memorials. Yawn. --Nonstopdrivel 13:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to United Flight 93. He wasa one of a dozen passengers who made phone calls. A good combined article is better than individual fragmentary and speculative articles, which tend to be memorials, wich Wikipedia is not. Edison 16:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge. I created the page on the basis that he is notable for being the last passenger of Flight 93 to call 911 from the airplane, and his call may have lasted until the final moment of the flight. — Loadmaster 17:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I'm gonng go with keep on this, as he wasn't just an average joe on the plane that died. He made phone calls, which were shown on TV and in print. He is notable enough, and the page is not setup as a memorial, so...Keep --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 20:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable except in his death. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Ohconfucius 10:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

cough cough Nick Berg --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate, please don't cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, because I'm not trying to state that. What I mean is, that an article can talk about someone who became notable solely due to their death, and not be a memorial. Neither this article, nor Nick Berg's is net up as a memorial. They are set up to explain the circumstances that made them notable. In Mr. Felt's circumstance, he was able to make 911 phone calls which the authorities used to help figure out the details of these horrible horrible attacks, and to find some answers. In addition, Tom Burnett was a passenger on the same flight, who did the same thing, and his AfD result was Keep. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 19:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep He's the primary subject of multiple news stories. That makes him notable (WP:BIO). The Wikipedia is not a memorial policy only applies to people who aren't notable. Steve8675309 13:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Ditto on what Steve8678309 just said. --XLR8TION 04:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Celebrated victim. —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! _{hold seance} at 06:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep or merge with United Airlines Flight 93 Ed Felt's notability is more borderline than Jeremy Glick. Ed was one of two people on 9/11 (the other, flight attendant CeeCee Lyles) to make an actual cell phone call. It happened when they were at relatively low altitude, and only lasted a minute before it was disconnected. All the others came from onboard airphones. That said, there are numerous news articles that talk about Ed Felt [28] and I think enough web sources about him to provide needed sources to make this a proper, encyclopedic article. The BLP (news event) rule covers situations where there is news coverage about someone, but the news coverage only focuses on the one event and sources do not give more complete, broader biographical coverage. In this case, I think the sources are plentiful enough (though not as much so as Jeremy Glick and some others). As the article is now, though, it needs better referencing and quite a bit of cleanup work to bring it up to expected standards. A merge with the Flight 93 article and redirect there would be a reasonable alternative to keeping the article. --Aude (talk) 12:46, 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 speedy delete per creator request. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dasein oedipus

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

Almost certainly a case of self-promotion and a conflict of interest (username of article author is the same as the author of the book) for a book that does not appear to pass WP:BK notability guidelines (no independent sources of information cited or found). ~Matticus ^T_C 11:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete possibly speedily as blatant advertising. Guy (Help!) 11:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator: this reads like an advert. Also, watch out for page blanking - it's happened once already. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 11:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for breathtaking failure to establish notability. A Google search on the title produces 96 hits, the vast majority of which are blogs; the author's own promotional website is a free Geocities page. Suspect self-published or vanity press publisher. --Nonstopdrivel 13:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly fails WP:BK. Though published in Los Angeles, the Library of Congress holds no copies. A google search for "Vchira Publishing Group" receives not a single hit. The creation of a single purpose account. Victoriagirl 22:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - article creator attempted to blank the page; will take this as author-requested deletion, and so tagged. ~Matticus ^T_C 23:33, 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.