Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 24

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

[edit] Charles le Gai Eaton

The result was No consensus. Richard 07:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Charles le Gai Eaton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No evidence of any notability within article that has remained a stub now for over a year Sefringle^Talk 00:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - according to the article at least he's an author, journalist and diplomat. Being a stub, in itself, is not a reason for non-notability Misheu 05:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment the only source in the article is islamreligion.com, not a reliable source, and this source doesn't prove notability.--Sefringle^Talk 05:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

He is most mentioned on Islamic websites, but his books are sold on Amazon and from comments about him he is a respected author in Muslim circles Misheu 08:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Mentioned in passing here, an article which is copied several places online, but no other results in Google News Archive except some paywalled mentions in the Daily Gleaner (Jamaica) where he's a functionary for the UK Foreign Office, something like a USAID country director. Not a notable diplomat in other words. Fails primary subject criterion of WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 07:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep paywalled articles are not non-notable, and the Daily Gleaner is a well-known major publication. Q-News though not well-known appears a high quality publication. A country director for the USAID or equivalent is I think notable. As Misheu says, an author published and known mainly in Muslim circles is no less notable than one known in the US. DGG 18:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I didn't say that paywalled articles failed RS or anything. I just meant I couldn't link to them or access the full text myself. One was a society page and the other mentioned that he was doing some negotiations with the Governor-General (according to the Google results page), possibly in connection with forthcoming Jamaican independence. As for being a notable Muslim author, we should have reliable sources for that. --Dhartung | Talk 20:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I will second Misheu, he is a well known author among Muslim circles as is evident from any online search.Nazli 08:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment and from one of the references, Sunday Times: "Many converts have been inspired by the writings of Charles Le Gai Eaton, a former Foreign Office diplomat. Eaton, author of Islam and the Destiny of Man, said: ??I have received letters from people who are put off by the wishy-washy standards of contemporary Christianity and they are looking for a religion which does not compromise too much with the modern world" DGG 05:27, 29 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. Anas ^talk? 22:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CVL

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

Junior basketball league. Not a particularly essential topic for the world. 650l2520 23:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete junior league. Monkwearmouth Mohawks is a great name though. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Light aircraft carrier 70.55.200.47 03:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete do not redirect as proposed: a quick google shows CVL stands for lots of things besides aircraft carriers (a dab page could be created perhaps). Note: CVL is the airport code for Cape Vogel, Papua New Guinea. Carlossuarez46 20:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and create a DAB page per Carolossuarez46. 132.205.44.5 01:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom _SUBWAYguy 02:58, 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 no consensus. — Ocatecir^T 23:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Northcutt

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

PROD removed, non-notable wrestler, fails WP:V, WP:A and WP:BLP. Darrenhusted 23:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom and my original vote. Nikki311 00:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Article also provides little information outside of the championships that he's won and that his hometown was destroyed by a Hurricane Katrina. Nenog 03:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, reasonable achievements and sources. John Vandenberg 08:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Half of those aren't about this Kevin Northcutt, and the other half just mention him in passing. Names in a results show do not make a wrestler notable. Darrenhusted 12:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  Of course I am referring to the 15 mentions on http://ProWrestling.com/. [1] , and the results on SLAM! John Vandenberg 02:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  No one doubts he is a wrestler, and by that logic he will wrestle, and at some point will appear in wrestling results, but that does not then make the jump up to deserves an article. Darrenhusted 18:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Would NWA World Tag Team Championship not be a national professional title? Also, is Canadian Wrestling Federation not a national pro promotion? John Vandenberg 02:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note to closing, http://prowrestling.wikia.com/ may be interested in taking this article in the event that this needs to be deleted. John Vandenberg 02:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons given by John Vandenberg. There is no reason for the Wrestling Project's deletionism to include this article. DanZero 04:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment the rampant creation of non notable wrestler bios is the reason for the project's current round of AfDs. There are a few user's out there who need to read WP:NOT to understand that Wikpedia is not a place for any old page, and the goal for each page is improvement, not simply creation. Darrenhusted 12:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• KeepNeeds to be re-written but notable in the world of wrestling.Callelinea 15:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, re-written, try written. There is nothing but a list of championships, for a 13 year veteran this is not enough for notability. Darrenhusted 15:21, 29 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 04:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Arson

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

PROD removed, non-notable wrestler, fails WP:V, WP:A and WP:BLP. Darrenhusted 23:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom and my original vote. Nikki311 00:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable as a wrestler, made only one appearance in WWE. Nenog 03:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 22:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He's the Zombie! The Zombie! You have got to be fucking kidding me that he doesn't deserve an article. He gets well over 750 hits on google "ECW Zombie" and is a very popular wrestler. Dannycali 00:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Question: could someone explain why his role in ECW and others is not notable? There is a reasonable amount of media coverage of this. John Vandenberg 10:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Answer He was on one episode of ECW, he lost to the Sandman, he was never seen again, each week on HeAt there are six or seven jobbers, some of who wrestle several times, and they are not notable. He is an indy wrestler with a novel TV appearance, the bar for notablitity within Pro-Wrestling is higher than that. Darrenhusted 12:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Question: the article says "He was the first wrestler to walk out for a match on ECW on Sci Fi. He would even wrestle in the very first match, losing a short squash to The Sandman." Im not 100% sure what that means, but it sounds like he was involved in the first fight on ECW on Sci Fi. Is that correct? I would expect that the details of the first fight would be mentioned in the article ECW on Sci Fi. John Vandenberg 02:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Also, I have just noticed that he twice won a title in a World Wrestling Council, a Puerto Rico pro league. Doesnt that mean he meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people) for 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" ? John Vandenberg 02:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Using that logic then ALL professional wrestlers are notable because they compete for a "fully professional league", that only works where the "amateur" and "pro" version of the sports are sufficiently similar. MPJ-DK 11:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MPJ-DK 11:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Arson has been successful down in Puerto Rico in addition to his memorable stint as The Zombie for the WWE's ECW. DanZero 04:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Salantri

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

PROD removed, non-notable wrestler, fails WP:V, WP:A and WP:BLP. Darrenhusted 23:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom and my original vote. Nikki311 00:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nobility is that he was under a WWE developmental contact for almost two years but never called up. Nenog 03:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MPJ-DK 11:41, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mobile Armour of the Universal Century

Mobile Armour of the Universal Century (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article created by a user who has been blocked for repeatedly re-creating deleted material. This article is a case in point, being an amalgamation of two articles which had been deleted at this AfD and this one. As it has some argument about notability in its edit history, I bring it to AfD. Quite apart from its history, it's not sourced by anything out-of-universe, with consequent worries about WP:V and WP:OR. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. In-universe timeline with probably irrelevant sources- after a few days, the creator just threw in {{UCMobileWeaponsRef}}.--Wafulz 00:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is useless and is against the WP:GUNDAM actions of grouping. Told the user to stop, but he/she just keep ignoring all other editors. MythSearcher^talk 02:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be a worthless piece, ad as Myth said above, it's being done by users who don't know wp's notability guidelines. David Fuchs 14:29, 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, doesn't assert independent notability as a surname. Of course, prod would have worked as well. Sr13 04:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Akhaury

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

Declined speedy delete. It is a surname of some families in India but no one is Wikipedia has it. My surname is a disambiguation page. 650l2520 23:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory of surnames. Most surnames are disambiguation pages, unless they are exceptionally notable. This should have been prodded. utcursch | talk 06:21, 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 keep. — Ocatecir^T 23:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feenie's

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

Ignoring the advert language, it does not seem to be a notable restaurant 650l2520 23:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep- Even though it was written like a advertisment (or at least a narative) it was featured on a Food Network show giving it some notability POV check more in order than deletion ChrisLamb 23:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's a well known restaurant in Vancouver. But the article definitely needs to be rewritten. Canuck85 05:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable but poorly written. Callelinea 15:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to notable chef Rob Feenie. Really, the restaurant is famous because of its chef. Canuckle 16:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Water brash

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

Contested prod. This is just a Dictionay definition. 650l2520 23:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete- This is not ecyclopidic content ChrisLamb 23:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom. --David Andreas 23:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sim Street

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

Wholly unreferenced with no evidence of notability. Originally {{prod}}ded [2] with: "Questionable notability, no reliable sources", deletion endorsed [3], removed [4] w/o comment. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, and delete the Sim Street episodes guide as well. No notability has been established. No independent coverage. They both seem to be blow by blow, uncited repositories of copyvio images from http://simstreet.simtv.co.uk/ The whole thing isn't actually a video, but a player created story mixed with screenshots from The Sims placed in comic book fashion. These articles seem to be one big copyright violation because of the usage of the screenshots and the non-summarized plots and character descriptions. --Dual Freq 22:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sim Brother, Crystal Town and Downtownies as well as the other episodes linked from Sim Media. Apparently this is just one part of an effort to create fan site articles for a bunch of non-notable The Sims fan fictions. They are full of copyvio screen caps as well. --Dual Freq 23:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete TV shows using game engines isn't uncommon nor unpopular. Red vs. Blue has its own article and is a popular and notable comedy using the Halo engine. Sim Street is rather new but gaining some attention. However, the aforementioned issues on copyright violations is a major problem that needs attention. If the copyright holders release the images under GFDL then this could potentially remain; but until then, I believe this page should be blanked. --David Andreas 23:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In this case, they are not actually videos, it is a text script of a "show" with screencaps mixed in. Don't these have to have some kind of external coverage from news papers or major blogs to be notable? Seems like this series of articles is either a big copyvio or a spam type attempt to drum up traffic to the site. --Dual Freq 23:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this and Sim Street episodes; no evidence of notability. —Psychonaut 20:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete see also Downtownies for more of the same. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:26, 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. Recreation of deleted material, keep comment not in line with policy. — Ocatecir^T 23:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Max Payne: Payne & Redemption - The Independent Film

Max Payne: Payne & Redemption - The Independent Film (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article to promote a non-notable "independent film" about a copyrighted video-game character. It's apparently written by an eye-witness (User:Dark_Prowler (contr, single purpose account.)). Abu badali ^(talk) 22:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge Film is not notable, but probably should be mentionned in Max Payne--JForget 00:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It should only be mentioned if it's of any relevance for Max Payne. I would says that's something for Max Payne's editors to decide. --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article creator (and sole contributor) already tried to mention to this movie in Max Payne [5] [6], but it seems it was removed. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete: Just noticed this: The article is a recreation (with a slightly different name) of an article previously deleted in a completely uncontroversial afd. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Film IS notable and should NOT be deleted!

• Pretty much all of the Payne & Redemption crew have IMDB profiles.
• Payne & Redemption is spoken about all over the internet, and is one of the most eagerly anticipated game-character-to-movie adaptations.
• An interview with writer & director Fergle Gibson was featured in an issue of PC Zone, a well-known, popular UK gaming magazine.
• The film has an official website that is known amongst the ENTIRE Max Payne community, including Thomas Fenton (screenwriter of the official 20th Century Fox movie), who has made this known on the official Payne & Redemption MySpace website.
• The trailer to Payne & Redemption was viewed over twenty-three-thousand times on Youtube.com alone within the first week of its release.
• SAM LAKE, creator of Max Payne and writer of the video games, condones and supports the project.

So I ask you, how is this film NOT notable?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark_Prowler (talk • contribs)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commander in Chief (TV Movie)

Commander in Chief (TV Movie) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. As the article states, this TV movie of the ABC TV series Commander in Chief was "rumored" for about six months before it was announced the project was cancelled. It never even went into pre-production, and the most of the content is speculation and guesswork based on mentions in Geena Davis interviews. Canley 22:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. Projects like this get proposed and then axed all the time. It's the nature of the industry. If it matters enough to mention at all, it can fit as a sentence or two in the TV series's article. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 22:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as wholly non-notable. This would warrant a note or a section at Commander in Chief, but not a separate article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL and because the couple of sentences already in the series article is more than enough to cover the topic. Otto4711 22:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete My initial thought was to merge, but Commander in Chief already covers what would be 'merge-able' from this, at least until something more solid/definite is forthcoming. SkierRMH 00:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom _SUBWAYguy 02:59, 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 not delete. Please work out redirection on the talk pages -- Y not? 16:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Henthorn

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

No independent references, and therefore fails to estabish notability. Clearly written by somebody with an interest in the subject; check out their other contributions here and consider whether they might fail the same test. Chris 21:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. changed to Delete. Looks like created as spam, but I added a source for the NCAA Jamal Crawford controversy (I didn't add a DUI as I don't know if it's the same guy). The press does describe him as a "communications mogul" and an industry expert (sample) so a clean-ed up version could potentially pass notability. Canuckle 21:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• comment All WP articles are written by people with an interest in the subject. That's not a reason for particular suspicion. AGF. DGG 23:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • another comment That's interest as in vested or conflict of Chris 08:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Canuckle 16:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletions. -- Canuckle 20:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 21:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Reeltime.com. There's not really much content here, and what little there is is written poorly and feels aggrandized. Examples: He is apparently a pioneer in his field, has unspecified-but-worth-mentioning achievements in it, and contributes "a fresh viewpoint and vision towards the future".-Wafulz 21:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The entire Career section is a copy-and-paste from his corporate bio at [7] Canuckle 18:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per User:Wafulz suggestion. --David Andreas 23:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP very weak. needs to be rewritten Callelinea 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Has at least a little bit of non-self-serving and notable information on it that may be of interest. By the way, I strenuously disagree with the suggestion to redirect to Reeltime.com, since merging the articles would result in off-topic material on the Reeltime.com article. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 11:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keap, poorly written, needs more sources, but he seams to be notable. Callelinea 15:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I changed my vote above to delete. No new, strong evidence has been provided to bolster his business notability and I'm too tired of fighting the spammer to continue. Salt it. Canuckle 23:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • FYI - Creator had changed and deleted AfD tag so I put it back on and reported them to admin. Canuckle 00:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Salting will not help. There are several other articles that that particular editor has continued to spam similar material on, and salting this article will simply move his efforts to those articles. By the way, I have reverted the article back to my most recent edit, in which I attempted to rectify some of the more serious problems with the article. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 17:45, 30 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 Speedily Deleted --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 23:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SimpleORB

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

This article is a computer related article that appears to lack reliable sources. A Google News Seach comes up with 377 results with the Wikipedia article followed by forum posts. Google News or Google News archive comes up with nothing. The article concludes with the developer's name and a message to contact the developer as it is not yet available on publicly accessible sites. Capitalistroadster 21:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete WP:NOT a free web host. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 22:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as {{db-spam}}, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:08, 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. Richard 07:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Michael Langan

Christopher Michael Langan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be a vanity article. It is a fairly long article which goes into significant detail about the man's childhood, while there is little about why he is notable. The little about his notability says that he has done well in IQ tests and formulated a theory. The theory has been hotly debated on wikipedia and deleted, so clearly is not counted as notable by wikipedians. Simply doing well on IQ tests is also not enough to deserve such a detailed article, unlike vos Savant this has not made him famous. The article itself has obviously been subject to a lot of POV editing, two users are blocked due to suspicions that they are Langan himself, and the discussion page is over three times longer than the article itself. Which is perhaps why it is longer and more detailed than pages dedicated to Nobel prize winners. 4MillLane 21:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like an editing dispute--there's an immense amount of dispute on this at the talk page. do we delete pages to stop editing disputes? There are sources, and it has presently content all of which seems to have been approved of or derived from material published by the subject, and so doesn't violate BLP with respect to him. But I've removed a paragraph of text where he talks about his relations in a way which clearly violates BLP with respect to them. DGG 21:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I perhaps should have been more concise with my complaint. I simply think this article fails WP:BIO 4MillLane 22:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Userfy --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable looney. Nick mallory 23:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per mainstream media coverage. Langan is notable for (1) being billed as possibly "the smartest man in America", with an IQ reported by 20/20 and other media sources to have been measured at 195, and (2) combining that IQ with (a) a childhood of poverty and abuse and a working-class lifestyle and brawny physique, with jobs as a bouncer and horse rancher, and (b) a philosophical "theory of everything", his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU, among his claims for which are that it proves the existence of God. (We should present this material neutrally, of course.) He easily meets WP:BIO, which says that a person is generally notable if they have been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Media coverage of Langan includes:

• Sager, Mike. (November 1999). "The Smartest Man in America". Esquire.
• McFadden, Cynthia. (9 December 1999). "The Smart Guy". 20/20.
• Wigmore, Barry. (7 February 2000). "Einstein's brain, King Kong's body". The Times.
• O'Connell, Jeff. (May 2001). "Mister Universe". Muscle & Fitness.
• Brabham, Dennis. (21 August 2001). "The Smart Guy". Newsday.
• Quain, John R. (14 October 2001). "Wise Guy" (Interview with Christopher Langan and Science Works in Mysterious Ways). Popular Science.
• Preston, Ray (15 November 2006). "Meet the Smartest Man in America". News 4 St. Louis. KMOV.

Tim Smith 01:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. If the guy has had that many articles written specifically about him over a period of years, he passes WP:BIO with flying colours. All these sources are reliable third parties; this is how notability is assessed. --Charlene 02:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Satisfies WP:BIO by having articles from a variety of reliable and independent sources over a 7 year period or longer. He is said to have a high IQ of 195 or so. Whether or not true, that has been reported in numerous reliable sources. He is said to have left college after a year or so and to have been working as a bouncer, and to have a theory of cosmology, or of reality, or whatever, which has been written about in the popular press, but not published in a refereed journal. Before voting, please take a scan of the references, and of the talk page with its 3 archives, including input by User:Jimbo Wales and several other well known Wikipedians. I have to say, he seems less kooky and way smarter than the average kook, and somewhat notable based on wide reportage over an extended period. Edison 02:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notability clearly established through sources, regardless of whether some people consider him "kooky." Clearly he is an unusual combination of things--bouncer, smart-guy, cosmic philosophico-theorist of some kind. He has also been the subject of a documentary by Academy-award winning director Errol Morris. The length of the talk page is irrelevant (as many other articles prove). The main reason the talk page has been so hotly debated is that some editors (falsely) believe Langan is an advocate of intelligent design, and thus take him as a legitimate target in their war against creationism. These arguments have been settled and the article stabilized. One can only hope that this AfD does not represent the beginning of another utterly pointless campaign against the subject of this article. Also, I cannot help but notice that opening this AfD was the very first edit by user 4MillLane, which suggests the distinct possibility that this is a bad faith AfD. BCST2001 04:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That it's his first edit is not grounds to abandon WP:AGF. I assure you there are many of us who think articles like this are ridiculous.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 04:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The question is not about "articles like this"; it is about this article. I am not abandoning good faith, but I remain convinced that the fact it is the first edit coming from this user is relevant in evaluating this nomination for deletion. BCST2001 04:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay, if you prefer references specifically to "this article," then I'll assure you many of us think "this article" is utterly ridiculous. FWIW, "articles like this" are part of the reason Wikipedia is viewed so poorly in many academic circles. There is a fundamental misconception here that a score on an IQ test means something. If this supposedly clever fellow actually did something with his brain, then his IQ might be an interesting footnote. By itself, this measure is meaningless. I won't bother arguing further as I know this article will inevitably be kept. I regret that Wikipedia doesn't have higher standards.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have no doubt this article will be kept given the media coverage, coupled with the sad assumption that media coverage somehow makes this fellow historically notable. However, I feel obliged to remark that anyone who says "you can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics," is unworthy of discussion, yet alone an article. He might like to brush up on his Frege, Russell, or Godel and perhaps read some Turing while he's at it. As for his "IQ," Richard Feynman, among the top minds of the past (or any other) century, had his "IQ" measured in the 130s. Go figure. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 04:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep If it goes, it's no big lose. But the guy really isn't "non-notable." He's really just as notable as the tallest person in the world was. Maybe more so. So keep but don't care much if its deleted. Bulldog123 08:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the analogy is apt. The primary difference is IQ is an artificial construct that is highly controversial, whereas height is a naturally occurring metric that provides scientific information about human growth distributions. As far as I know, there is no controversy about the meaning of "height."--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 19:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jared Morrison

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

I WP:PRODed this and it was deleted and recreated, so bringing it here. I can't remember exactly what I said in my prod statement, but it was probably along the lines of "Having looked for sources M. Morrison does not appear to be the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable ones. Please note IMDB is not a reliable source." Pan Dan 21:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see where he's notable, and the article reads a whole lot like a resume. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete "His most notable role to date would have to be the photo double for Steve Carrell"? That's not a role. Non-notable. Even if we did take IMDb into account, his resume is peppered with extra work and "uncredited".--Ispy1981 21:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete The IMDb listing is messed up - a number of his roles, including at least two leading roles, are listed under "Self" when they actually aren't "self" appearances. I'm still not convinced he passes WP:BIO, though, although I'm not strident either way. --Charlene 02:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nothing there, but the level of detail given the lack of sources would confirm initial suspicions of conflict of interest - created by single purpose account with subject's own surname. Ohconfucius 05:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP Like I have stated before WIKIPEDIA should be inclusive not exclusive. All this needs is more references but the article should remain. Callelinea 18:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you provide some more compelling arguments in favor of keeping, other than that it should remain? I encourage you, please locate those references. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:22, 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 Nomination withdrawn. -- Longhair\^talk 09:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Palfrey

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

After a month, this page still makes no case for notability, features no citations, orphaned, and little more content than a list of three presumably non-notable books. MrZaius^talk 21:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Nom withdrawn, concerns adequately met. MrZaius^talk 20:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I'm reminded of the VISA commercials where they'd talk about some far-off establishment, and give the punch line, "But they won't take American Express." Yes, he is a Rhodes Scholar, but that's about it, and Wikipedia won't take his article. Okay, that joke fell flat. Sorry. YechielMan 21:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I have added some references. There are many reviews and descriptions of his books. Being a Rhodes Scholar is not in itself notable, but being a Fellow of an Oxford College could well be notable depending on what the Fellow has done. In this case I suggest his publications meet WP:PROF. It needs more work. If it is not deleted, it will be reasonably easy to add references to this article from other articles. --Bduke 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The key concern is that notability still doesn't seem to be backed up by tertiary or secondary sources. All the sources that were added seem to be from his employer, his coauthor's employer, or pitching the book. Do you have any independent sources to back up a case under WP:PROF? MrZaius^talk 08:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• I just came across this at AfD and thought that a Fellow of an Oxford University College with several books was likely to be notable. Many Oxford Fellows would be full Professors in another university if they moved, but they choose to stay at Oxford as a College Fellow and University Lecturer. Most of the references I added do not address notability, I agree. They address verifiability. The first confirms he wrote one book. The third confirms the forthcoming book and that it is written with a coaurthor, a colleague in the University Dept of English and a Fellow of another College. The 4th and 5th confirm that he is a Fellow of Brasenose College and some of the statements about his specialty. The second however is an independent review in a reputable journal of the other book mentioned, so that points towards notability. I had hoped that including this in two relevant deletion sorting lists would attract others who know more about him and English studies than I do to add more references. Since they have not, I will look for more sources. --Bduke 23:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added more references including some reviews of his books. There are other reviews, some from countries other than the UK. His books are used in other universities. I can not however find a CV, so much information is missing. However it seems he has a D Phil from Oxford and was at Liverpool University in the 1990s. This article needs work from an expert in this area, but I still think he is notable enough for an article. --Bduke 01:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Does not appear to meet criteria set out at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). being a Fellow of an Oxford College could well be notable depending on what the Fellow has done, Indeed - so it would depend on what he has done, not on his being a fellow. Has he done anything notable? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Additional input meets WP:N

It depends whether you think writing books that have been well reviewed and are used in other universities is notable. I think it is although I would like more information about him. How would you judge the books? --Bduke 02:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please identify exactly which criterion in Wikipedia:Notability (academics) is met, and why. Stop with this "How would you judge the books" guff. I would judge the books as lacking any claim to notability. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Well it is question of interpretation of that guideline. The reviews seem to indicate "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources". He appears to meet "The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course". The second point does need referencing in the article, but a Google search shows at least Bristol University uses one of his books. My argument at this stage is simply that it seems valuable encyclopedic material and I would like to see more people improve the article, rather than blanket demands for deletion. --Bduke 02:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Which review seems to indicate "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources"? Are you asserting that at least one of his books is a significant and well-known academic work? My argument at this stage is that criteria have been established for notability, and it it reasonable to impose a test against those criteria at any point, not least after a month and a half on wikipedia. Hoping that something better will come along if a non-notable article is left in place would in all cases negate a deletion request based on non-notability; as such it appears to be an illogical argument. --Tagishsimon (talk)

"Doing Shakespeare is an original and long-overdue resource for theatre scholar-artists" (Ref 3). I do not see someone doing that without being a significant expert. "I cannot think of another critic since Empson who has teased out so much so lucidly and (usually) so persuasively from the intricacies of Shakespearean language" (ref 5). That seems significant to me. It is the basis of at least one course. I did not say leave it in place. I said I wanted an expert to come along and work on it and meant while this AfD is running. If nobody does, it probably will be deleted. I just do not think that makes the encyclopedia any better. I also note that there is considerable disagreement about the notability guidelines, particularly at WP:N. But anyway, I'm leaving it to others to judge the evidence and hopefully provide more. --Bduke 03:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: took two minutes in JSTOR to find all the reviews anyone could possibly need showing that his books are considered important by the English literature community, and another ten minutes to add references to his enormous contributions to the article. If you're going to say that his books lack any claim to notability, you'll need to look in the journals where these types of books are reviewed. There's where you'll find the notability. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. We're not going to say his books are not notable. We were asking whether they are. You have answered the question well enough to sway the argument. And that is one of the things AfD is good for. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Sorry if my tone was harsh -- might be the extraordinary heat where I am now! I know that not everyone has access to JSTOR or a library with Shakespeare Quarterly, etc. However, for English language academics in the humanities and some social sciences, a tiny search on JSTOR can immediately make an editor say "Whoa! This should be a major article, not an AfD!" When I forget that it's not an easily accessed resource, I hope others here will give me a gentle nudge (or a swift kick in the pants). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

We'll blow cool air onto your fevered brow, kindly! --Tagishsimon (talk)

• Keep. Research before nominating articles for deletion is your friend. Rebecca 14:17, 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. --Coredesat 03:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flyaway

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

Not notable to Wikipedia standards; term usage cannot be found through any reliable sources. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Even if term has usage outside author and his group of friends, it still doesn't make it notable enough for wikipedia. Even if it were it still seems to be completely unrelated to encyclopedia content and i can see no way it could be expanded on at all. -- Jimmi Hugh 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Merriam Webster defines "flyaway" as "loose and flowing especially because of unconfined fullness at the back". This simply takes that word and turns it into slang for loose hair. In essence, this is little known fashion slang that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --David Andreas 23:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:46, 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 Merge back to Genie in the House. Walton^talk 14:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Genie In The House episodes

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

Cut and paste from Genie In The House. Rackabello 20:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete in the House Unneeded list.--Ispy1981 20:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. NSR77 ^T_C 20:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant to the root article, per the nomination. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Redundant. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed episode list from main Genie In The House page, as it was getting too long, and added new episodes. New to this, hope I haven't done wrong. Rayhol 21:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge back to the show article. It's fine per WP:SUMMARY and WP:FICT to split off sections if the article gets too long, the main article does not appear to be so long as to require splitting. No prejudice, should the article continue to grow, to re-splitting the section. Otto4711 22:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Otto 4711--JForget 23:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vanessa Vonbehren

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

Minor state-level beauty-pageant winner. No 3rd-party references at all, no other accomplishments asserted. Four from this group have already been considered by AFD (Holly Shively, et al) and their deletions upheld at deletion review. PROD tag added, but removed by Wikihermit (talk · contribs) with the comment removing the prod; take it to AFD like the other articles - which is pure process-for-its-own-sake, but if that's what he wants, that's what he'll get. Calton | Talk 20:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom and previous AfDs I suspect more of these will show up.--Ispy1981 20:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This person has not by any stretch won any national title (eg Miss Teen USA), so fails WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 05:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP Like I have stated before WIKIPEDIA should be inclusive not exclusive. All this needs is more references but the article should remain. Callelinea 18:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Mind explaining why, as opposed to cutting-and-pasting the same sentence into multiple, unrelated discussions? --Calton | Talk 23:43, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fun With Akatsuki

Fun With Akatsuki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable YouTube-hosted parody of an anime series. Entire article is just a plot summary of the episodes. Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEB and WP:NOT. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oh fun! Delete of course. YechielMan 21:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- See above —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisLamb (talk • contribs) 23:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unfortunately non-notable, though mildly amusing. cab 00:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Youtube videos can become notable (e.g. Will It Blend), but these are not. No reliable independent third parties are discussing them. --Charlene 02:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Sakujo. ...sorry, wrong series. Delete per nom. --tjstrf talk 06:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable... --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:09, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leda and the swan (band)

Leda and the swan (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nominating by proxy per this request, though I agree with the requestor's assessment. No assertion of notability, no sources at all. WP:BAND/WP:N//WP:CRYSTAL. /Blaxthos 20:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Non-notable MySpace band searching for publicity.--Ispy1981 20:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom (my request) Johnbod 21:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. JJL 22:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertions to notability, no references. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 22:52, 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 keep and rename. Peacent 11:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm not Herb

I'm not Herb (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not cited and non-notable. ~ Wikihermit 20:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per lack of assertion of notability Rackabello 20:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not impressed (aka speedy delete per above) The only thing I could find were blogs and a threadbare description on an 80's site that would seem to suggest it was more popular than the article is letting on. If anyone from that era knows anymore, step forward.--Ispy1981 20:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• REOPENED, reverted to pre-closed state. It doesn't qualify for a speedy, as near as I can tell. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article contains one sentence, so maybe can go under a {{db-nocontent}}, but seems doubtful. I would be more inclined to stick with a standard delete because it is not critical. At any rate, the nom has it right - the article says the advertising flop was infamous, but doesn't give an explanation beyond that. Uncited, unreferenced, and no real information on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, now I remember the commercials, but the commercial is still not notable for its own article. But the discussion below has the right idea - Merge and redirect to the main Burger King article's advertising section. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm reviving this discussion. The page was deleted by Anthony.bradbury (talk · contribs) but after consulting with him, I think the AfD should go through. First of all, this really does not match any of the speedy deletion criteria. Secondly, this ad campaign did exist and is remembered as one of the most awful campaigns of the 80's. Now I'm not sure anyone can dig up solid sources to construct a decent article but it's not completely impossible. A simple Google search for "I'm not Herb" + "Burger King" finds 19 hits, most of which are wiki-related so there isn't much there. But it also shows that this was referenced to in a song of Maestro Fresh Wes! This at least shows that the whole thing was, at the time, notable enough to appear in rap lyrics. I guess what I'm trying to say is: I don't think we should keep this article as is but ideally someone would dig up solid references (which would probably be in advertising/marketing magazines of the 80's and thus, not available online) and expand the article into something worth keeping. Pascal.Tesson 20:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I wasn't even around for most of the 1980s, but I've heard of these ads and how they cut into BK's sales, and they seem to be semi-well known in pop culture. A Google search for just "Burger King" + herb gave a few good results, like this one, this one, this one, and this one. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd add those sources to the article; however, I think the page needs a rename first. Maybe "Herb (Burger King commercial)"? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, can't you add the sources first? It'll still be time to move the page to wherever once this debate is closed. Moving it now will just create confusion right now. Pascal.Tesson 22:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Why not just redirect to Burger King advertising#History? The paragraph on "Where's Herb?" has more information than this "article" ever contained. -wizzard2k ^(C-T-D) 22:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. And that paragraph could actually be expanded using TPH's sources. Pascal.Tesson 22:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That could work, but I think the campaign is notable enough to stand alone, seeing as it's commonly cited as the chain's biggest flop. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but rename to Where's Herb?. Article has sufficient sources to demonstrate notability. It may not have been good for the chain's image, but it was widely talked about (at least to deride it). As it is considered a notable marketing flop, it probably should have information about that. Alternately redirect to Burger King advertising as above. --Dhartung | Talk 00:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A notorious enough flop to get its own entry; rename per Dhartung. --Groggy Dice T | C 00:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Merging or moving to Where's Herb are still possibilities but should be simple editorial decisions. Kudos to the editors who have expanded and sourced this one. Case has clearly been made that deletion would be a mistake. Pascal.Tesson 22:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but Rename Famous ad campaign _SUBWAYguy 03:01, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Dominguez (baseball player)

Matt Dominguez (baseball player) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. --fuzzy510 20:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 20:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep- Considering that he was a first round draft pick I say We keep it for now but if it turns out he doesn't go pro we delete it then ChrisLamb 20:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep notable ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think the related AFDs on other draftees from this year have closed, but I have yet to change my opinion of their lack of notability. YechielMan 21:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Players who are drafted are not notable enough for inclusion here. The athlete must have something notable about them besides being drafted as drafted does not garuntee much of anything. //Tecmobowl 21:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, Wait until he plays with the Marlins.--JForget 23:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Squad players in notable cricket and football teams aren't included here unless they play. There's a vast number of players of all sports who are eligible by wikipedia's guidelines, these shouldn't be stretched to include those who aren't, even if they are 'first round picks'. If he's any good he'll play and there'll be something to put into his article. Nick mallory 00:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I think the notability should be there before the article. --Stormbay 02:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hasn't played pro baseball yet, so clearly fails WP:BIO. If he got a contract and played in the minor league, that would technically satisfy the "played professionally" provision of WP:BIO but per recent AFD comments, some feel that the minors don't count, or certain levels of minor league don't count. If so those editors should edit WP:BIO to say so. I think we would then need to equate what it means in salary and notability to play various pro sports in various countries. Edison 02:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Being drafted is not WP:N. Not even in the first round. The list of baseball players who have been drafted in the first-round and never gone on to do anything would be almost endless. ChrisLamb's suggestion is exactly the opposite of the way things are handled here. Notability doesn't expire or get taken away. We don't say "this person has a shot to some day become notable, so let's have an article for now and take it away if it doesn't pan out." If the person does not yet meet notability guidelines, then no article yet. Get back to us when he meets the guidelines. Mwelch 18:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Heyward

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

Completing a malformed nom here. Personally, I don't think the page should be deleted; a previous discussion resulted in "no consensus". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies - I didn't notice the previous nomination when I listed this. --fuzzy510 20:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Having been drafted as a #1 pick of an MLB club is most assuredly notable, and while not official, it is a foregone conclusion that he will indeed sign with the Braves. Additionally, I would imagine that his selection and inclusion to such events as the Aflac All-American High School Baseball Classic and the Perfect Game Top Prospect Showcase should qualify as the highest levels of amateur high school baseball. MichaelProcton 07:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable, but article needs to be expanded, re-written, and more references given. Callelinea 15:15, 29 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 don't believe that wikiproject guidelines should trump the general notability guide and there are plenty of sources that make this individual independantly notable. Secondly, I don't see the point of deleting this just to undelete or recreate it later just to satisfy a process. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Ahrens

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

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. --fuzzy510 20:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 20:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There are sources for this person and he was drafted into Major League Baseball.++aviper2k7++ 20:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: per the (albeit, unofficial) standard set forth by WP:Baseball, minor leaguers are not inherently notable. This kid is not just a minor-leaguer, but he hasn't even played a game yet. --fuzzy510 20:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That doesn't matter if there's sources for him.++aviper2k7++ 20:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Drafted by a Major League team, you can't use speculation, "[h]e might not choose to go pro," as rationale for deleting an article. Just because you speculate something doesn't mean that's what's gonna happen. There's a rule against speculating in an article, and that same standard goes for deleting an article. You can't delete an article (or nominate it for deletion) because he "might not" be notable. Being drafted by a Major League team makes him notable because, on the contrary, he "might" play for that team. It works both ways. Just like in Football, when you have a penalty on each team, they offset. --Ksy92003(talk) 21:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Players who are drafted are not notable enough for inclusion here. The athlete must have something notable about them besides being drafted as drafted does not guarantee much of anything. If they are a first overall draft pick or perhaps USA Today Player of the Year, then they are notable. I don't think it would benefit wikipedia to have articles on ever person ever to be paid to play baseball. //Tecmobowl 21:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• WEak Delete Wait until he play in the majors.--JForget 23:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hasn't played pro baseball yet, so clearly fails WP:BIO. If he got a contract and played in the minor league, that would technically satisfy the "played professionally" provision of WP:BIO but per recent AFD comments, some feel that the minors don't count, or certain levels of minor league don't count. If so those editors should edit WP:BIO to say so. I think we would then need to equate what it means in salary and notability to play various pro sports in various countries. Edison 02:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP, I don't like Baseball, but I looked in google and he has many listing in it. He is notable.. Article needs to be expanded and more sources placed. Callelinea 15:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't trust everything you see in Google. Morgan Wick 16:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• He was referring to the amount of sources available in a quick Google search.++aviper2k7++ 16:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "Many listing[s] in it" doesn't tell me that, it just tells me there's a big number of hits. Morgan Wick 19:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• 'Keep' Comment: as a first-round MLB draft pick. That's a precedent used in NHL, see: 2007 NHL Entry Draft#Round 1 and Category:National Hockey League first round draft picks. Canuckle 16:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - and the same precedent for MLB first-round picks has been to not keep them. It's really only fair to compare apples and apple here. --fuzzy510 18:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And where do they keep that precedent? Is it worth an edit to WP:BIO? Then nominators could cite it and everyone would be on the same page from the beginning of the AfD. I get the point that baseball drafts may be unlike other sports, as per MLB: "The Major League Baseball Draft is among the least followed of the professional sports drafts in the United States, possibly because other professional sports drafts feature players who will immediately start to play for the team they are drafted by that next year, whereas the MLB has an extensive minor league system to help players mature and hone their skills to be able to compete with those in the major leagues." However, this draft was the first to be televised live. We may see more of these discussions as more public attention is given to draft-eligible players. This player was picked in the first 25 picks and has signed a $1.4 million USD contract. I'm not sure , if you exclude the draft, if that's enough to make him notable but he's getting there. Canuckle 21:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • While it's not an official policy, the baseball WikiProject keeps a notability standard here which, so far as I can tell, is held in decent regard. Notice that it specifically mentions that most minor leaguers aren't notable, not to mention draft picks who might not even be minor leaguers. --fuzzy510 22:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. Thanks for the link. I apologize for not seeing your citation at the start of the discussion. I completely missed it earlier. I agree that "most" minor leaguers are not notable (the project page actually says "generally not notable"). First-round draft picks aren't mentioned at all. That leaves us to assume what it means, and that's not wise. What baseball accomplishment would make a high-school graduate who is just starting his minor-league career notable for Wikipedia? I've changed my vote from Keep to Comment. I'm not sold either way yet but it sounds like there's merits on both sides of the discussion. Canuckle 23:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per precedent, baseball players are not notable until they have played a gam in the majors. Caknuck 02:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The precedent is if it has the sources, it is notable. This is clearly noted on Wikipedia:Notability.++aviper2k7++ 14:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Try WP:BASEBALL#Notability, which trumps the general notability guideline. Morgan Wick 17:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• What? That's a Wikiproject page. Notability is based on how many sources are available for the player. The reason why minor league players wouldn't be considered "notable" would be because there isn't much being written about them. All of you seem to be caught up in these changing guidelines and ignoring how many sources are available about this player.++aviper2k7++ 18:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps WP:BLP1E is more to your liking, then? --fuzzy510 19:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the sources. It does not apply.++aviper2k7++ 19:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I did, and it all boils down to him being drafted. So why isn't it applicable? --fuzzy510 19:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete agreed, wait till he plays a pro game --Bill.matthews 12:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Kozma

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

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. --fuzzy510 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Players who are drafted are not notable enough for inclusion here. The athlete must have something notable about them besides being drafted as drafted does not guarantee much of anything. If they are a first overall draft pick or perhaps USA Today Player of the Year, then they are notable. I don't think it would benefit wikipedia to have articles on ever person ever to be paid to play baseball. //Tecmobowl 21:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hasn't played pro baseball yet, so clearly fails WP:BIO. If he got a contract and played in the minor league, that would technically satisfy the "played professionally" provision of WP:BIO but per recent AFD comments, some feel that the minors don't count, or certain levels of minor league don't count. If so those editors should edit WP:BIO to say so. I think we would then need to equate what it means in salary and notability to play various pro sports in various countries. Edison 02:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Being drafted is not WP:N. Not even in the first round. The list of baseball players who have been drafted in the first-round and never gone on to do anything would be almost endless. Mwelch 19:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Withrow

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

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. --fuzzy510 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Players who are drafted are not notable enough for inclusion here. The athlete must have something notable about them besides being drafted as drafted does not guarantee much of anything. If they are a first overall draft pick or perhaps USA Today Player of the Year, then they are notable. I don't think it would benefit wikipedia to have articles on ever person ever to be paid to play baseball. //Tecmobowl 21:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, I think it is a bit too earlier for his case to have an article - wait until he does play for club.--JForget 23:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hasn't played pro baseball yet, so clearly fails WP:BIO. If he got a contract and played in the minor league, that would technically satisfy the "played professionally" provision of WP:BIO but per recent AFD comments, some feel that the minors don't count, or certain levels of minor league don't count. If so those editors should edit WP:BIO to say so. I think we would then need to equate what it means in salary and notability to play various pro sports in various countries. Edison 02:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Being drafted is not WP:N. Not even in the first round. The list of baseball players who have been drafted in the first-round and never gone on to do anything would be almost endless. Mwelch 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Alderson

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

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and has decided to instead play collegiately. College players are not considered inherently notable. --fuzzy510 20:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 20:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Players who are drafted are not notable enough for inclusion here. The athlete must have something notable about them besides being drafted as drafted does not guarantee much of anything. If they are a first overall draft pick or perhaps USA Today Player of the Year, then they are notable. I don't think it would benefit wikipedia to have articles on ever person ever to be paid to play baseball. //Tecmobowl 21:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hasn't played pro baseball yet, so clearly fails WP:BIO. If he got a contract and played in the minor league, that would technically satisfy the "played professionally" provision of WP:BIO but per recent AFD comments, some feel that the minors don't count, or certain levels of minor league don't count. If so those editors should edit WP:BIO to say so. I think we would then need to equate what it means in salary and notability to play various pro sports in various countries. Many argued in the Allison Stokke AFD that numerous newspaper articles about high school athletes still do not justify articles. Edison 03:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Being drafted is not WP:N. Not even in the first round. The list of baseball players who have been drafted in the first-round and never gone on to do anything would be almost endless. Mwelch 18:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Main

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

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and apparently will play collegiately. Collegiate baseball players are not considered inherently notable. --fuzzy510 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Players who are drafted are not notable enough for inclusion here. The athlete must have something notable about them besides being drafted as drafted does not guarantee much of anything. If they are a first overall draft pick or perhaps USA Today Player of the Year, then they are notable. I don't think it would benefit wikipedia to have articles on ever person ever to be paid to play baseball. //Tecmobowl 21:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hasn't played pro baseball yet, so clearly fails WP:BIO. If he got a contract and played in the minor league, that would technically satisfy the "played professionally" provision of WP:BIO but per recent AFD comments, some feel that the minors don't count, or certain levels of minor league don't count. If so those editors should edit WP:BIO to say so. I think we would then need to equate what it means in salary and notability to play various pro sports in various countries. Edison 03:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, needs serious cleanup. Sr13 04:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knowledge creation

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

An alert editor at WP:COIN identified this article as original research and a conflict of interest. Its content comes exclusively from User:Knowledgemachine, who overturned a prod request. The user page identifies the writer as the same man who is cited in two of the three reference. I don't see how to rewrite the article to a neutral point of view. YechielMan 20:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep Although the current article needs a major clean-up it appears there is material out there.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Though an academically interesting topic, this is original research written in a very vague and non-academic format. --David Andreas 23:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Cleanup. Hacking through all the verbiage and ignoring the sections about other aspects of knowledge processing, the author states that (a) knowledge creation and acceptance is necessary for society to advance, (b) the person who thought it up can keep it to himself/herself or inform somebody else, and (c) the process can be broken down into five (unspecified naturally) steps. Well, duh. Ironically, for an article about knowledge creation, it does preciously little of it. Still, it does seem to be an academic field, so I'm reluctantly changing my vote. Clarityfiend 05:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Cleanup soon, or otherwise, delete it. Bearian 13:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless major rewriting is done quickly.--SarekOfVulcan 16:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There may be a detail or two which can be added to Knowledge Management, but that looks unlikely. — Athaenara ✉ 04:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean-up. Knowledge creation is an important subject, if not to 'knowledge management', at least to the history and philosophy of knowledge (but then is it in a sense so different that it should be another article altogether?). I quote the words of NeniPogarcic in the Talk page on June 26th:

"(...) Polanyi and Nonaka's ideas are widely popularized and accepted. Rightfully or not is a discussion which we can have, but it is probably the most important theory and the widely used one, so therefore it definately should be in it!"

"I think we should revert it to how it was, and elaborate it from there"

So, this is another keep or clean-up that could be added to mine. Robert Daoust 20:58, 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. Anas ^talk? 22:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Active NBA Players Who Have Won A Championship

Active NBA Players Who Have Won A Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Listed for deletion previously, but deserves discusion first I have informed the original nominator of this and invited him to explain the reasoning ChrisLamb 20:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Thanks Chris. I'd like to cite: WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:IINFO, would only be of interest to a limited number of people, would be very hard to maintain, and WP:LISTV#Think of the reader. I really don't think it's very encyclopedic, either. <odd conversation with myself> I'll save everyone the trouble: Cool Blue, have you considered that you are violating (the essay) WP:UNENCYC?

<sarcasm>Oh no. What ever shall I do? I hope they don't block me</sarcasm> </odd conversation with myself> Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I just thought that it's not historically significant either. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete' Agree with above comment - Fails WP:NOT#INFO - Not the place of sprawling statistics Corpx 20:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete In a related story players that did not win any Championship complained about the lack of media attention for them. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per above. Not a necessary article and contains useless statistics. NSR77 ^T_C 21:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment We probably don't need this type of list. They also are high maintenance and (historically) quickly neglected. --Stormbay 02:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per most of the above, and also WP:SYNT. Carlossuarez46 19:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I'd also like to add that the article will not be historically significant. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, several of the keep argruements were invalid, minor league players got deleted via AFD many times before, but the high school award he got gives notablity, making several of the delete ones invalid as well, lets wait and see if this kid makes the majors in a couple of years, if not this article can always be re-AFD. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Porcello

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

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. --fuzzy510 20:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 20:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep: All baseball players (and other athletes) are getting their own pages. Whether he plays in the MLB or not, he was drafted by a Major League team and is technically in their organization. Since he's on the team, he shouldn't have his article deleted. --Ksy92003(talk) 20:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: That's actually not how the MLB draft works at all. If a player chooses to go to college, he can later be drafted by another team. If he goes to Carolina, the draft is the extent of his association with the team. --fuzzy510 20:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I didn't mean in the organization in the sense that he could be called-up tomorrow or anything like that. But he was drafted by an MLB team, nonetheless. Whether he wants to play for the team that drafted him or not, until he announces that he is gonna go back to college or play for the team, you have to use the assumption that he will play for the team. He was drafted by a team, but could and might go back to play college baseball. "Could" and "might" implies that it is speculation. Since he "could" play college ball, that's speculation and I don't think that can (or should) be used as the rationale for deleting an article. --Ksy92003(talk) 20:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There's some sources for him and he was named 2006-07 Gatorade national baseball player of the year. That in itself is "notable" if that's what you want to go by. If there are sources for the player, this article should be kept.++aviper2k7++ 20:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, article is sourced, and the Gatorade connection is another bit of (somewhat marginal) notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I also have that same opinion, and think that ALL the articles you've nominated for deletion should be kept. --Ksy92003(talk) 21:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Players who are drafted are not notable enough for inclusion here. The athlete must have something notable about them besides being drafted as drafted does not guarantee much of anything. Granted, the gatorade thing is mentioned, but I don't see a significant amount of importance placed on that in the world of baseball. If they are a first overall draft pick or perhaps USA Today Player of the Year, then they are notable. I don't think it would benefit wikipedia to have articles on ever person ever to be paid to play baseball. //Tecmobowl 21:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What's not notable about a player winning a National award? Well, there are articles for professional players. He's on his way to being a professional baseball player. Look, a couple days ago was the 2007 NHL Entry Draft. Most of those players who were drafted that didn't have articles then have articles now because they were drafted.

Yeah, I guess I agree with you, Tecmobowl. Let's delete every single article on an athlete because they didn't win World Series MVP or a Super Bowl. And if they didn't win a Conn Smythe Trophy, let's delete their article, as well. --Ksy92003(talk) 22:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Hasn't played pro baseball yet, so clearly fails WP:BIO. If he got a contract and played in the minor league, that would technically satisfy the "played professionally" provision of WP:BIO but per recent AFD comments, some feel that the minors don't count, or certain levels of minor league don't count. If so those editors should edit WP:BIO to say so. I think we would then need to equate what it means in salary and notability to play various pro sports in various countries.Allison Stokke had lots of press coverage of her high school athleticism (before her notability for other reasons) and the article was deleted largely because editors judged high school athletes non-notable. Edison 03:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Porcello is not only a first-round draft pick, he has received independent, non-trivial coverage in national newspapers as winner of the Gatorade national baseball player of the year, which is awarded to one -- and only one -- player per year, joining such notables as Drew Henson, Alex Rodriguez and Gary Sheffield, as well as being selected for a national all-star team. Per WP:BIO, notability is established when the person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject and if the person has received significant recognized awards or honors, both of which are established in the article. Not all players drafted deserve articles. Notability has been clearly established for Porcello. Alansohn 17:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this one (as opposed to the other HS draftees). Porcello has received more independent non-trivial press coverage for his various accomplishments than the others. I would argue that top-10 picks are notable, and Porcello, by most accounts, would have been one except for a "subplot" (draft slot and Scott Boras) that increases his notability and the amount of coverage about him. SliceNYC (Talk) 00:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'd disagree that "first round" or "Top 10" or "Top X" draft picks should be assumed notable. If all the guy is is a draft pick out of high school who hasn't played yet, then no notability should be assumed. It should come down to providing references to non-trivial secondary source coverage on him. In this case, though, those secondary source references are present and have been provided, so this subject clears the bar. Mwelch 03:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This is exactly what it should come down to. No guideline can cover up the fact this article has the sources to be kept.++aviper2k7++ 03:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Most baseball players who are drafted never even make it to the big leagues, talk about an article when and if he did, otherwise start your own baseball wiki. IvoShandor 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - How does that even matter if there are enough valid sources to write an article on the person.++aviper2k7++ 03:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP, he is notable. Plenty of secondary sources.. How many persons get drafted at his age? Some of you guys have your standards way to high. If a major team is willing to bet millions on a kid and sport writers across the country write about him. What makes us armchair editors think he isn't notable.. Do a little reasearch before you decide someone is not notable. Callelinea 15:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Jackson

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

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. --fuzzy510 20:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 20:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable - no accomplishments beyond highschool and even nothing notable at high school level Corpx 20:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Players who are drafted are not notable enough for inclusion here. The athlete must have something notable about them besides being drafted as drafted does not guarantee much of anything. If they are a first overall draft pick or perhaps USA Today Player of the Year, then they are notable. I don't think it would benefit wikipedia to have articles on ever person ever to be paid to play baseball. //Tecmobowl 21:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I say wait until he plays in the majors, then he will meet WP:BIO, even it's just one game he played.--JForget 23:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hasn't played pro baseball yet, so clearly fails WP:BIO. If he got a contract and played in the minor league, that would technically satisfy the "played professionally" provision of WP:BIO but per recent AFD comments, some feel that the minors don't count, or certain levels of minor league don't count. If so those editors should edit WP:BIO to say so. I think we would then need to equate what it means in salary and notability to play various pro sports in various countries. Edison 03:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per precedent set for other MLB draftees who have yet to play pro ball. Caknuck 15:20, 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. --Coredesat 04:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alyssa Campanella

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

Minor state-level beauty-pageant winner for 2007. No other accomplishments, only a few local media references. Four from this group have already been considered by AFD (Holly Shively, Annilie Hastey, Sommer Isdale, and Kari Schull) and their deletions upheld at deletion review. PROD tag added, but removed by anon IP, so here it is. Calton | Talk 19:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not every single winner of every single local competition in the world needs an article. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Just as beauty fades in time, so do beauty queens and their notability - unless they win the Nobel Peace Prize or something. --David Andreas 23:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Miss Teen USA 2007 where there is a list of the state winners who will compete. The state pageants receive TV and newspaper coverage within the state, so an argument for inclusion could be made, but certainly mention in the article on the national pageant is appropriate. Edison 03:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This person has not by any stretch won any national title (eg Miss Teen USA), so fails WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 05:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep yes she is notable. Callelinea 20:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Mind explaining why, as opposed to cutting-and-pasting the same sentence into multiple, unrelated discussions? --Calton | Talk 23:44, 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 redirect. Sr13 04:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sara Calaway

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

Contested Prod. Deletion was proposed with the reason "She is the wife of a wrestler who has done little else of note, so she beat DDP once and hasn't been seen on WWE for at least three years, not a reason for an article. Notability is not proven." Has been twice deleted under WP:CSD#A7 (No assertion of significance), although i think there was enough of an assertion that A7 probably should not have been used. Sourcing at best dubious. I am bringing this to AfD to get a consensus on the notability or otherwise of this subject. DES ^(talk) 19:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral I have no defiante opnions on whether this subject is notable or not. Bringing it here for consensus to form. DES ^(talk) 19:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Dubious third-party sources (most are misleading links). WWE doesn't list her anywhere. Basically, the wife of the Undertaker.--Ispy1981 21:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to the The Undertaker per notability concerns. Addhoc 21:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect' - per Addhoc. Being associated to someone notable doesn't mean you inherit their notability.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Using Category:American professional wrestlers, I searched over 150 articles about wrestlers to see how other Wikipedia articles handle wrestlers' wives. I found 18 articles in which a wife was mentioned; in 7 of those, the wife had her own Wikipedia article. All of the 7 had specific notability within the wresting or entertainment industry. If the wife had no specific notability, there was no specific wife article. On the [15] website, a search for Sara Calaway reveals zero results, meaning Sara is not notable in the wrestling world. Treating her like other wrestlers' wives, she is not entitled to her own article, nor to a Redirect. The information in her article could be added, where appropriate, to The Undertaker article. In fact, much of it is already there. Then this article should be deleted. Truthanado 22:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, all the info is at her husband's page. Darrenhusted 23:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, she isn't notable. Nikki311 00:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP Like I have stated before WIKIPEDIA should be inclusive not exclusive. All this needs is more references but the article should remain. Callelinea 18:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per most of the comments made above, this article was on my list of pending deletions actually. Burntsauce 21:30, 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 speedy delete as G1. --S ^up? 19:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Griffin Forman

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

Simply a hoax, and not a very good one at that. Sent to AfD because prod removed. Iknowyourider (t c) 18:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related article, from the same author:

Otto Keresztes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Speedy delete - gone. The Rambling Man 18:49, 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. Anas ^talk? 22:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The bead game

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

Completely unencyclopedic and unnotable. Sent to AfD because a prod was removed Iknowyourider (t c) 18:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Should probably also delete Image:P6060282.JPG, which was used in a previous version of the article. Iknowyourider (t c) 19:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Reeks of WP:MADEUP. fuzzy510 19:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Nonsense Corpx 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• This is not Patent Nonsense, and so is not a proper speedy delete. However, it does not look encyclopedic aor notable either. Delte, unless notability can be established through Reliable Sources added to the arricvle, which i tend to doubt. DES ^(talk) 19:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT. The official Facebook group has all of 1 member. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless referenced, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day may apply. Staecker 21:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This article has a bad case of made-up-in-school-itis. Only website listed that's relevant is on Facebook - and literally anybodycan create something on Facebook. Not even notable in the slightest. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Strong delete per WP:NFT. Also speedy the aforementioned Image:P6060282.JPG. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 21:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please note that WP:NFT although a reason for deletion, is not a speedy deletion criterion. DES ^(talk) 22:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I stand corrected. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 22:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete- Idiotic and not notable ChrisLamb 23:20, 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. Sr13 04:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corpus Delicti (band)

Corpus Delicti (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability and completely unreferenced article. As it stands now, fails WP:BAND/WP:MUSIC /Blaxthos 17:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nom. Not notable.--Bryson 18:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - doesn't fail WP:BAND as per point 5 - two of their albums were released on Cleopatra Records. Lugnuts 19:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also note that there are album articles that should similarly be grouped in this discussion. fuzzy510 19:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment but how can you say it's a non-notable group when it clearly meets the crietira on the WP:BAND page. And I quote: A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: Then check item 5. Maybe the nominator would like to refresh themselves on this criteria. Lugnuts 19:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Because if you continued further on that same criteria, you'd see that it clearly stated that two or more albums needed to be released on a major label or one of the more important independents. Cleopatra Records is certainly not a major label, and I'm not willing to call a label which is apparently mostly known for its compilation releases a more important independent label. With that judgment, by no means does the band in question clearly meet WP:BAND. --fuzzy510 19:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And this is were Wikipedia becomes a victim of it's own policy on Weasel words! As Cleopatra has an article on WP, it makes it important by default. It's been going for "more than a few years" (again, a weasel statement) and has a roster of notable performers (under the Market dominance heading). Again, these performers are notable, as they too have articles on WP. Lugnuts 19:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

While Cleo's star has definitely fallen over the years (too many stupid comps), they have published a large proportion of the Gothic scene's major artists and I'd say that having had full albums released by them is a good pointer towards importance in the scene/genre. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And if you read the description it gives as to what constitutes a more important independant label, you will notice that it defines it as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable", so here we have a label with a history dating back 15 years, and having signed Gary Numan, Electric Hellfire Club, Switchblade Symphony, Leæther Strip, X Marks the Pedwalk, Mephisto Walz, Kill Switch...Klick, Information Society, Heaven 17, Download, Noise Box, and Razed In Black. I hope I've made my point. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 22:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep per the fact that they've had two albums on Cleopatra Records. I would think that the label is marginally notable enough (not just because they have a Wikipedia article). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - TenPoundHammer expresses a good point; the band has released two records on a semi-notable record label. NSR77 ^T_C 20:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Nominator is perfectly familiar with WP:BAND.  ;-) As noted by Fuzzy, I wouldn't go so far as to call Cleopatra a major label. The criteria is major label or a important independant label. This fails BOTH criteria (major label, or an important independant label). I will conceed, however, that this is dependant upon if you view Cleopatra Records as an important indie label or not. Cover compilations don't cut it, IMHO, but that's why we have AFD debates.  :-) /Blaxthos 21:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That was the first time I've actually read WP:BAND and I was quiet interested with what's in the criteria! Point 12 however, is a complete joke! Lugnuts 05:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the criterion. It clearly gives a description as to what constitutes an important independant label. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 22:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable band in the Goth scene. In the context of the Gothic genre, Cleopatra is a major label and having full-length albums released by them definitely counts. I wouldn't count necessarily being featured on Cleo compilations as being enough, but full-length albums, definitely. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, passes criterion 5 of WP:MUSIC by having 2 compilations (including a best of album) released on Cleopatra. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 22:22, 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. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for keeping are based on three main proposals:

• Uniqueness and novelty, or historical significance for being first to exploit a new method.
• Too new to have acquired fair representative online references via Google.
• A notably useful tool for people seeking this function and users in the field have almost certainly heard of it.

Uniqueness, novelty, importance, history, are all claims that could (if notable) be evidenced. If it is notably important to musicians, somewhere there are awards, commendations, reviews, editorials by notable musical magazines, etc which could be linked. If reviews are out of date they will catch up within a short time. That it may be looking to success, is not a comment on its status now, and right now, today, it seems to be new and minor alpha software of a certain novelty, with no verifiable evidence of notability in the music field from any type of sources (reliable or otherwise) being supplied. Claims of notability are not, themselves, notability, and a request for sources by more than one editor did not result in more than statements of editors' own personal views, impressions and opinions ("original research" in Wikipedia terms).

In addition, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- a hope or expectation of future success does not mean that today, it is notable. Until then, hopes of future fame, and this article, are premature.

[edit] Tonescape

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

• Delete: See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Monzo. The Joe Monzo vanity article was recently deleted and this is a little-known piece of software created by him. It gets only 43 Google hits which is unimpressive for software. Fails WP:CORP, etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable software Corpx 19:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The software is notable in that very few programs exist for the express purpose of composing microtonal music. It may be commercial, but it was developed "in the open" with the online community of microtonal composers. The fact that it has relatively few Google hits is probably due to the fact that it is a relatively new program in its first official release. -- DaveSeidel 22:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's quite a unique piece of software, with a highly original approach to computer-aided composition. It's also a resource pedagogically when it comes to learning, teaching, or exploring tuning theory. Gene Ward Smith 03:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not seeing much about notability. Where are the independent reliable sources to establish notability? All I see is a piece of software that few have heard of. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not sure whether it should be kept, but I've edited some of the more egregious ad-like copy out of the article. And the Google search above currently returns 182 hits. Probably it's not notable as a piece of software, but it may be notable from a music-theory perspective. CKL
• Keep It's relevant and important primarily for its unusual and useful nature. There simply isn't other equivalent software. This isn't just another word processor or solitaire game. It's exactly the sort of thing I like to find on Wikipedia -- I may not have heard of it any other way. -71.87.34.189 02:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's still in alpha, but is looking to be a *very* promising tool for the composition and analysis of microtonal music; it is, indeed, *very* noteworthy, though a little specialist. If you talk to people actively involved in the microtonal community, there's a very, very high chance that they've heard of this and tried it out . -134.226.81.3 20:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Can the article be expanded using reviews, or articles about positive or negative features at this time other than from its authors, the Tonalsoft website or different yahoo groups? - Mireut 15:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Tonescape is not only notable for its own intrinsic merits -- it's also historically important as a piece of computer software. It is the first serious music composition software which exploits the use of pitch space, a concept which music theorists have been discussing for centuries, at least since Euler. Tonescape's Lattice window does not just give a simple, static depiction of a tuning's harmonic properties, as do other programs such as JICalc for the Mac and the multi-platform Scala -- Tonescape's Lattice is a 3-dimensional rotatable view that depicts tunings which have up to 7 dimensions in their harmonic makeup, and as a user explores chords on the Lattice, he can then drag them over to the score and simply pop them into a piece. The geometry of a temperament can also be shown in "closed" form, which twist the Lattice into a helix or torus ... i'm sure there is no other music software which can do this, only such applications as Mathematica etc. -Starky32 01:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaissance Management

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

Completely unreferenced article that seems like original research. Spam tag has been on the article for a while, and it seems like this article only exists to promote this "philosophy". Article includes spamlinks, and was written by the espouser of the philosophy (WP:COI). /Blaxthos 17:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per nominator - Promotional material/Original research Corpx
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as this business philosophy is not yet notable. --Gavin Collins 08:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Moreton, Lord Moreton

James Moreton, Lord Moreton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I did a little editing on this article based on information in other wikipedia articles that are now wikilinked. Then I went to find Reliable references I was unable to find any. Jeepday (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meet any of the criteria in WP:BIO. Even when this young man succeeds to the barony he may not meet WP:BIO because hereditary peers are no longer automatically members of the House of Lords (the upper assembly of the UK Parliament - his father was a member before 1999 and therefore meets WP:BIO). --Charlene 19:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per above argument about notability Corpx 19:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It is just a courtesy title at present-- but when he does succeed it will be to a Dukedom, & I think then he'd merit an article for at least the higher nobility will remain N, even if not in Parliament.DGG 21:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment *cough* to an Earldom, DGG, not a Dukedom. A bit down the line. --Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, at best merits brief mention in his father's article, and the Earl of Ducie, which already exist. --Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. His father is just a Earl, but if he does succeed, he will be notable. An Earldom is still the second level of the British peerage. --Bduke 00:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment *cough* third, behind dukes and marquesses. --Charlene 01:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Mea culpa. You are right, but an Earl is still notable. --Bduke 02:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No accomplishments or references to satisfy WP:BIO. He does work at a power station, per the article. Is that enough to justify an article in Wikipedia? Perhaps the above commentors who were confused about Dukes versus Earls were just thinking of Gene Chandler, who in 1962 became the Duke of Earl [16]. Edison 03:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete notability is not inherited at this level and I dispute whether any ole earl who hasn't done much or been much in the news is notable. Carlossuarez46 19:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus. Walton^talk 14:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emiliano Bucci

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

I'm not even sure this article asserts notability, but I could use help wading through the broken English and the (mainly Italian, and not terribly impressive from what I can tell) google results I'm getting. Claims to be a music teacher, composer, musicologist, etc. but none of it seems to add up to much. Calliopejen1 17:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I speak some Italian, and Emiliano is a known figure in the Italian arts and appears to have significant Italian publicity. Maybe he is not notable in America, but neither is many other European pianists and composers. Culturally and artistically notable. The article's English can be fixed, though. --David Andreas 19:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Ultra Keep The article just need some clean up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamhungey (talk • contribs)
• Weak keep per User:Phonemic, he seems notable enough in Italy. If insufficient English sources are found, I'd suggest moving this to the Italian Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment FWIW, only 317 hits on google.it. Does not seem remotely notable to me but the article is so poorly written that it's difficult to judge. Perhaps reconsider for AfD if appropriate after it's cleaned up.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 19:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't want to make a firm recommendation so long as RILM is on yet another of its "Down for Server Maintenance" binges, but I can't see anything so far that passes as notable in the article. There are no notable concerts as a pianist, no notable conservatory posts as an instructor of piano. I can't find any peer reviewed music articles in JSTOR--granted, JSTOR is five years out of date and barely covers anything in Italian, which could completely wipe out Bucci's contributions; RILM itself takes a few years to index the Italian journals and books. Concur with RandomHumanoid's ghits assessment (many of the 317 hits are for other Emiliano Buccis). Could David Andreas add some of the Italian publicity? I know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but at this point I've done due diligence in searching off WP for notability and couldn't find anything. Given that the article does not assert notability via awards, positions, peer-reviewed publications, or notable albums on which he was sound engineer, I don't think I can come up with any other conclusion than delete. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment -- no entries in RILM, but I did searches for five Italian papers published in the last five years in RILM and it only had one of them, so it's not the be all end all of search engines. But I also think that Wales's "Quality over Quantity" 2006 dictum can apply to the deletion of an article which is not yet really in English and for which no one here or there has volunteered to cleanup. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:56, 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, without prejudice towards future concrete demonstrations of notability. If this information is truly encyclopedia, then perhaps an alternative method would be adding said information into the Loglan article. —Kurykh 06:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ceqli

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

Article does not establish the notability of its subject through references to reliable third-party publications. The only sources provided are the self-published Geocities website of the language's creator, and a Yahoo! Groups mailing list. Article was deleted through AfD in 2004 and then undeleted later that year, and there was a second AfD in 2005, with a consensus to keep based on no third-party recognition of the language other than two ISO 639-3 codes, cql and tcj. Both codes now seem to have been removed (see [17]). Searches on EBSCO Host, Google Books, and Google Scholar yield no references to Ceqli in academic or print media other than a one-word trivial mention in a list of minor constructed languages in a 2005 Russian article. -- Schaefer (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable "language" / irrelevant Corpx 17:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. In addition, I tried to see when the codes were deprecated, and it looks like before 2006, since they aren't listed in the recent change history of the standard. Unfortunately, it seems to verify from the ISO 693-3 website when (or if) these codes were in fact assigned to Ceqli. - Aagtbdfoua 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This has been discussed and re-discussed. It was deleted, and undeleted, and I do not understand the reason that people keep questioning its notability. It is a language that is regularly the subject of discussions on Usenet, not just by its creator (see [18] for some examples). It is on the LINGUIST list (see [19]), if that might be considered a "third-party recognition of the language" ---BRG 23:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Perhaps I should point out that an ISO 639-3 code is by no means a requirement for an artificial language to be included here. All that seems to be consensus about is that an ISO code in itself would be a sufficient argument for inclusion. That said, Ceqli is - and has been for quite a long time - a very well-known language both in conlang circles and outside. It is also one of the very few engeneered languages we know, probably the best-known after Lojban. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 07:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC) (and yes, how often are we going to have the same discussion over and over again, until finally people don't notice it anymore and the articles gets deleted by three "votes"?)

Nobody claimed having an ISO 639-3 is a requirement for notability (though I do believe the removal of its code provides some evidence of non-notability). I mentioned it because, between both previous AfDs, the ISO code was the only reliable third-party reference to the language presented, and it seems to no longer exist. The two sources in the article are the author's website and a Yahoo discussion group, both of which are unacceptable per WP:SPS policy. You say that Ceqli is "a very well-known language both in conlang circles and outside." Can you provide some evidence for the "outside" part of this claim? Because I see no evidence that Ceqli is used (or even known) anywhere outside of online conlang discussion groups. -- Schaefer (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The Linguist List database entry cited (by BRG) above appears to have been generated based on the existence of the ISO 639-3 code. To quote from the website:

  "The language codes used by LINGUIST are those of the ISO 639-3 code-set, which is built upon a unification of the Ethnologue system, produced and maintained by the Summer Institute of Linguistics, and the LINGUIST set of codes for ancient languages. This system assigns a 3-letter code to every distinct natural language known. LINGUIST has supplemented this system with appropriate subgrouping information. Most of the codes you will see, then, are Ethnologue codes, and did not originate with LINGUIST, nor are they controlled by it..."[20]

  To answer some of the questions raised above, I think the concern is that the article doesn't meet the first paragraph in the verifiability policy in that it's not possible to check that the material in this article has already been published in a reliable source. (Usenet groups and the "official website" of the language aren't considered reliable sources.) I'd like to see advocates of keeping this article either provide reliable sources or argue why my interpretation of policy is incorrect. Obviously, I can't make anyone do this, but the closing admin is (supposedly) only going to consider arguments with bases in wikipedia policies rather than counting "votes". - Aagtbdfoua 11:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, we lost Folkspraak recently (see the number of other languages this still exists on at nl:Folkspraak). I am surprised that these constructed languages dont appear in web/scholar/book/news searches, and as a result are considered not notable. It is a bit sad that Category:Gibberish language has more entries than Category:Analytic languages. John Vandenberg 12:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. High name recognition, codes, a dead-tree mention and to top it all off, I first added it to the list of languages in 2004 despite not being involved with the creation of this language or even a part of the Ceqli "circle". That an outsider like me would think it notable enough to be one of the few conlangs added to Wikipedia's list says something about its recognition. Wiwaxia 04:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No coverage in independent reliable sources (usenet and the LINGUIST list don't qualify as reliable sources, and the Russian article has only trivial coverage). Many of the keep "votes" appear to be variations on WP:ILIKEIT. If Category:Gibberish language is overpopulated with non-notable languages, feel free to bring them up for deletion. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I've heard of this language despite not being part of any of its groups, and its appearance in Roswell is awesome! Macarenaman 21:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see any reliable sources proving notability here. Whispering 11:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has been improved since 2005, as notability has been established through referencing its use in a science fiction graphic novel by two notable science fiction authors. Bennett Chronister 22:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, before this your last edit was in November of 2004! Thanks for coming back for this AfD, but can you explain how this language's appearance in a non-notable webcomic establishes that we should have an article on Ceqli? (For that matter, can you confirm that Roswell, Texas is using Ceqli? That's not apparent from a casual look at the comic.) --Akhilleus (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This leads to the question: Is every book published by a notable author notable? Since Strauss and Howe are notable, is Wikipedia allowed to have an article on The Fourth Turning, 13th Gen and Millennials Rising, and even Millennials Go to College and Millennials and the Pop Culture? (I say yes.) By extension, since Tolkien is a notable conlanger, is Wikipedia allowed to have articles on all his conlangs, even Nevbosh? Wiwaxia 04:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Question, is Rex F. May notable? Can we create an article on him, and merge this into that article ? John Vandenberg 04:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Uaxuctum said, "Haven't you ever heard of famous cartoonist 'Baloo', whose comic strips have been praised and published around the world?" in the first debate. I hadn't heard of Baloo, but I didn't argue with Uaxuctum because I had heard oe Ceqli, even though some people hadn't. An article could be hosted at either Rex F. May or Baloo (cartoonist), on the basis of his strips. Wiwaxia 01:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The searches that didn't produce many hits were of databases that rarely yield results on auxiliary and constructed languages. Although the code 696-3 was removed, this was under the misconception that Ceqli doesn't have a speaking population, judging from this post. Could we be losing languages basically because they are constructed languages? Matt 13:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What academic databases do yield results on auxiliary and constructed languages? The notability of Ceqli is not judged in comparison to other conlangs that might now have articles (WP:WAX), so a lack of academic discussion of conlangs in general doesn't lower the bar for Ceqli. -- Schaefer (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

According to (WP:NOTE), the search should be one that might demonstrate notability, as I said below in my response to Aagtbdfoua. Matt 02:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like you're saying "your search didn't demonstrate notability, so you must have performed the wrong search." Hope I'm misunderstanding you. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It just seems to me that people want to set up a higher standard for notability for constructed languages than for a lot of other things. For example, is an individual episode of a TV series ever really notable? Yet we have articles like Casa Bonita (South Park episode) and Two Bad Neighbors (a Simpsons episode). We have articles like Mew (Pokémon) -- is every Pokémon character really notable enough for an article? We have articles like USS Iowa (BB-61), and I really don't think we need an article on every ship in the whole U. S. Navy, but it looks as if we do. Now I'm not nominating these for deletion, because, frankly, this would be inconsistent with my philosophy about Wikipedia, which is that if someone thinks a subject is important enough to merit a Wikipedia article and writes the article, it ought to be included. But it seems to me that Ceqli is at least as notable as random episodes of TV series, random Pokémon characters, random ships in the Navy, and the like. -- BRG 18:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If you want to nominate random episodes of TV series/Pokemon characters for deletion, go right ahead--I'd probably support you on a fair number of them. On the other hand, if you want to demonstrate that Ceqli is notable, please provide evidence of that by citing non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

As I have said above, I do not intend to nominate anything for deletion; it contradicts my thoughts about what Wikipedia is, as I have just stated. And in addition, as I've found out in reference to Mew and the USS Iowa, when I try to go into an area in which I have no expertise to decide which articles might be obscure enough to be deleted for non-notability, I can't pick the right ones! I merely wanted to give examples of random Pokémon characters, ships in the Navy, and TV episodes, and in two of the three categories, I obviously selected the wrong examples! -- BRG 15:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

More specifically, see WP:POKEMON. Mew, which you seem to imply is less notable than Ceqli, appears in a series of video games that has sold over 155 million units, as well as the franchise's associated TV show, which is one of the longest-running animated TV shows ever, and at least four feature-length movies. Note also Mew's article cites five published books and an article in an independent, widely circulated gaming magazine. If Ceqli could claim even a fifth that level of recognition, I would never have dreamed of putting its article on AfD. -- Schaefer (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think what BRG is saying is that people are setting one standard for most material and a different, higher standard for constructed languages, and I agree. The passage cited by Akhilleus isn't really about that issue. In fact, it acknowledges that Wikipedia has a systematic bias. I think we're seeing the same bias here. Look at the vehemence with which this small article is being opposed. At its heart, this looks like a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, not a notability or RS issue. Matt 19:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

My argument is that we need some non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources to show that this language is notable. In the absence of those sources, the only argument for keeping this article seems to be some variation of WP:ILIKEIT. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anyone resorting to the ILIKEIT argument here. Both sides are being good at sticking to the issue of notability, which is a Wikipedia policy. Rather, I see "I've heard of it" arguments. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conlangs/Straw_poll#Reputation, someone suggested name recognition as what makes a conlang notable. Most were supportive (even some of our conlangophobes like Average Earthman), with Haikupoet saying, "I would think this the single most important criterion when dealing with conlangs." 67.169.38.224 06:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Arguing that conlangs should have a lower requirement for notability than other subjects is a version of WP:ILIKEIT. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This is my first time posting to Wikipedia, but after observing all these conlang AfD's, I have something to say. When someone makes a website for a conlang she or he invented, other people in the conlang community won't bother making a second website about the language. Even for languages that are well-known throughout the conlang community and talked about on forums and Usenet like Ceqli, people don't make independent websites that meet the scrutiny of Wikipedians who clamor for "independent sources". The only sites like that that I can think of are the Verdurian embassies on several conworld sites. There are no peer review journals for conlangs. Much as people in Papua New Guinea don't publish books or magazines about things that are well-known to them and their culture and therefore have a harder time than people in other countries at getting included. As a result, there is a kind of systematic bias against conlangs. And also, let's face it. NOBODY writes their articles on conlang grammar or novel plots from independent sources on Wikipedia. Is the information on the phonology and grammar of Quenya and Sindarin written from a linguist peer-reviweing Tolkien's work, or straight from the appendices of Tolkien's books? Does the grammar of Klingon in Wikipedia come from journal articles ABOUT Klingon, or from Okrand's book itself? Did the summaries of the Harry Potter books come from newspaper articles about Harry Potter, or did the Wikipedians who wrote them read Harry Potter and summarize the plot from memory? Zanzibar Buck-Buck McPhate 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC) — Zanzibar Buck-Buck McPhate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .

In my opinion, your comment confuses the issues of notability and sourcing. Quenya and Sindarin are probably notable because there's a strong array of secondary sources about Tolkien's work, much of which discusses Q and S. Since the languages are notable, Tolkien's work is an acceptable source to use in writing the article. Sadly, Klingon is notable because of broad coverage in a range of media, including major news media. Therefore Okrand's work, which I suppose is a primary source, can be used as a source for its article. The notability of the Harry Potter series is again trivially easy to establish.

On the other hand, everyone concedes that conlangs are not going to get much coverage in independent, reliable sources--in other words, they do not meet our normal standards for notability. I see no reason to deviate from normal practice.

By the way, because Papua New Guinea has been a popular destination for western anthropologists doing fieldwork, I think you'd be surprised by how much material you can find about "things that are well-known to them". Try kula ring, for example. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt, if everyone were to concede such bias were real, what does it have to do with the issue at hand? Lax enforcement of notability guidelines in other articles does not establish the notability of Ceqli. I happen to think Wikipedia has a systemic bias against coverage of women's issues, but that doesn't make notable every feminist theory with no references in reliable publications, even if its supporters create a discussion group on Yahoo. -- Schaefer (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think bias is a relevant issue if it is so strong that it actually leads to several articles being nominated for deletion. The points about lax enforcement and every feminist theory being notable are basically straw men - or straw women, not to be sexist - since I haven't suggested that enforcement is lax or that large numbers of engineered languages are notable. Matt 02:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the notability of the USS Iowa (BB-61) is extremely easy to establish through coverage in reliable sources; just do a google search. Note also that it was the first of a class of battleships, carried President Roosevelt to the meeting at Casablanca, and played an important role in naval combat in the Pacific theater during 1944-1945. Hardly a "random ship". --Akhilleus (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Mew is a strange choice for a claim of a Pokémon being "non-notable". Back when there were officially only "150 Pokémon", kids were talking all about the secret 151st Pokémon that you had to do something special with your game to get. This was when the game only held 151 Pokémon. Looking through the list of Pokémon on Wikipedia, I think Bronzong may qualify as an example of a non-notable Pokémon. (Even though I still support articles on all Pokémon.) Wiwaxia 01:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as I have little knowledge of Pokemon characters, If Mew is a strange choice, replace it with any other. I just selected one at random. -- BRG 14:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Once an ISO language, always an ISO language. 67.169.38.224 20:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Not according to this. Do you have another source that says Ceqli is currently part of ISO 639? --Akhilleus (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think what 67.169.whatever is saying is that having ever had a code on ISO-639 confers notability on a language, even if the language doesn't have the code now. Wiwaxia 01:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I think Ceqli was only in the draft, and never in the published version of the standard. ISO_639-3 was published on Feb-05-2007 according to WP (it's included in the list of standards published in this month according to an official ISO document, although the document doesn't give the exact date. [21] The email indicated by Matt above suggests it was purged from the version before this, around the end of 2006 [22]. It's not an active ISO 639-3 code, and it's not in the list of code retirements since at least 2/1/2007 here. I really can't figure out what's going on, because if Matt's email is right, and it was removed from the draft around the end of 2006, it should at least be in the change index here. In any case, I think the evidence strongly suggests this was never in the final version of the standard. And frankly, even if it were, there still are no reliable sources on which to base an article. - Aagtbdfoua 02:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the official document you've cited, the third part of the ISO 639 code (639-3) was published in February 2007. Ceqli was included and later removed from a previous version, not from that one. As a result, the document provides no evidence that Ceqli was included only in the draft stages. We know that it was once in draft form, but all ISO codes were. An omission from the lists could simply have been accidental. As far as there being no reliable sources, WP:NOTE says that the search should be one that might demonstrate notability. This could only be done if sources that might reasonably yield results for the subject were searched. I'm not tremendously knowledgeable about engineered languages or constructed languages, although I do know something about other, non-constructed auxiliary languages. Maybe someone who is closer to the field could suggest some relevant databases. In any case, this type of search wasn't conducted, so we really don't know if there are reliable sources or not. Matt 02:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not really a strong argument--essentially you're saying the wrong databases were searched, but you have no idea what the right databases would be. If Ceqli doesn't show up in news or scholarly sources, the usual way we establish notability, on what basis would you argue that Ceqli is notable? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by suggesting that Ceqli was in a previous version of ISO 639? Are you suggesting Ceqli was in ISO_639-2? This doesn't appear to be the case. Searching current version. [23] Change History [24]. The evidence that indicates that Ceqli was never in a final version of ISO 639-3: (1) it isn't in the current version of ISO 639-3; (2) the standard wasn't finalized until Feb/5/2007; (3) it isn't in the list of retirements here [25] which includes a retirement from Feb/1/2007. Aagtbdfoua 07:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non notable origional research--Sefringle^Talk 06:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Rilladiks

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

Removed prod. Article is about a very non-notable band formed only last year. Page is riddled with errors. Even though they have been on late-night TV, that doesn't give them any notability. Google gives few hits, and the first is an inappropriate myspace. Reywas92^Talk 17:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete I cant find anything on their claims of notability - the appearance on Last call with Carson Daily & pending appearance on SNL Corpx 17:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No proof to back up the asertion of late night appearances. They may be on their way, but delete until they are more notable and can prove it. Cricket02 05:17, 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 keep. Sr13 03:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fernando Rees

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

Not a notable driver SuitshiptheSecond 16:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, seems he's been in notable types of racing for about a decade. I don't know if there're any criteria on race car drivers, but I can't see this guy being categorized as non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. He's not a very good driver, but he has driven in international single-seater championships, just below Formula 1. I wonder why someone would bother to register with Wikipedia with the purpose of proposing an article for deletion. --Pc13 00:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Pendexter

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

An inventor (possibly?) of a nonnotable product (Superchess). Says the source is inventor.com, but the google search

"Lee Pendexter" site:Inventor.com

brings up nothing. Also claims he's a professional poker player but this site says his ProRank 2 Position (whatever that is) is 5951 and that his lifetime winnings are $2178. I'm pretty sure some of my friends have won more than that at partypoker.com Calliopejen1 16:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Most websites claim "superchess" was invented by somebody else [26] [27] although this guy has a patent Also, just being a professional poker player by itself isnt notable, since anyone can be one Corpx 17:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & Corpx ↑. --Evb-wiki 17:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^talk 14:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Duran

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

Extensive gsearch does not reveal notability. External links in article do not show notability. Claim of notability in article, but not backed up with sources. Article was previously prodded for lack of notability and has been recreated. Kathy A. 16:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Research DOES show notability, google search under "John A. Duran" reveals numerous patent links, additionally see link with SEC filling for sale of multimillion dollar aerospace company (and stock offer because of purchase) lisitng Duran as partial owner, also please verify with printed material (Hispanic Magazine Buiness Leaders 2003, Glendorian Magazine for July/August 2007), Duran also listed continually in several charity listings for substanstantial donations ($100k+) annually...KEEP. Bruce12 16:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep as an inventor. Patents have to be exploited to mean anything--numbers alone aren't enough for it's common to patent every conceivable variation. But from his position I would assume that many of they have been. I don't think he qualifies asa philanthropist for these relatively modest sums. I think it would have to be amounts large enough for newspaper attention, not just the charity's websites. Articles about him are claimed in business and trade journals--have they been found? The Glendorian is "A local magazine serving the city of Glendora, a city close to Los Angeles." I don't think that qualifies as a RS for notability I wonder what he did at Boeing to justify that he "was also an intricate figure at the Boeing Company." DGG 22:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

KEEP Agreed that anyone can patent anything without justification/reason however all patents are thru respective company's and all products are still being sold see www.avibank.com thus I would argue that all patents both USA and International are notable being that all are still being used/marketed and for various applications some being aircraft-critical. $500,000 to the MS Society and more then $75,000 annually, $50,000 to the Nancy Davis Race to Erase MS yearly, along with donations of $25,000 to $100,000 to other various charities and recognition at various hospitals/structures for such donations seems notable enough. I'm not sure how much would warrent a newspapers attention, $1 million? $50 million? Articles cited in trade journals have been found, such as in Aerospace Magazine among others, also Hispanic Magazine (Business Side). Article in Glendorian Magazine is comprehensive and covers all above patents/business/life topics.. Not sure what more information is needed to justify notability, please advise Bruce12 02:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete The Google search for "John A. Duran" does not turn up very many hits, and many if not most of them are for other people than the subject of the article, unless he fought in the Korean war as a pre-teenager. As for the patents, most patents are never turned into commercial applications. References are needed to show his inventions had an impact on society. Looking at the Avibank website is not a substitute for adding references to the article. Perhaps the article can be improved duting the 5 day AFD period to demonstrate notability and satisfy WP:A and WP:BIO. Edison 13:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep re-affirmed I agree with the comment "As for the patents, most patents are never turned into commercial applications" however we can verifiably prove that all patents where used for actual commerical/industrial/military applications and most (if not all) are still in use today. Remember these patents are over 40 years of working at one company and thus continual invention and re-invention is needed because patents expire (with the exception of those classified as secret), it was because of this invention/re-invention that led to his success and the overall success of the company, also keep in mind that to properly submitted patent (a competitive patent with multiple claims) for a mechanical device costs upwards of $5,000 including patent attorney fees, a company will not invest $5,000+ on patents/products it feels will not be viable and thus all patented products where produced. I provided the before mentioned link as proof of continual marketing/manufacturing. As for the other comment of "references are needed to show his inventions had an impact on society" I believe this ties back to notability of said products in the aerospace and automotive circle of products, this person was a research project for myself and I have numerous trade journals detailing various notabile patents and their uses. Keep in mind that this devices range from panel-fasteners (what holds the skin of the airplane on) to latches (to locking devices on exterior panels for instance) to struts, to pins, etc, etc... It was Duran's designs that keep rotor blades attached on BlackHawk and SeaKing helicopters, it is Durans design that attaches the skin of the F22 and B2 and other stealth aircraft to its frame (so shall we argue that stealth aircraft are not notable or that they have not had an impact on our society? Their ability to defy radar is largely due to Durans panel fastener designs). To continue on with my argument; it is Durans design that keeps the nose of the Boeing 767 & 777 attached. It is Durans design that keeps the International Space Stations solar-array attached and easily extendable when installing, it is Durans design that allows for quick installation or removal of wheelchair hubs (wheels) with a ball-lock pin, it was Duran who pioneered the Ball-Lok/Ball-Lock pin as we know it, it is Duran that designed the struts and panel fasteners of the Atlas rockets which transport everything from weather satelites to spy satalites... I can literally go on and on about the mans impact on all these things and I truly believe that these things in-turn have impacted everyone for the shear fact that we wouldnt have many of the things we have today without his ingenuity and creativity. Please tell me what I need to write or say or do to legitimize his existance in this encylopedia of knowledge. Bruce12 04:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. An editor who has information on all these patents must also know about technical publications by Mr Duran. The article has no main-line press or journal references, so lacks proof of his notability. Note the statement "He is often written about, in various trade magazines and business journals". He has been included in Category:American billionaires. You don't get to be a billionaire without a lot of press coverage. Where is it? I didn't find him mentioned in the Wall Street Journal. EdJohnston 05:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, spam article created by banned user evading ban. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centiare.com

Centiare.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The site exists, but the references given to support its notability are not good. Two are internal, the Washington Post site doesn't mention the subject at all, the G4 site seems to be an anti-Wikipedia programme, not a description of the subject. This is a puzzle - is it a hoax, or an attempt to put a spanner in Wikipedia's works, or the real deal? Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable as it lacks any media coverage and is probable spam. Also, I think its been deleted before, see Talk:List_of_wikis#Centiare for some previous discussion on it. Wickethewok 16:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per above - non notable Corpx 17:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure spam, the current scheme of indef-banned user MyWikiBiz. --Calton | Talk 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Question- The article uses a "copy" of the site's logo Image:Centiare_logo.png, however it is tagged with pd-self, assuming because the uploader took a screenshot of the logo and png'ed it, rather than saving the original file. Isn't this still a copyrighted logo? If so, considering the implied fair use rationale, the logo should probably be deleted if this article is too. -wizzard2k ^(C-T-D) 20:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Retagged as {{non-free logo}}. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • My own theory is "Freudian slip". --Calton | Talk 02:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• If the article isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, that's fine with me. Delete it. I was just looking over the Wikipedia list of wikis, and I noticed that none (?) of those that use the Semantic Mediawiki extension were included. (For more info, see Ontoworld.org.) I picked a couple that seemed to be the largest, and I began to research them. I noticed that Archiplanet is HUGE, and I noticed that Centiare came up on a few of my media searches. I don't know what Wickethewok is talking about "lacks any media coverage", and Kim dent brown must not have actually read the Washington Post article (Centiare mentioned in 20th paragraph), nor actually watched the G4 TV video (images from Centiare are shown liberally, and the guest mentions Centiare at the end of the interview). If the Washington Post and a national basic cable television broadcast are not notable coverage, I'm not sure what's going on here at Wikipedia. But, as I said, if deleting the article makes everyone sleep better at night, be my guest. P.S. I, like wizzard2k would like to learn more about how logos of other wikis get into Wikipedia, if there are such strict "fair use" interpretations? --SilkCow JamBuses 02:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Question, Mr. Brand-new Editor: if the standard for sources includes "non-trivial", how does a mention in the 20th graf of a news story or a "mention" at the end of a minor cable-TV show qualify? I'll make it easy for you: they don't. --Calton | Talk 02:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that, Calton. The description at WP:CORP says, The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. That's why I provided multiple sources -- the Washington Post and a nationally televised program on G4 TV. Now that you've piqued my interest, though, I'm discovering that the subject of the article has also been discussed in a widely disseminated podcast ("Hobson and Holst Report" yields 47,800 Google hits), thoroughly reviewed (not entirely positively, either) at Pandia ("Pandia Search" yields 82,800 Google hits), as well as written up by a leading developer of the Semantic Mediawiki software extension, Denny Vrandecic (36,400 Google hits). I'll look for your explanation of why these don't "count", either. If you have the time, please explain how the phrase "Centiare.com" yields over 11,000 Google hits, if the entity doesn't qualify as notable. To really sum this up, let's look at how many Google hits return for many of the sites found on the List of wikis:

• Lostpedia (49 Google hits, but merits an article in Wikipedia)
• LyricWiki (54 Google hits, but merits an article in Wikipedia)
• Memory Alpha (44 Google hits, but merits an article in Wikipedia)
• AboutUs.org (68 Google hits, but merits an article in Wikipedia)
• Galbijim Wiki (59 Google hits, but merits an article in Wikipedia)
• WikiZnanie (95 Google hits, but merits an article in Wikipedia)
• Jurispedia (86 Google hits, but merits an article in Wikipedia)
• Centiare.com (11,100 Google hits but (you say) does not merit an article in Wikipedia)

At what point does this become ludicrous? --SilkCow JamBuses 13:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• That's why I provided multiple sources - How odd: the adjective I actually used was "non-trivial". You might just as well have argued that the article subject isn't obsequious, clairvoyant, or purple for all the relevance it has, Mr. Kohs.
• As for the other sources you've scraped off the bottom of the barrel: Not acceptable (I mean, a podcast?), as the slightest glance at the reliable source guidelines would tell you if you had the slightest interest in intellectual honesty, Greg.
• At what point does this become ludicrous? - Sometime after you read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, perhaps. Argument in a nutshell: So?
• Greg -- and it's painfully obvious that it's you, Gregory Kohs, the indefinitely banned User:MyWikiBiz and owner of the site in question -- given your constant sour-grapes reiteration of how you don't need Wikipedia, you sure expend a lot of Wikilawyering energy trying to get yourself listed here. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Greg, unfortunately Google hits is not an indicator as to whether the article is noteworthy or not. Wikidan829 14:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Large amounts of google hits aren't the end-all of a notability indicator. I've seen pages of google hits of nothing but garbage, passive mentioning, and proxyspam. What matters is the quality of the non-trivial coverage of the reliable sources covering the subject of the article. Its true, that a few of the links you mentioned deserve some review, but as it has been pointed out, just because other crap exists, doesn't mean more should. This debate is for discussing the merits of this article alone. -wizzard2k ^(C-T-D) 14:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I think the article needs to be rewritten to be accurate. I didn't take a close look, but it did take actions to go against everything Wikipedia stands for; does it mention that? Unfortunately, Centiare is notable thanks to the Washington Post. Changed to Delete per non-notability. Wikidan829 14:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Except that the "Washington Post" story is a single wire-service story pigging-backing off the actual story of Microsoft trying to buy good PR, and concerning Kohs' efforts to get on Wikipedia: "Centiare" doesn't even get mentioned at all until the 20th paragraph. This is truly scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of reliable sources. And funny how no one else seems to have bothered to write about the this oh-so-notable venture in the last several months, hmm? --Calton | Talk 14:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Actually on a second look, the word "Centiare" doesn't even appear in that Washington Post article.. soo.. what's the issue here? I was thinking of MyWikiBiz. Wikidan829 14:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Socialist Flash Animation

List of Socialist Flash Animation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I originally speedy deleted the page since it consists solely of redlinks and external links. The creator answered with this nice message and recreated the list. So I think it would be good for everybody to chime in here. The list of course is completely inappropriate. It's a random collection of information, the criteria for membership in the list is subjective (who's to say that a flash animation is socialist?), it's not a subject of encyclopedic value, the content of the article is original research which cannot be properly attributed to a reliable third-party source and the article is a collection of internal redlinks and external links. As such it miserably fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:LIST. Pascal.Tesson 16:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Entire classification is based upon Authors personal opinion and the links are all external, adding nothing to wikipedia. -- Jimmi Hugh 16:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete 'Wikipedia is not a collection of external links' pretty much says it all; there are so few notable flash animations, much less socialist ones, that this list wouldn't be worthwhile. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. Deor 17:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Don't delete

Nothing is based on my opinion, the support for socialism is derived by the flash authors introduction as you might have noticed. It has nothing to do with my opinion RedStar1987

• Comment

-The support for socialism is derived by the flash authors introduction as you might have noticed. (Read their intros, or the message in their flash) It has nothing to do with my opinion

- Also, I'd like to point out that it isn't a collection of external websites neither. It is a collection of flash, I wouldn't call 2 servers in the references section as a "collection". No one would

RedStar1987

• Delete as a pair of external links, since as RedStar1987 points out, there's not even enough here to truly call it a collection. fuzzy510 19:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but if there is information about this sub-genre an article might conceivably be possible.DGG 22:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• <scratches head> You mean like a New York Times article about the sub-genre of socialist flash animations? I'm sure it would be easier to find articles about socialist origami. :-) Pascal.Tesson 22:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

no, like something in either one of the left periodicals, print or online or in places writing about animation. I agree that the NYT is not much interested in either. There is more than 1 publication that is a RS. DGG 00:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah come on, I was just kidding. But I still think that it's highly improbable that any source, even an obscure one, would really have any substantial commentary to make on socialist flash animations. Pascal.Tesson 05:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete- Just a list that sites non-notable cartoons that support socialism clearly deserves to be deleted ChrisLamb 00:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Non-notable. Almost all of the Wiki links are red (non-existent). Hu 01:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Why don't you like a collection? If there is a collection on "Fictional Presidents of USA", why shouldn't there be a collection of flash?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_Presidents

It's hard to find sources about flash in general, so I say, check what's written there, add more information, if something is wrong, change it and make it right. What I expect is improvemement.

By the way, the collection will grow, the same way as "The list of socialist countries" grew, which has been deleted in the beginnings of its existance. Those who delete relevant articles should spend more time creating than destroying. They should think more. Not only about whether THEY need the information, but whether someone else might need it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries Redstar1987

• Comment Countries are slightly more notable than the occasionaly viewed Flash animation which may or may not have Socialist connotations. -- Jimmi Hugh 19:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not-noable listcraft Alex Bakharev 02:51, 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. Anas ^talk? 22:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ayioncrawler

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

No reliable sources given other than ayion.com; google search shows absolutely no hits. Article fails to assert notability. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I can confirm the Google goose egg. A lack of Google hits won't disqualify a minor 13th century historical figure, but it will disqualify a 2007 software item. YechielMan 16:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable bot/crawlerCorpx 17:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Infringes WP:NOTE. NSR77 ^T_C 20:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It is a Non-notable and also lacks context for the uninitiated (me). --Stormbay 22:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Principles referenced: 1. Articles are deleted or not, on their own merits, not by reference to other articles and decisions elsewhere. Arguments based on other wrestlers or articles are not really evidence for this AFD. 2. Several 'keeps' were just comments on bundling (later unbundled), and didn't provide grounds for notability per se. 3. Of the two "keep" views which attempted to provide a basis to keep this article; one stated he is "very notable", and one stated that he is "certainly notable enough". The claims that someone is "very" or "certainly" notable lack verifiable evidence from reliable sources and hence are effectively just the views or opinions of editors. The final basis (and only factual evidences supplied) -- a few comments such as "ROH regular" or "special referee for one event" etc -- don't by themselves support an impression of notability, especially with a fairly strong feel in the AFD that notability is not evidenced.

[edit] Shane Hagadorn

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

Non Notable wrestler, the article was PROD-ed, then it was removed and so I have begun the AfD. Darrenhusted 16:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all Fail WP:N and WP:V from what I can tell MPJ-DK 16:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete all No sources for most. Although notability seems to be given, it is all fancruft and they are completely non-notable. Reywas92^Talk 17:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all, per nom and MPJ-DK. Nikki311 20:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - First listed article appears to be at least marginally notable; therefore, I cannot agree to any deletions, as nominated. --Evb-wiki 22:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I do not believe it is appropriate to manipulate the structure of the discussion, or remove another editor's comments, just because the AfD nomination has substantially changed. Although the purpose appears to be benevolent, as it now exists, the discussion might result in some confusion. --Evb-wiki 02:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Article was part of a bundle, it is now unbundled

• Keep (or nominate separately). "No sources for most"? So any article with sources can be lumped in to a multiple-article suggestion and be deleted just because most of the others don't have sources? This is a good example of a bad lumping. The article I cam here through, Tamie Sheffield, is sourced and establishes its subject's notability. Striking through now that unbundled. Permission granted to delete this para entirely, if that's not against the AfD policy. -- JHunterJ 20:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Inappropriate bundling; please argue the case for each of these articles separately. That they are all pro wrestlers isn't enough commonality to do this; some pro wrestlers clearly are worthy of encyclopedia articles. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and relist separately I can't speak to any possible notability of individuals, but this is not the way to discuss the matter. As the various Notability and other projects get going, there may be a tendency to nominate in mass, which I think must be resisted. Possibly we should clarify the criteria for doing so. DGG 22:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and relist separately. As JHunterJ explained, this is inappropriate bundling per WP:BUNDLE. All are pro wrestlers. --Oakshade 23:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Votes were made while part of a bundle

• Comment, of the two references the first provides the following information about the subject "Height: Unknown, Weight: Unknown, Real Name: Unknown, DOB: Unknown, Hometown: Unknown, Other Names: Unknown, Wrestler Since: Unknown, Finishing Maneuver: Unknown", and yet some still feels this meets WP:V. Darrenhusted 01:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As of yet, Shane Hagadorn has not really done anything notable yet. He was a student at the ROH wrestling school (not notable), held the ROH Top of the Class Trophy (a non notable title) and is the "manservant" of Adam Pearce (not notable), and out of the 18 shows held by ROH this year, he has wrestled only five times (two dark matches, one squash match against Bryan Danielson, a tag match with Pearce, and TOTC Trophy match against Pelle Primeau). Nenog 03:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Wasn't this articled requested on WP:PW at one point ? 72.74.201.85 15:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment it was also talked about on the WP:PW talk page (here is the lengthy disscussion). The person who asked if it should be created was the person that added it to the "To Do" section. Nenog 19:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, it was, then the article was PROD-ed and now it is in AfD. Darrenhusted 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, Hagadorn was a "special referree" for one event.[28] I having difficulty trying to work out whether wrestlers should be judged based on the criteria for athletes or actors. John Vandenberg 03:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Hagadorn is a ROH regular and certainly notable enough for the pro wrestling area of wikipedia. DanZero 04:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Why would it be deleted? Shane Hagadorn is very notable. Sometimes I wonder why some of these wrestlers' pages are even being considered for deletion. ThePerfectOne 03:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It might be because the articles written about these "notable wrestlers" are completely unsourced and filled with original research. --Evb-wiki 12:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment and may be "Perfectone" if you edited more than just Chuck Taylor you would understand [29]. Darrenhusted 12:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps a brief mention of Hagadorn on a "American Independent Wrestlers" category page, akin to a "List of Minor Characters" or something similar is in order? That could be a compromise between keeping and deleting fairly non-notable wrestlers. --DanZero 16:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment why would we want to keep "fairly non-notable wrestlers". And why would we want to create a category which would be full of redlinks and only encourage the creation of non-notable wrestlers?
  • It was my attempt at finding a middle ground between keeping all of the articles and keeping none of the articles, as it'd be a nice gesture by both those seeking inclusion of all and deletion of all said pages. Would it really be that awful to have Shane Hagadorn redirect to a minor American independent wrestlers page? Furthermore, that would probably save work down the line on British and European indy wrestlers, as the scene over there certainly must have produced a number of quasi-notable talents that currently have their own pages.--DanZero 16:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment is there are any "quasi-notable talents" that have pages on here then they will soon find them deleted. Darrenhusted 16:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Web-Bot Project

The Web-Bot Project (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No google results for item, only "Web Bot Project" pages completely unrelated, references no sources. Jimmi Hugh 16:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. On a somewhat unrelated note, it would be appropriate to move a copy to the user's page (note the last three words, "More to follow") in the spirit of WP:NOOB. YechielMan 16:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy as suggested by previous comment. Original Research Corpx 17:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, preferably with a userfy. Iknowyourider (t c) 18:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:20, 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 withdrawn. Thanks to Night Gyr, the page no longer attempts to be a biography. Sean William @ 02:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby Cutts, Jr.

Bobby Cutts, Jr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this person is not notable other than the fact that he is one of the thousands of alleged murderers in the United States. We have a sister project named Wikinews used to cover things like this. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessie Davis for some more arguments. Sean William @ 15:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment He has been charged with second-degree murder. Until he is convicted, calling him a "murderer" may be considered libelous. --Charlene 16:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  Point taken. Changed to "alleged". Sean William @ 16:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Long-term notability not established. This would be better for Wikinews right now; we can revisit this if he remains notable in six months. --Charlene 16:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP - Or merge into the Jessie Davis article. Clearly, this one case is far more notable than the thousands of other alleged murderers in the US. That is the whole point. Not that Cutts is an alleged murderer, but that the Cutts/Davis case is a notable case. (JosephASpadaro 17:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC))
• Delete We really can't have articles on every murderer, wether convicted or not. Not notable. See also: Herostratus. Reywas92^Talk 17:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Why? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No more notable at this time than any other alleged murderer. Davewild 18:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, a significant part of the case, ongoing coverage for several days indicates notability and notability is generally permanent. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable person charged with a crime. If we get farther down the road from this event and it seems it gets an appropriate level of coverage, it may be time to write an article. Until then, we are left with one event and one set of articles that clearly have the same origin. That's not enough for an article, or else Wikipedia would be filled with true crime articles. My local paper tends to have at least a half dozen articles about any murder case in the area, and they're not the only source of coverage. Despite this, none of those murders are notable. Erechtheus 20:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Why? Notability in wikipedia is defined by coverage in non-trivial reliable sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Notability is not temporary. There is in fact a heading in the notability guideline that explains as much. If it isn't going to matter to the world in 6 months, 6 years, or 60 years, there is no reason for an article. Erechtheus 20:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• That's not what that phrase means. It means that once something has acquired the coverage, we don't say "that was long ago, it's not notable anymore." We have numerous articles about all sorts of obscure things that don't matter to the world, and maybe never have, but they still meet the notability guideline because they have been covered. Your opinion on what matters to the world is not a criteria for exclusion, the criteria is what the world has chosen to pay sufficient attention to for us to document. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment You should re-read WP:Notability and particularly the content under "Notability is not temporary". The content is absolutely directed at the meaning I'm assigning the phrase according to the relevant guideline. Erechtheus 21:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• That section didn't exist until two weeks ago, and as used before the change that introduced the new section, that phrase was entirely meant as an inclusionary statement. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If your point is that recent policy changes shouldn't be relied upon, I cannot help but point out the irony because at the time of that change, this man was not accused of murder and the person he allegedly murdered was still drawing breath. If there is a policy problem, it is my understanding that the issue should be taken up there and not within deletion discussions. Erechtheus 22:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

actually it now discusses both, and justifies both of the limits--as it should. The rewrite basically amounts to the incorporation of the already existing policy that WP is not a newspaper. I agree that very brief coverage is not N, but I notice that the numbers mentioned by Erechtheus are his own invention--and would seem to contradict each other as a criterion. whether the coverage here is sufficiently extensive in time is a separate question. DGG 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Those numbers are indeed my own gloss on what my understanding of policy (or more appropriately, the guideline) is, but they're not new. I've seen similar arguments made in many such debates. That rationale is why we don't have pages full of temperature observations for various localities, even when they would otherwise be verifiable. Erechtheus 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

But which of them do you use when? I can't see how to use 60 years, for WP is unlike to be important as a curiosity in 60 years. Nor do I see how to use 6 years, because all the present articles in WP will have had drastic updating and I hope improvement by then-(cf. WP:UuU for one from 6 years ago). Me, I'm trying to make an encyclopedia for use this year by the many people who use it now (and have a base for future years). (please note that I do not think this article is Notable--I'm not challenging that)DGG 00:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete- not notable as he has not been convicted and in the US we are asumed innocent untill proven guilty ChrisLamb 23:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Kelsey Smith has her own page, who not Bobby Cutts?

I encourage you to read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Sean William @ 23:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge we do not have to argue over this one, since there is an obvious merge target. DGG 23:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete until Cutts becomes notable (if that ever happens). The editors have tried to make it look like the case has received national coverage by posting links to the New York Times and the Washington Post, but both articles are Associated Press wire stories that may not have appeared in the print editions of those papers at all. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if you're in the United States or watch cable, but this case has been covered practically non-stop on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News for the past several days. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Newsworthy is not noteworthy. Being a suspected murderer is hardly a claim of notability given thousands of such people are charged with the same crime every year. Resolute 23:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And there are thousands of legislators, and celebrities, and people profiled in major encyclopedias. "There's a lot of them" is not a counterargument to notability established by substantial media coverage. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have boldly merged this into the newly restructured article Disappearance and murder of Jessie Davis, since there was nothing here that wouldn't better belong on this article and general consensus was that Cutts didn't deserve an article on his own. Even if deleted, it would have obviously been appropriate to redirect the name to the case. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep — Caknuck 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chess Pieces (MÄR)

Chess Pieces (MÄR) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested {{prod}}; the rationale advanced for removing the tag was "Let this page stay, it's a good info about the show's antagonists."[30] Yet as the primary editor of this article himself asserts, this article is "just another 'List of Characters' article."[31] This article blatantly fails to assert notability, despite repeated notifications of non-notability dating back to at least March 2007. In addition, the article has serious attribution deficiencies, as the only citations provided are to fan sites. A Google search reveals no evidence of reliable sources that would establish notability for this topic. This article is just another collection of fancruft and essentially original research. --Nonstopdrivel 14:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Let this page stay. We need a page for MAR's antagonists. Rtkat3 (talk) 1:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per WP:FICT lists of characters which are too long for reasonable inclusion in the article for the series can be created. Otto4711 17:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  Query In my reading of WP:FICT, I see no exception to the WP:A, WP:N, and WP:RS policies. Are you arguing that this article meets those guidelines? If the consensus is it does, I will be happy to withdraw my nomination. --Nonstopdrivel 17:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - There's no reason for this specific article's deletion. It's no different from the hundreds of other List of ____ Characters articles, most for series less notable than MÄR. - The Norse 22:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - As the points of argument fall solely on this article's failure to keep up with plot summary, source of citations and coverage criterias, remedial solutions are not entirely unavailable. It's still more preferable than deleting the article, which would bring about negative consequences. For the moment I will try to search for more sources. Profet 666 03:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: No, the crux of my argument, as I stated very explicitly, is that this article does not assert notability—and that there is essentially no evidence of notability to be found online. The vast preponderance of references to this show are on fansites and an occasional programming guide mention. This has been an ongoing issue since at least March 2007, and still little or no work has been done to rectify this fundamental flaw. --Nonstopdrivel 04:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Observation: Though it may not be germane to the AfD process, I would like to point out that to this point, the only respondents to this AfD have been regular contributors to this article (it is, in fact, these very editors I quoted in my rationale for deletion). Does anyone not closely connected with this article have any objective input that would be useful in obtaining a consensus? --Nonstopdrivel 04:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I have not contributed anything to the article under consideration or to the article on the show and in fact had never heard of either until this AFD. Otto4711 12:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Hopefully my modest offering will sufficiently satisfy your demands of outside input, Nonstop.
  First, let us establish some facts: Marchen Awakens Romance is an internationally published 15 volume book series, which has been adapted for television, has an upcoming sequel series, is by an established author, published by notable companies and in a notable magazine. As such, there is no question of the series's notability under Wikipedia:Notability (books). The page we are directly considering is a sub-article of the MAR page, split off from the main summary article solely due to length concerns and in accordance with Wikipedia's stylistic guidelines, such as WP:LENGTH and Wikipedia:Summary style. As such, it is a part of a larger topic and can for all intents be considered as a sub-section of the main MAR page, with its division into a separately titled page being purely nominal.
  Lists of characters are an accepted section for articles on Wikipedia on works of fiction that are sufficiently complex that descriptions of their casts will be of encyclopedic assistance to our readers.
  With these things established, the question now becomes whether the Chess Pieces are a sufficiently notable group within MAR that their description will aid readers in understanding the subject. It does. Keep. --tjstrf talk 07:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- this is far more than merely a list of characters, and appears sourced -- SockpuppetSamuelson 11:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• The deadline of its deletion being... ? I want to have more time for the reference sections Profet 666 04:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Deletion debates last more or less 5 days, so June 29-30 is the projected closing date, but there's no hurry since so far everyone but the nominator says it should be kept. --tjstrf talk 04:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, it is essentually a subpage of MAR, which is notable enough (and long enough) to warrant a subpage to cover this set of characters together. John Vandenberg 05:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• I've added several references for the page and there's more to come. Try them out with a translation tool. Profet 666 03:26, 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 Speedy delete per author request Pascal.Tesson 19:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cable Ferret

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

Clearly States it is new, and completely non-notable Jimmi Hugh 14:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable, absolutely zero reliable sources.--Ispy1981 15:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy G11, blatant advertising. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 15:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Absolutely non-notable website. Corpx 17:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, non-notable and blatant advertising. Iknowyourider (t c) 18:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Author agrees to the deleting of this article Speedy2206 19:48, 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 per means of withdrawn nomination. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World's largest airline

World's largest airline (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list of information (see WP:NOT). No qualifiers ("largest airline" by what statstic?) -- inherently POV/trollbait. Beyond that, the statistics listed have been disputed in talk. This just isn't encyclopedic content. /Blaxthos 14:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn -- after consideration of the points made herein, I withdraw my nomination. (Yes, I was wrong. ;-) ). Besides the snowball forming, I can now see how this information is useful and discriminant. I'm unsure of how to formally close/withdraw nomination, but hopefully a skilled admin or editor can take care of that. /Blaxthos 22:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Will this version address your primary concerns for deletion?--Huaiwei 15:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  I still think that the subject of the article falls beyond the scope of an encyclopedia, however if the community consensus is to keep the article, I think that the version you linked is much better at categorizing the information and presenting it in a more meaningful and clear way. /Blaxthos 15:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I hate to claim WP:ILIKEIT, but I do. As to the nominator's suggestion that there is no one way to define "largest airline", the article freely admits to all the different criteria: number of passengers, number of airplanes, etc. I don't see it as a major problem. YechielMan 16:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  But even if it isn't a major problem, and even if it freely admits of all the different criteria, who really cares anyway? ;-) --Nonstopdrivel 18:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nom. Indiscriminate information.--Bryson 18:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - It is encyclopedic content. Per YechielMan, "the article freely admits to all the different criteria: number of passengers, number of airplanes, etc." It uses real data to show the reader the different largest airlines. This isn't just some made-up "List of tallest people in La-la-land", it incorporates real data into a setting that is encyclopedic content. The POV/trollbait and WP:IINFO concerns are nonsense to me. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't find this list "indiscriminate." It seems to clearly discriminate between the types of "largest" airlines in the world, and it backs up its assertions with reliable sources. It complies with policy. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 21:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but split into two new articles, "List of airlines by number of passengers" and "List of airlines by fleet size". Or alternatively merge with List of airlines. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 21:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Sourced, sensible, useful. No reason to delete. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:56, 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. The re-created content was limited to song identity and did not include the rambling content of the previously deleted version; however, the topic still fails WP:MUSIC notability tests, notwithstanding use in a Sopranos commercial. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mama (My Chemical Romance song)

Mama (My Chemical Romance song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Recreation of deleted material;Non notable MCR song mcr616 Speak! 14:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to whatever album it's from. Lugnuts 14:32, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs with historical references

List of songs with historical references (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - another song list, another indiscriminate directory of loosely associated topics. Draws songs from across multiple genres and styles that have nothing in common past happening to refer to some historical event or another. Otto4711 13:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT /Blaxthos 14:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 15:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT#IINFO and completely unmaintainable. EliminatorJR ^Talk 16:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator Corpx 17:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Indiscriminate information.--Bryson 18:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, appears to be an indiscriminate list that aside from being unsourced also looks quite unmaintainable to me (at least in the long run). --S ^up? 19:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Gotta join the boo-birds on this one, and give this a D- in history. The only songs on the list that refer to "historical" events appear to be "American Pie", "We Didn't Start the Fire" and "Sympathy for the Devil". A song like "One Week" or "It's the End of the World as We Know It" doesn't count. I guess I never realized that "Waterloo" mentions Napoleon in its first line... never liked ABBA anyway. There's probably a good list of biographical songs (unless someone has euthanized it) that would be more appropriate, like "Goodbye Norma Jean", "Starry Starry Night", "American Pie", "The King is Gone", etc. Mandsford 23:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above--JForget 00:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; note: the article's contents contradict its own guidelines. Carlossuarez46 19:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The concept here is too broad to be useful. Individual topics might be notable (e.g. if someone were to create songs of the Great Depression, they would have my support), but there is nothing useful to be found in keeping this one. -MrFizyx 18:27, 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 Keep — Caknuck 15:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Denis Murray (athlete)

Denis Murray (athlete) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Incomplete AfD nomination by unregistered editor. Reason given was 'Lacks notability'. As this is a procedural nomination, I abstain. S ^up? 13:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Strictly speaking, passes WP:BIO, having played at the top level of amateur sports. --Charlene 13:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Per that article, only known for one event - failing WP:BIO. Placing third in the "first round heat" is not ver notable Corpx 17:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No assertion of notability.--Bryson 18:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, he was an Olympian and he at least placed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Per that article, he placed third in the first heat, so he didn't even advance to the final heat. Corpx 21:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice of this debate has been posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics. -- Jonel | Speak 23:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There is precedent to keep stub articles of Olympians who did not rank among the top few in a particular event at the Olympics. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henning Svensson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axel Andersson for two examples. Because of this, and the fact that competing at the Olympics is the highest amateur level of competition possible per WP:BIO, I suggest we keep this and any other articles like this we may come upon. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  23:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Since a country can send any athlete to the olympics, the talent level in the first round/heat is usually not very high. Corpx 18:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• But by that logic, why would a country send a poor athlete? In actuality, that's probably the country's best athlete that was chosen to compete, but was just not as good as the other 50 athletes competing in the same event; merely a coincidence, or possible just due to lack of training. I would certainly hope that the United States Olympic Committee doesn't go to a high school track meet to pick the next Olympian! _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  19:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just some comments, for both of you. Generally, it is not true that countries can send "any" athlete to the Olympic Games. Qualification rules are somewhat complex, but the instances where an athlete can compete without having reached an Olympic qualifying mark are rare. Yes, countries can choose which of their qualified athletes to send, but if anyone at a high school track meet has made a qualifying mark, that's pretty damn impressive in and of itself. As for Murray, he was one of 11 runners from Great Britain in the 100 metres in 1908. Unfortunately, we don't know with any degree of accuracy how well he compared to the others, since the race officials only recorded the times of the fastest runners in each heat. Murray was in a heat with a guy who tied the Olympic record twice and won the gold medal that year--it's hardly fair to fault him for not winning that particular race, as nobody else could beat Walker either. -- Jonel | Speak 20:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• I'll change my vote because of his long jump results, which were previously not noted in the articleAthletics_at_the_1908_Summer_Olympics_-_Men's_long_jump#Results Keep Corpx 06:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Per WP:BIO. --Sue Anne 05:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BIO, with WP:RS already in the article . Neier 08:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Satisfies our current criteria for notability for athletes. Andrwsc 04:33, 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 Keep. Walton^talk 14:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vi är inte ensamma

Vi är inte ensamma (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A straight summary of an (untranslated) book that clearly fails the standard laid out Wikipedia:Notability (books). Eusebeus 13:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Author has a page on Swedish Wiki and English Wiki, plus several sources (Swedish) indicate this book is notable.--Ispy1981 16:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for failure to assert notability per WP:N. Also, this article appears to be a machine translation in violation of WP:TIE. Finally, I do not understand the relevance of Ispy1981's self-referential argument whatsoever. The book is relevant because the author has a Wiki article? Such an argument seems to violate the spirit (though not the letter) of WP:ASR is a classic case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Inclusion in Wikipedia is not an indication of notability. --Nonstopdrivel 18:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Let me change my keep slightly and restate my point. My keep doesn't rest on merely the fact that the author is in two wikis. It is in the fact that this book has been referenced by several Swedish websites. Whether they meet the criterion for notability or not, I don't know, since I don't speak Swedish. But, what, are we going to go around deleting articles because they don't have references in English? --Ispy1981 20:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I'm concerned because, in its current state, it looks like it was translated literally from some information in Swedish (or written by someone whose English isn't so hot), but the author seems to have some notability. I'd rather say clean it up. If it can be demonstrated that there is no notability for the book (i.e., finding that there's a lack of sources to cite), I'll change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It may be true that the author is notable, but this needs to be separated from the books notability per Wikipedia:Notability (books). That is why the book notability guideline was established. Eusebeus 21:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

    Comment Precisely. Notability is not inherited. --Nonstopdrivel 04:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

    • • I understand that, but do we have something we can link to for notability? I mean, if we do a google search and the only ghits are here on WP, then that alone will change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep While the author doesn't have an English language publisher, she is a wellknown pulp-fiction-writer in Scandinavia and her books are usually best sellers. Google hits are decent for a non-English title published before the advent of the internet. [32] [33] --Eivind^t@c 18:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 01:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pokémon Chaos Black

Pokémon Chaos Black (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete This page has no sources, since it's unofficial it shouldn't have article. How do we know if it is being sould worldwide? No external links to prove it. TheBlazikenMaster 13:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete "Unofficial", "in development". Google returns 708 unique hits, but practically all of these are forum postings, many referring to it being a fake - lots of dodgy Ebay adverts as well. I'd reconsider if there were some reliable sources. EliminatorJR ^Talk 16:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep We just need to rewrite it. Toasty! | Available at your local store 18:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Rewrite it then, prove that it's notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. TheBlazikenMaster 18:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Are you serious? I would vote for a Speedy Delete, except that hoaxes don't qualify for speedy deletion. There are absolutely no references at all in this article. It sounds like someone just making stuff up. There is no way that Nintendo would release a Pokémon game with a Sonic the Hedgehog character on the box. --Brandon Dilbeck 01:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, it exists all right [34]. It's just a fake, though. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No. Just no. Kwsn^(Ni!) 03:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• re-merge/redirect this info seems to be almost the whole section from the telefang article... if i remember right, Chaos Black used to redirect there anyways. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • comment actually there used to be a lot of fake pokemon games on ebay. i even had a talk with a lady who had posted a want ad for Jade, i directed her to the official site and here. luckily i think that since then ebay has caught on i haven't seen them anymore. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • What article? Please provide link. Otherwise the closing admin can't redirect it. TheBlazikenMaster 17:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• section redirect to Keitai Denjū Telefang#Bootlegged versions as the most accurate placement for this to prevent recreation. if someone comes with a RS that discusses Choas Black we can re-redirect it accordingly. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 19:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• SPEEDY Delete This looks like a G1 in my eyes. FunPika 01:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Obviously not a G1 - that's patent nonsense, and not only is the article not patent nonsense, but it's not a hoax either - link again [[35]. That's not to say it shouldn't be deleted through notability though. EliminatorJR ^Talk 15:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - having played it thru emulation, I can confirm that it is a ROM hack of Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen, and unofficial. It is not Telefang; rather, it is just a ROM hack of FR/LG. And, actually, that was Pokémon Diamond, Zap. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 01:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete, article does not assert notability. --soum ^talk 13:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yolanda Gil

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

Incomplete AfD nomination. The original nominator had expressed concern about the notability of the subject. As this is a procedural nomination, I abstain. S ^up? 13:01, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fly the Copter

Fly the Copter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No independent references (WP:V), almost entire content is POV and original research, no assertion of notability (WP:N). Even if valid sources turn up, it's probably best to scrap it and start again. Marasmusine 12:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 12:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• delete in the absence of sources to establish notability. — brighterorange (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable flash game Corpx 17:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete While I have played this game in the past, I do not see how it passes WP:N muster. --Nonstopdrivel 18:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Iknowyourider (t c) 18:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No assertion of notability, unverifiable etc. DarkSaber2k 09:34, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regal Gruff

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

No non-Wikipedia ghits, and no mention of which book he appears in. Suspected RPG/fanfic character. Katharineamy 12:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. If you can't find reliable sources for a Star Wars character, that's bad news. YechielMan 16:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as fanfic or possible WP:HOAX. --Nonstopdrivel 18:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no attempt made to demonstrate note or even mention where the character is from. Axe unless swiftly corrected.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, WP:SNOW. --soum ^talk 12:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curse of Dracula (1931 film)

Curse of Dracula (1931 film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This entire article is original research and the use of the phrase pseudo-science pretty much says it all as there is no way to prove that any of the events described are related or verifiable as such. This is the only page that this editor has created so there is no history of good editing on other articles MarnetteD | Talk 12:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - solid mass of original research. Otto4711 12:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. Do we have a policy on conspiracy theories? 'Cause we should. --Ispy1981 12:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment all conspiracy theories were destroyed by controlled demolition one September morning... Lugnuts 13:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment That's what you say... --Charlene 14:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - not an encyclopedia article. Eusebeus 13:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - were it a notable conspiracy theory, there would be reliable non-trivial sources to support it. This is simply original research by an editor. --Charlene 14:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Also has misleading title. Pavel Vozenilek 14:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Misguided OR. A few people associated with the two films mentioned died or had professional setbacks... the article rather desperately tries to shape this into a "curse". A similar article could probably be written about almost any film older than a few years. Indeed, the article itself even acknowledges how shaky its own reasoning is, including (along with a list of exceptions, the following: "Dracula has proliferated in all media in the years since the 1930's and no curse is casually apparent since then. Some of the stars of the 1931 version and most of the stars of Nosferatu escaped this supposed curse." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Drive a stake in it. OR that has a non-existent film for a title. Clarityfiend 19:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Garlic and Holy Water The Dracula (1931 film) title is correct - thus the title itself is misleading/incorrect (per WP:FILM there should be a film titled "Curse of Dracula" (1931), which there isn't). That aside, unreferenced OR. SkierRMH 06:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment -- the title bears little/no relevance to the conspiracy theory content, which belongs alongside curse of Tutenkhamen. == SockpuppetSamuelson 11:12, 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 Delete A7, non admin closure. Have a nice day. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The 48

The 48 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable band, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, only source is band's MySpace page NawlinWiki 11:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Not notable. You could speedy it. Chris 15:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as non-notable. --Nonstopdrivel 18:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No assertion of notability.--Bryson 18:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per {{db-band}}, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Desktop Sidebar

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

Hardly any mainstream media coverage to judge notability, almost all Ghits are freeware mirrors or blogs and SPSs. Written like an ad. soum ^talk 11:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as spam. The article seems very sneaky.. it caught me the first two times I read it - it's not the Microsoft product for Vista that everyone would know, but rather a freeware clone. --Bren ^talk 14:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Nonstopdrivel 18:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Spam. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 21:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - advert-cruft -- SockpuppetSamuelson

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comte d'Alton

Comte d'Alton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An anon placed this message on the talk page of the article: "I can't create the sub-page for deletion as I'm not a wiki user; so I will give my arguments here. I think this article is a hoax. The creation of a count by Hugues Capet in the late 900's is extremely doubtful, as creation of titles of nobility (in their present form of giving a title to someone and not making a fief a county or else) were not made until the XIXth century in France. In fact such a family would be one of the oldest of the french nobility ! There are some french mistakes (as comte du Calais meaning count of the Calais no comte de Calais wich is the correct form). The references to an obligation of being catholic to inherite a title is pure nonsense as many great nobles of the XVIth and XVIIth century (beginning with King Henry IV himself) were protestants. The story of a "d'Alton" going in disguise as "Dalton" is rather pathetic : not a very subtle way to abuse his "debtors". There are several authentical counts d'Alton, namely an austrian general of the XVIIIth century of irish descent and a french dandy of the XIXth century.I think this article (created by an IP) is the work of a named Dalton which dreams to be a count. Forgive my mistakes, as english is not my maternal language." I have no stance. Sr13 11:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. After looking over the article's edit history, I agree with the talk-page poster's conclusion that it seems to be "the work of a named Dalton which dreams to be a count" if not an out-and-out hoax. (Note that the "Current Holders/Heirs" section was deleted rather quickly after this AfD popped up.) However, since that's not really a rationale for deletion, I'll use the utter lack of sources and consequent failure of WP:V. Googling for various names and terms used in the article produces nothing relevant. Deor 14:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of sources, and probable hoax. A search using google.fr offers no confirmation of any of the alleged facts here. EdJohnston 05:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No Consensus There is no consensus to delete here. This is a stub, there is an asserion of notability. Refernces are, however, needed. DES ^(talk) 21:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Sanat

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

An anon added this message on the talk page of the article: "This page should be deleted. This literature magazine does not meet the criteria of the notability guidelines." I have no stance. Sr13 11:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I don't think the anon got it right this time. Google gives 20,000 hits, including citations in German and Turkish Wikipedia. Stubs are okay. YechielMan 11:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No assertion of notability for title and no references.--Bryson 18:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Callelinea 20:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Mind explaining why, as opposed to cutting-and-pasting the same vote into multiple, unrelated discussions? --Calton | Talk 23:46, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW. ExtraDry 11:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dick Smith Foods

Dick Smith Foods (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability and reads like an ad for the company. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 11:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- mmm spam. /Blaxthos 11:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Damn, the picture is copyrighted! I was hoping we could send it to BJAODN. Enjoy it while you can. (Delete of course.) YechielMan 12:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy keep and maybe tag with {{advert}} - although this article is about a company, I don't see it as blatant advertising. Dick Smith Foods has been a nationally recognised brand in Australia for years. Although popularity has declined recently, once N always N. WP:ORG. This article does need more sources, and not using just Ghits for my keep vote, [36] a quick search gets me 203 news articles. --Bren ^talk 12:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 12:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep Article needs improvement, but this is a notable Australian company, started by a very well-known entreprenuer who has been widely covered in the media for his campaign for Australian owned and made food. --Canley 13:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've found some references which I'll use to rewrite and cite the article shortly: Landline (ABC), The Age, WA Government, B&T Advertising Magazine, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age again. This is clearly not blatant spam by the company, and a slightly reverential tone is not a reason for deletion. --Canley 13:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Cleanup is not a reason for deletion and the company clearly passes WP:CORP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N. Orderinchaos 14:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I think the company has cultural importance: apart from its connection to notable figure Dick Smith, its campaigns were very visible at launch in 1999 and "controversies" like Dickheads matches and the legal battle with Arnott's were widely covered in the Australian media. I do agree the article could use more sources and information, as it hasn't changed a great deal since I created it in 2004. -- Guybrush 14:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No assertion of notability. The only reference/link is to the company site, spam.--Bryson 19:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, seems notable enough per User:Canley. Just needs improvement. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Well known Australian company founded by notable Australian. Capitalistroadster 21:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Extremely notable company established in a blaze of publicity by an independently notable person. Sources should not be difficult to find. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 22:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep recieved wide-spread coverage at launch. I think this is a victim to rising standards, yes the article now needs improving but 2 years ago it would have looked quite OK for a start-class article.Garrie 22:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment also: Tem-p-Tin (Tim Tam clone ) is referenced at Dick Smith.Garrie 22:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Easily passes notability with dozens of secondary sources. I have added citations from some, and removed some unsourced bits. Kevin 00:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Very notable. Just needs improving. --Bduke 03:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep had quite a big impact on the Australian market for a while there, and it was a bit unique in what it stood for (and the profile it achieved) and it attracted quite a bit of attention as symbolic of a new push for Australian owned. WikiTownsvillian 09:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^talk 14:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cherub (TV series)

Cherub (TV series) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-noteable internet movie. None of the "references" seem to work. No external links. A possible hoax? Bravedog 16:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Dalejenkins 18:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Noone had thought to add a references tag to make them show at the bottom, which is why they didn't work. I've done that now so they can be viewed. The article needs work and some cleaning up, but the subject does demonstrate some notability. There's a newspaper article and one at wired.com, which are full articles and not trivial mentions. Polenth 23:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. If kept the article needs to be renamed so that "TV series" is removed from the article name. That designation is only for articles on programs broadcast on television, not made-for-Internet. 23skidoo 01:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - No real assertion of notability, this article is full of weasely POV claims with litte substance ("The response has been positive.", etc.). The only "reliable source" is a blurb on wired.com -- hardly a "notable TV series". /Blaxthos 11:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, insufficiently notable fanfiction. NawlinWiki 12:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge→Buffyverse (fan films). There is sufficient information and source support for a section in the broader topical article related to Buffyverse fan films, but insufficient to support a stand-alone article. The redirect created by the merge should be sent to WP:RFD as a misleading title. If the article is kept, it should be moved to more relevant title in use as a redirect, Cherub (Buffyverse). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Has been referenced by Wired, a reliable source, establishing notability.--Kylohk 13:43, 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 no consensus. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Süleyman Başak

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

Renominating after previous AfD was closed prematurely, although consensus was strongly to delete. Non-notable academic per WP:PROF with very few publications. RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 18:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, the deletion review discussion is here. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_17 --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 18:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 18:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. While he looks to be having a successful academic career (editorial boards, cited papers, good appointments) I don't see what there is to point to as a sign of special prominence. —David Eppstein 18:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as I said at the 1st Afd, and explained subsequently "adequate article, but asserted notability as a professor. Expanding the article, he is Associate prof. at the London Business School, a part of the University of London, & of similar quality to the best US Schools. An Assoc Prof. can be notable if he's received enough recognition through publication & citation. He has 17 peer-reviewed papers, one reprinted in an anthology. The highest two have counts of 53 and 44 citations. He's associate editor of 2 good journals, which also counts as professional recognition. But not yet a full professor. " That's weak keep, which --at least as I use it--informally means I wasn't going to defend the article further and I considered a delete as a reasonable opinion. It wasnt 53 total cites, it was 53 on those two papers alone. The total count was probably about 100. What also influenced me was the rep. of his current position, where he got the PhD, his associate editorships, and especially the excellent quality of the particular journal he published the two papers in. & I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to 3rd world. If he had not been 3rd world, or the journal had been of lower rep., I might have said Neutral or just Commented.DGG 00:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • DGG, I'll repeat my question from the first AfD: Let me ask you: only 17 articles in a field known for highly prolific authorship? 53 citations on his two leading articles??? (You had originally said 97!) Why do you think this is [remotely] notable? --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 04:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The numbers were 53 on the highest and 47 on the next, as specified in the article. As i said, I think its borderline, balancing slightly to keep by consideration of the nature of the journals and the slight tolerance I do give to third world--as long as the publish in the main international journals. I would consider either result acceptable. I just give the data I find, and say what I think. I don't expect that people will decide according to my judgement, nor do I advocate that they do. Here's the info, here's my rationale, you make your own decision. I mean it literally that I trust the consensus of multiple WPedians at AfD more than my own personal judgment. I see what John V found. He suggests it might be tie-breaking, and I think he's right. DGG 05:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per WP:PROF and WP:NN --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 04:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, the article is now well sourced, and this is enough to cross the PROF line. John Vandenberg 00:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • How does a mini-interview with him change his notability? --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 15:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - Look carefully on the page where it says: "A listing fee of US$ 250 may apply"?! [remark removed]. Out of courtesy, I've removed my previous remark and I will rephrase here, since perhaps the previous phrasing suggested the magazine gets the bulk of its income from fees from its authors, which I agree doesn't appear to be the case. Regardless, I think the fact that a fee might have been charged, at least to some of the listed interviewees, in this case makes this set of interviews a non-reliable source. I agree the magazine indicates it used some editorial discretion in mailing the lists, but the intent of the set of interviews appears to be to indicate "the variety of people" working in financial engineering and at least in my mind, the presence of this individual in this set of interviews doesn't advance notability. - Aagtbdfoua 00:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC) (modified at 16:45, 21 June 2007)
      • That is an extremely bold claim to make, and inappropriate without the due diligence. There are only two uses of "listing fee" on that domain, and this instance it clearly says that the fee is applicable for people who wish to be added after the fact to that webpage, and that the editors have the right to reject submissions. As can be seen here, this interview was almost certainly included in the print edition. I have looked through the digital images of the print edition, and there are 25 profiles included; in the online version there are 27, which indicates that only the last two have been added after the print edition. Note that I have written an article for Financial Engineering News. John Vandenberg 03:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • RandomHumanoid, the interview gives a little notability in that the subject was selected by an expert to include within a sample of specialists. Also, without this interview a lot of the facts regarding the subject are difficult to source. The interview being published in a print magazine means that the details of this bio have been recorded in a reliable manner, and depending on the editing process of this magazine, have also been fact checked in order that the facts are also reliably accurate. My reason for a weak keep is a combination of the scholar results, having worked at two business schools that are easily within the best in the world, being involved in Review of Finance, and having been an editor at Management Science (but that looks out of date so he may not currently be on the editorial board), this gent is definitely not entirely lacking notability. Both journals are held in many libaries[37][38]. I have yet to spend a lot of time on this, as I stopped when I found the interview, and have now been side tracked in order to defend a magazine. An quick look on worldcat.org shows 23 "books" (usually extensive working papers, readers, etc), all with the subjects name first; 22 written for Centre for Economic Policy Research, New York University Salomon Center (part of the Stern School of Business), Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania (and the associated Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research); and and one for UMI Dissertation Services. John Vandenberg 05:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
      • John, let me just reply about the interview. The linked article begins: The editorial goal of this Special Feature in FEN was to highlight, by use of a highly non-scientific sample, the variety of people working in the financial engineering field. ... Our only disappointment is that, despite contacting hundreds of candidates with an invitation to submit a profile... Thus, they randomly sent out requests for interviews and these people self-selected themselves to be included. The $250 listing is entirely suspect. I have done many, many interviews regarding my work. Had anyone asked me to pay for them to be featured, I would have laughed in shock and shown them the door. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 09:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
        • RandomHumanoid, the interview only added a "little notability" to my opinion, but when weighed in, it helps a lot with sourcing. Why? well it was in print, fact-checked to some extent, and sent to peers. The last one is important, as it invokes academic integrity. If major details in the interview were false, there would be more coverage of it. As a result, we can assume that the majority of the facts in the Wikipedia article are accurate, which is a major factor in whether we should keep an article (esp. a BLP).
          As for the quality of the source, it is one thing to suspect, but it is another to assert those suspicions are likely to be true. As best I can tell the magazine did not make wads of cash out of this as the fee was only for submissions that didnt make it into the print edition, so it is unnecessary to cast dispersions on a magazine. (otoh, if your own inquiry shows that there are other problems, I'll be the first to thank you). "non-scientific" does not diminish the editing that occurred; really it only demonstrates that this is a magazine, rather than a journal. i.e. they didnt want to receive feedback on their poor sampling. The reality is that the sample went onto real gloss paper sent across the globe for free; it is not cheap, and they will have filtered the list down somewhat. John Vandenberg 16:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)