Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< June 29 July 1 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kappa in popular culture

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

The article is just a list of loosely related terms. Fails WP:NOT#DIR by design. Jay32183 20:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom & ample precedent; if kept is needs to be renamed to Kappa (folklore) in popular culture where the article is; I laughed when I first saw the title thinking of the reference to the Greek letter. Perhaps stating the obvious that if the article about the Japanese monsters isn't the WP article at Kappa, the entry of the monsters in popular culture isn't very notable. Carlossuarez46 23:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated items. Wikipedia articles should not contain original research, which any article which lists things which are "undoubtedly based on" other things undoubtedly contains. Otto4711 02:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as cruft, and WP:OR (as per Otto4711). Bearian
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. COI, no reliable sources Peacent 15:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glove-Unit

Glove-Unit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Contested PROD, so here we are. Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC--local and online only. Sohelpme 23:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, no charting singles, no notable members, all albums are on a very indie label, etc. etc. Clearly fails WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonnotable and COI, and please, a friendly note to the article creator: just because you're not thrilled with this process, doesn't mean you have a right to remove AFD templates. (Sigh.) Shalom Hello 05:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Shalom. Bucketsofg 12:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. I'm really tempted to speedily delete it, since I don't see an assertion of notability per the WP:MUSIC standards, much less anything backed up with independent, reliable sources. Does anybody here see a reason why it shouldn't be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7? —C.Fred (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, as it is written by a newbie, it asserts some notoriety, but needs verifiable, independent sources. Anybody want to fix this mess? Bearian 20:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable, no reliable sources. Note that author keeps blanking the AFD notice. NawlinWiki 04:55, 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.

Consensus is still forming, but apparently deleted as an expired prod. I'll contact the deleter, so in the meantime, please do not make a decision on what to do unless the issue is resolved. Thanks. Sr13 21:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the article. Looking at this debate, I don't think there is clear consensus for any changes, so I've defaulted to keep. --Evilclown93(talk) 21:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classical guitar bibliography

Classical guitar bibliography (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prod on 28th June with this reason: "WP:NOT for lists of external links. This list gives no understanding, doesn't help in navigating, doesn't add information on any subject: it(s just a pointer to non-Wikipeda information. We are an encycloepdia, a textbook of knowledge, not a pointer to external knowledge." However, it looks like a bibliography link from the main Classical guitar article. As such it may be inappropriate to delete it. There may be a discussion on if the contents should be merged back into the main article, or left as a stand-alone. But there is also the possibility of it being Listcruft, so some discussion to determine deletion might be in order. My listing is neutral. SilkTork 22:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Interesting Question about stand-alone subject bibliographies. Thereis agreement about the appropriateness of a list of the works of a creative artist if the contents in the particular case justify it--how extensive it must be to be justified is still under discussions at MOS. Normally I do not think WP is the place for subject bibliographies as separate articles, and this list is not too long to fit in the article. But I'm not sure we have any rules that cover. It is not really a list of external links.--the only links are the ISBNs for the books, asrequired by the MOS for such references.DGG 23:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think that bibliographies are inherently useful and by their nature encyclopedic. The question is whether it is sufficiently large that it has to be spun off. In this case, this is way too large to be merged. Bucketsofg 13:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bucketsofg, or merge with the Classical guitar article, if it's determined not to be too large to do so.--JayJasper 19:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:21, 1 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 keep. Qst 15:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conspecificity

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This entry consists of a synonym, antonym, and arbitrary link to an article using the term. And to head it off at the pass: 'Conspecificity' is only a concept in the most trivial sense, that is, insofar as any word represents a concept. MilFlyboy 22:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Dicdef, and unreferenced dicdef at that. Tevildo 22:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary It's a word in fairly common use within Biology: [1]. - Richfife 22:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There's a lot to cover in this article. For instance, methods for determining conspecificity, famous historical disputes, impact on taxonomy, etc. Conspecificity is an important concept and subject to heated debates because species is a fuzzy concept itself (cf. ring species). Look at palaeoanthropology, for instance (see "Probabilities of conspecificity", Nature 390(6655):30-31, 1997, doi:10.1038/36240). Equality (mathematics) is a much simpler concept and even starts like a dicdef, but of course it's an article. And so is conspecificity. Rl 07:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per R1. Bucketsofg 13:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep commonly invoked concept from evolutionary and ecological biology. Could certainly benefit from expansion though. Debivort 05:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keeep and expand with expert attention. Bearian 20:45, 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 Speedy delete as copyvio. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pope Benedict XVI's Letter to the Catholics in China

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Pope Benedict XVI's Letter to the Catholics in China
Pope Benedict XVI's Letter to the Catholics in China (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod so has to go through Afd. Indiscriminate info, not notable and orphaned GDonato (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The webpage it appears on has a copyright notice at the bottom. Might be best to handle via WP:COPYVIO. If it turns out to not be copyvio, transwiki to WikiSource may be an option, or delete. Sohelpme 22:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have put a Speedy copyvio tag on it. SilkTork 23:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Per a recent news item, all papal pronouncements are copyright, so that was the right thing to do. --Charlene 23:17, 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 keep. Non admin closure. Qst 15:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jake Brahm

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

Yes, I'm nominating this guy for deletion. Is he notable? Yes. How many things is he notable for? One. As such, it violates WP:NOT#NEWS. I was going to move it, but a massive re-write would have to be done, and it would be reverted quickly. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. A nicely written and interesting article with good sources. Fits this description: "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The references need updating - but there are plenty of sources out there, as a Google [2] shows that the incident caught the media's interest. SilkTork 22:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Though this is a classic case of "15 minutes of fame", the article passes WP:RS and WP:V quite clearly; therefore, he is notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as interesting and well-sourced. Needs wikifocation. Bearian 20:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - I kinda agree with nom. This is similar to a one-hit wonder; the notability really depends on how high the "hit" charts. This one's borderline. --Evb-wiki 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:25, 5 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. Anas talk? 10:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Like an Angel Passing Through My Room

Like an Angel Passing Through My Room (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Album track not meriting its own article. No single release. Most of this information has been appended to The Visitors (album page); the rest can be deleted as not sourced. In response to a prod, article has been padded with some serious WP:OR, starting with The song is considered one of the greatest ABBA songs never released as a single. edgarde 21:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete with some consideration to moving a bit of material to the album page. It does not rate its own article as it was not released as a single. --Stormbay 21:37, 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 delete. I don't see a "first nomination" anywhere though even though it says 2nd nom. That's no big deal though.Wizardman 23:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pat Stack

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Pat Stack (2nd nomination)
Pat Stack (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I previously nominated Stack along with a number of other individuals, whom I was subsequently convinced were of a varying degree of notability. For this reason, I withdrew my group nomination and agreed to relist the non-notable articles individually. Stack is a functionary in a very small (but notable) political party in the UK. While his party is notable and contains notable persons, this notability does not transafer to Stack. He fails Wikipedia policy for notability for politician which determine that only those politicians "who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." or are "(m)ajor local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. Smith is neither. This guy's never held elected office and is really only known to cognoscenti of the left fringe. He is also not a noted political philosopher but writes pamphlets for his party and articles in his party's paper. Just about every non-junior member of this small group does this. He is also not a noted union figure nor a noted extra-parliamentary figure. Bigdaddy1981 20:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. The article indicates that he has some status, having written an article for Socialist Review for some twenty years. A Google search [3] also indicates some media coverage, though that is mainly by minor political journals or the Socialist Review itself. Anyway, enough for pause for thought and to allow the entry the benefit of the doubt. SilkTork 23:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although his mum probably enjoyed his articles this man doesn't hold elected office and is an entirely non notable small time activist. Nick mallory 00:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: fails WP:BIO. For someone with alleged prominence in British politics, a search on Google UK turns up precisely 82 unique hits [4], not a single one of them outside fringe socialist websites. In response to SilkTork, the article alleges that he has some status, but there is no evidence backing that assertion up.  RGTraynor  18:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:26, 5 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 Keep and expand Pascal.Tesson 05:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greed and fear

Greed and fear (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This neologism describes investor behaviour, but has no context outside of the articles Portfolio theory or Risk aversion from which this article forks.--Gavin Collins 10:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What neologism, please ? It is a common phrase that has been used for decades by traders. And that is now an academic research topic in economics and finance. --Pgreenfinch 10:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article name seems to be in common use for the contents GB 11:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment A quick Google search brings up the term numerous times in the proper context. It might be merged somewhere, but I don't see a need for deletion.--Wafulz 12:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Modern_Portfolio_Theory or Risk aversion or both per Gavin Collins. --Nonstopdrivel 12:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as not a neologism, see my comment above. Btw, those emotional biases are exactly opposite to the Modern Portfolio Theory which was an academic product of the 50's and 60's with its so-called "rational" parameters (risk aversion, risk premium, beta coefficient...), "market efficiency" theory and stochastic calculations. --Pgreenfinch 16:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge or expand. This article has been around for three years, but it only has two sentences. If it can't be expanded, it should be merged with a broader subject or transwikied to WikiDictionary. --GentlemanGhost 17:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:NEO stipulates that the word or phrase has “recently been coined,” and there’s nothing recent about the use of “greed and fear” in a financial context. Pgreenfinch correctly notes its long-standing use among traders, and in behavioral finance. Greed and fear are the two sides of the emotional coin that drive bullish and bearish market trends to the eventual sentiment extremes that the technical analysis school follows – please see the Alan Greenspan remark on psychology in that article. Beyond the general Google search Wafulz mentions, Google scholar and Google book search each get many hundreds of results from “greed and fear”.--Rgfolsom 14:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 15:44, 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, Sean William @ 20:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I thought this phrase was due to John Maynard Keynes. I'm surprised there's no mention of that gentleman in the article. Bigdaddy1981 20:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Ganfon 23:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. My comment above stands here.Rgfolsom 01:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    You don't need to comment twice. The closer will read all arguments, both above and below the closure notice. Sean William @ 01:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with behavioral finance and then delete - no need for this lonely stub. Bigdaddy1981 02:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, there seems to be a history here that could be documented better (the phrase may go back to Robert Louis Stevenson at least). I think the only acceptable merge candidate, if we must, is behavioral finance. --Dhartung | Talk 05:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It is less and less an "lonely stub", and every important concept of behavioral finance (the various investor cognitive and emotional biases, the main market price and return anomalies, the herd effects...) deserves its own page, as is the case for those listed also as cognitive biases for example. --Pgreenfinch 21:19, 1 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 redirect to Orinda Union School District. Wizardman 14:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GLORIETTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

GLORIETTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

poorly written, unsourced, non-notable Chris 20:15, 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 delete. Sr13 09:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woodlands Church

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

Non-notable church, fails WP:ORG. Was previously the subject of a PROD, which ended in deletion, and was then restored following its being contested. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:50, 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 merge. Peter 11:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Braddock Chorus

Lake Braddock Chorus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable group per WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia 19:17, 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 Merge JodyB talk 15:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Braddock Orchestras

Lake Braddock Orchestras (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable group per WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia 19:17, 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 Merge JodyB talk 15:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Polakoff

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

Not notable per WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia 18:47, 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 speedy delete as copyvio. Thanks, JodyB, I missed that. Chick Bowen 20:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Nix

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

No sources to support claims. I can find no record of a Carnegie Hall concert. This appears to be a talented student bassist; more power to him, but there's no need for an article. Chick Bowen 18:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete I found only one hit on nexis and that was for a concert preintermission encore. Nothing else to establish him yet. I think he fails, for now, WP:MUSIC. His article is also a copyvio from his website. JodyB talk 20:22, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Mcbean

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

Hoax - zero ghits Kernel Saunters 18:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete This seems to be some sort of vanity page. --Jacques Pirat Talk 21:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity or hoax? I lean toward hoax after some checking. It doesn't appear to be verifiable. --Stormbay 21:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Obvious hoax - the last tram (note spelling) in Edinburgh ran in 1956. Tevildo 22:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Few other things that don't read true: There is no Private First Class rank in the British Army and the line "Patrick McBean joined the Black Watch after serving in the British Army" is a bit odd as the Black Watch is part of the British Army. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 23:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have put a Speedy nonsense tag on it. There is nothing true in the article. Check [6] for proof that he was never head of the McBean clan. SilkTork 23:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete since unsourced and very dubious. However, this isn't really a speedy candidate as the text is clearly coherent. I wouldn't mind closing this early but let's let the AfD go a bit longer than a few hours. Pascal.Tesson 00:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax, not verifiable. Culnacréann 00:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this sickening hoax. The two Black Watch VC winners were: Corporal John Ripley, 1st Battalion, The Black Watch (Royal Highlanders) in 1915 and Lance Corporal David Finlay, 2nd Battalion, The Black Watch (Royal Highlanders)also in 1915. Bigdaddy1981 00:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax. Maxamegalon2000 05:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as per above. Bearian 20:52, 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.

[edit] Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Gauntlet III

The result was Delete ck lostsword•T•C 00:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Gauntlet III (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Note: the article is titled Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Gauntlet III (the slash causes the title to appear incorrectly above and I don't know how to fix that.

Article is basically speculation about a future TV show, citing no sources. The article itself says, "The challenge is only a rumor", and "no official announcements have been made." Latish redone (formerly All in) 18:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as crystal ballery. Also, I fixed the title for you. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete People always do this when they hear a challenge is being filmed. They pick their "ideal" cast and post it as the "official" list. The list posted has to be incorrect because on the Real World booking website mm-agency.com it states there will be cast members from The Real World: Sydney on the show. Delete the page until MTV officially announces the cast. EliRykellm 19:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:28, 5 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 Boldly redirected to Special relativity. Non-admin closure, you have the right to leave nasty comments on my talk page if this was a bad idea. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Einstein's Special Theory Of Relativity

Einstein's Special Theory Of Relativity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is redundant with the articles Special Relativity and Introduction to Special Relativity, and is of much poorer quality than the articles that already cover this topic. Since the information is uncited and probably already covered by the appropriate articles, there is probably nothing to salvage from it either. The comments of the author indicate that this article was adapted from a PowerPoint presentation that he developed. Given that and the voice and organization of the article, it seems to be intended as an introductory lesson on Special Relativity rather than an encyclopedia entry, which may make it more suitable for Wikiversity. Nimrand 18:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

And you are proposing it for deletion, why? Because it's included in other articles? Then list the other articles, you know, Special Theory Of Relativity, or whatever. Please clarify why you are posting it for deletion. Cleanup and "no attention since January" are not reasons for deletion, so just clarify why it should be deleted so others can comment. Thanks. KP Botany 19:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
As I said, the article is redundant. The article's topic is special relativity, for which there is already a much higher quality article named Special_Relativity. This article is also redundant as being an introduction to special relativity, as there is an article for that as well: Introduction to special relativity. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be much to salvage from the article, as its information is completely uncited and is probably already covered in one or more other articles anyway.Nimrand 21:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Excellent, but you didn't say this or mention the other articles in your nomination, which would have made absolutely clear what you are trying to do here. I hope folks who have already voted will read this post of yours and understand, but my suggestion is that you succinctly reword it to include this information, and, in the future, be straight-forward about nominations, with links to the proper articles. KP Botany 21:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Special relativity. A cursory glance indicates there isn't anything that isn't there already that's worth bringing along, but I could be wrong. - Richfife 19:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Would simply pasting it to the Special relativity talk page suffice? Note that there is an Introduction to special relativity article, if that was the original intent of this article. KP Botany 20:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup This is a difficult article for anyone other than a physicist to edit. The math, the theories, etc. are quite confusing. But to delete the article is a poor decision. It fails, however to support its claims with reliable sources. Someone with knowledge of the field could probably bring it along. Cut and paste probably produces some problems with maintaining GFDL licensing and should be avoided if possible. JodyB talk 20:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect as Richfife had said. --Jacques Pirat Talk 21:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per Nimrand's second comment above. There is nothing in the article that needs redirected or added to Special relativity (which needs a bit of work in the introduction). The article is poorly written and difficult to understand so should not be considered an introduction to a topic that can be readily understood if explained clearly. KP Botany 21:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm okay with making this page a redirect. However, is "Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity" an accurate name? I've always heard it as "Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity."
  • Redirect it seems like part of the intent of this article is to discuss the history and motivation of Einstein's development of the subject. There is value in such an article, but this one doesn't adequately serve the purpose. JJL 21:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment It's difficult to see this, but if this is the case, renaming might be more appropriate than redirecting. We don't have an article on this historical background of the development of Einstein's theories? It's an incredibly fascinating story that covers a solid 50 interesting years in the development of theoretical physics, add the quest for the math and it's a story that certainly must be written somewhere on Wikipedia. Thanks for looking at this, JJL. KP Botany 21:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Special Relativity. Introduction to Special Relativity is a much better article --Aim Here 00:09, 1 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. Tyrenius 08:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metapainting

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

This article is biased on the basis of scope. The article describes an unremarkable group of individuals with fake bibliographic references to certify their importance. The individuals calling themselves the metapainters do exist, but the term "metapainting" not only inaccurately describes their practices, but was also coined for the purposes of a single exhibition. Sterfry 18:09, 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 delete. —Kurykh 03:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Male Chauvinism in Law Firm Management

Male Chauvinism in Law Firm Management (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

While I believe the article deals with an important issue that should be on wiki, as the article is written, it is nothing more than an essay. What do others think? Postcard Cathy 18:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • "Keep" It is well-referenced, pointing to other articles that use stats to prove the point, and it is an important issue. Women lawyers still don't get the "better half" of a double-standard that is eroding, but still exists in the profession. Mandsford 18:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for underlying POV and OR but Merge any relevant data to Male-female income disparity in the United States. I respect the research and citation done on this article but the underlying problem, from wikipedia's standpoint, is that it draws firm conclusions and meaning from that research.
- The title itself highlights that this is the problem. Personally I happen to agree that "Male Chauvinism" is the predominant reason for income disparity in America...but I can't prove that across the board, across all men and women, across all law firms in America, across all instances.
- The determination of an all-pervasive cause (particularly a negative one that baldly adds elements of guilt and negative accusation) to an economic trend is nearly the definition of original research.
- The language used throughout the article continues this OR trend: "Many of these departures are the result of the issues mentioned above...", "The “boys club” still exists after work...", "Law firms should look to the example set by the accounting profession for...". Result of? Boy's Club? "Should"??? There is no objective reality or moral element to Wikipedia, there is only data and presentation.
I personally think income disparity is an extremely important problem in the United States, I applaud the author's ethics in wishing to address that problem to a wide audience. But in this form, Wikipedia is not the most appropriate forum to do so. -Markeer 20:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, conclusory OR and POV essay that cherry-picks citations. Does any professional in the social sciences still say "male chauvinism"? I wonder. There certainly are disparities in income, in advancement, in assignments, but they are not all attributable to management (for example, women who take time off to have/raise children account for a good chunk of the measurable income disparities). Surely, then, there are rebuttals and other factors which are not in this article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't see any way to write a neutral article under that heading. - Richfife 22:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete — An essay presenting a particular viewpoint is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Even if it is referenced. Cedars 05:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment -I've taught this stuff (Law Office Management to paralegals), and I am a male attorney, so my own COI won't allow me to vote. It is certainly a notable issues, but wow, it's POV. Bearian 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per Markeer, gender inequality in the work place is a problem but writing Wikipedia articles like this isn't going to solve it. The article is violating WP:SYNT because it is synthesizing info into an essay form. It is also in breach of WP:OR and NPOV. Again I agree with Markeer that any relevant & neutral info should be merged into Male-female income disparity in the United States or Gender inequality. As it stands the article is a journalistc piece not an encyclopedic entry--Cailil talk 09:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge data as per Markeer above and delete the article. CaveatLectorTalk 10:12, 6 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 00:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soloman Shields

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

Youth team player, Not notable - no notable achievements Kernel Saunters 17:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. The article should be written after notability is achieved. The subject is NN at present. --Stormbay 21:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Ganfon 23:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • question. Is he a professional? I know he's only young and in the youth team etc, but if he's professional, he's automatically notable isnt he? 88.107.250.248 23:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - I think he needs to play in a professional league to be automatically notable which the article does not support Kernel Saunters 14:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 11:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable -- BanRay 13:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete does not appear to have played for Leyton Orient therefore fails notability if he has never played in a fully professional league.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:46, 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. Sr13 08:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Larry G

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Larry G (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Larry Girard Articles for deletion/Larry Givens
Larry G (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Can't find this person on Google, by either their real or stage name. The page creator provided no sources. KJS77 17:44, 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 delete. Peter 11:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ángela Labordeta

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

Found this while going through DumbBOT's list of pages without AfD discussions. The person in question has no claims to notability other than writing stories. Kwsn(Ni!) 17:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep or possibly send it to Spanish Wiki Found a few Spanish articles that mention her in passing, but one article that is clearly a review of one of her books.--Ispy1981 21:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete article on Spanish Wiki [7] is tagged for questionable notability, if the author isn't notable there then she definitely isn't here. Bfp (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - She's no less notable here than on the es. wiki - sources there work here just as well so far as demonstrating note goes, but, more importantly, the current article makes no attempt to demonstrate note whatsoever and contains zero sources and in-line citations. Delete if not remedied. MrZaiustalk 05:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't quite clear there, the es.wiki seems to provide a greater claim to notability than here but is stilled marked as non-notable. Regards Bfp (talk) 17:52, 5 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. Sr13 08:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scribal anointing

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

Newly-coined neologisms. The only support is from the person who coined the term. See her book. Evb-wiki 17:10, 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 delete. Sr13 08:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poor Seamus

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

Edit war going on over a db-bio tag, decided it may be better to get consensus via AfD. No opinion here. Kesac 17:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Movedgood, your behavior in relation to this article has been pretty poor. Repeatedly removing db-band tags with a demand that other editors prove the band is not-notable is frankly ridiculous. In the meanwhile, instead of posting a google search link, can you provide one or two actual, live links that were created by completely independent reliable sources that satisfy WP:MUSIC. This is your article, not ours. You have to sell it to us. - Richfife 17:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Without touching on the above, the group should have an article when they attain a recognized level of notability. They appear NN at present. --Stormbay 22:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7 as a Non-notable band. Also possibly block editor for repeated deletion of CSD tag, which are NOT to be romeved unless by an admin. Wildthing61476 02:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: A directed search (minus Wiki mirrors and Myspace pages) turn up only 15 hits for these nonentities. [8]. No entry at Allmusic.com, and only 41 hits for their CD.  RGTraynor  19:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:32, 5 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 00:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fatty Poindexter

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

NN Band, no sources other than their MySpace page Rackabello 17:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Absolutely no assertion of notability. Fails WP:BAND. --Evb-wiki 17:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per both of the above entries. Ganfon 23:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. The article refers to him recording a CD, but without a current discography. Sorry kid, not yet notable. Bearian 21:04, 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, unnecessary and facing copyright issues Pascal.Tesson 05:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] San Diego Super Chargers

San Diego Super Chargers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#LYRICS; no need for separate article; can be included in San Diego Chargers. Pats1 16:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Also, the Chargers hold the copyright. See this. --Evb-wiki 17:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It does not have notability on its own. It deserves a line in the team article. --Stormbay 21:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom or just a link in the Chargers article.JForget 01:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not worth merging because of copyright issues. Jaranda wat's sup 21:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It's already in the article, and the only thing you can say about it beyond that it's the Chargers' fight song is the lyrics (and per nom on that count). --Jaysweet 21:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:32, 5 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 00:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prof.M.V.Kini - (Retd.)Dept. of Chemistry

Prof.M.V.Kini - (Retd.)Dept. of Chemistry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to be particularly notable (enough assertions made to stop me putting it in for speedy, tho'), certainly no references to back up assertions and is, at best, a stub. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 16:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

delete one really has to guess and do their own research, this article provides nothing. Chris 20:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete under this article name; if necessary, recreate as M.V. Kini or similar. JJL 21:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Almost certainly at the Manipal Institute of Technology but even limiting searches to that site or keyword I can't find enough about him to make an article (and he seems to not even be the most notable M. V. Kini at Manipal, as they have an active prof. of Mechanical Engineering by that name though he seems not the same person). The 1982 Silver Union event mentioned in the article is described here but I see no list of awardees, and that's the only potentially-sourcable claim for notability in the article. —David Eppstein 17:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete ISI gives nearly nothing.--Stone 22:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There is not enough, & no reason to think there will be more. Can even his position be demonstrated? --but Stone, what did ISI give? DGG 23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above discussion. Bearian 21:05, 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. If someone particuarly wants the history they can ask for it later. Peter 12:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jett Carver

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

Contested {{prod}}. This snippet of an article fails to assert notability when describing this minor fictional soap opera character—who made his first appearance in June 2007. The only rationale advanced for keeping this article is that the subject "will feature prominently into an upcoming storyline,"[9] an argument that clearly fails WP:CRYSTAL. Once this storyline becomes an established part of the series, perhaps this article can be recreated with an assertion of notability. This article is also unsourced and may be original research. A Google search of the string "Jett Carver" returned barely 1,000 hits, the first of which is this article, the rest primarily fan sites, none of which appear to pass WP:RS. Jett Carver seems to have appeared in exactly one episode so far. --Nonstopdrivel 20:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxSem 16:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to user space or add to a list of minor characters article Not notable enough yet. - Richfife 16:10, 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 delete. Peter 12:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International Criminal Court in popular culture

International Criminal Court in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not every known institution can have a list of references made to it in film or book. That would be infinite and completely unmaintainable Bulldog123 15:44, 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 delete. Peter 12:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Museum in popular culture

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

Not every known institution can have a list of references made to it in film or book. That would be infinite and completely unmaintainable Bulldog123 15:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as a directory of loosely-associated topics. The items on the list have nothing in common beyond a reference to the museum and the fact that they mention the museum tells us nothing about the museum, the items from which the reference is drawn, or the real world. Otto4711 17:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment/Keep/Upmerge to British Museum "Not every institution..." - nor should it, but the BM is significant enough - and nor will it, as this one is hardly going to cause a spate of them. "tells us nothing" - tells us how the Museum is seen in the outside world, ie its public image, as a 'great museum', surely?Neddyseagoon - talk 21:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Not sure that a one-line refernce from a song about foggy London saying the place has lost its charm tells us that this is seen as a "great museum," and the same can be said for any of the other fairly trivial references on the list, most of which don't even bother to explain the museum's presence in the source material. The BM does not gain in notability by having been mentioned or seen in a collection of random pieces of fiction and the individual items on the list do not gain in notability for mentioning the BM. Otto4711 19:09, 1 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 keep. Non admin closure. Qst 15:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redmoon Online

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

Long term unsourced, with two weeks of being tagged for notability. --Eyrian 15:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep, might be tricky to source with vast majority of players in Korea where it is a cult hit of some kind. US and UK introductions did not make much impact. google shows limited results, not many on Google News Archive either. --Dhartung | Talk 16:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I remember playing this back on the English lang server; still somewhat popular in Korea. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 20:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Neither of these points address the total lack of independent sources. This article has been tagged for a long time and has not been improved. --Eyrian 04:43, 5 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. Anas talk? 23:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drag Racer V3

Drag Racer V3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No references of any sort (WP:V), tagged as such since March. Prod removed with the reasoning that it has been played more than a million times, and that there might be some hard-to-find references out there. Somewhere. Well, if some turn up as a result of this AfD, great. Otherwise it should be deleted (and recreated later if references do turn up.) Marasmusine 15:24, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Istanbul in popular culture

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

This isn't an article about Istanbul in popular culture. It's just a random list of mentions of the word "Istanbul" and the setting of Istanbul in books, movies, anime, and TV. Completely arbitrary. Bulldog123 15:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as a directory of loosely-associated topics. The items on the list have nothing in common beyond a reference to Istanbul and the fact that they mention the city tells us nothing about the city, the items from which the reference is drawn or the real world. Otto4711 17:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom & Otto & per ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 23:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, random list. Punkmorten 23:24, 1 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. —Kurykh 03:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of films made in Omaha, Nebraska

List of films made in Omaha, Nebraska (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Completely arbitrary list. Films can be made anywhere, there's really nothing special about Omaha. Bulldog123 14:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom Bulldog123 14:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:TRIVIA Rackabello 14:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as part of Category:Lists of films by location. Not seeing any reason for singling out Omaha's list. Otto4711 17:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and consider some of the other "List of films made in _____" articles as well. I agree that there could be significance to where a film was set (which is what many of the articles in the category to which Otto4711 document) but grouping films by where they were made is mere trivia. GassyGuy 18:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Look again. Category:Films by location contains subcategories for films shot in Oregon, Texas, Florida, Kentucky, Las Vegas, Maryland, Mauritania, Montana, Montreal, Morocco, New Orleans, Oklahoma, Toronto, Utah and Wisconsin. And Category:Films by shooting location contains subcategories for Brighton, Bulgaria, Chicago, Idaho, Malta, Melbourne, Mexico and Poland. Otto4711 22:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and because films are made a little here and a little there, so how much of the film needs be made in Omaha to be listed? There's no context to tell us. I do believe "set in" is a valid basis for film listings, but "shot in", "made in", "filmed in" lists don't make sense to me. Carlossuarez46 23:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete because Wikipedia is not a directory. There is nothing to indicate any significance about these films having been filmed in Omaha, Nebraska. Was the town prominent in the film's story or the film's production, if at all? Who knows? The information is indiscriminate in definition. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:34, 5 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 deleted. Evilclown93(talk) 00:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catriona Balfe

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

Non-notable fashion model. Mikeblas 14:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not for posting resumes. - Richfife 17:41, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anchal Joseph

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

Losing television reality show contestant. Text of article taken almost completely from her website (though not quite copyvio) with no sources cited. No claim to fame after losing on reality show; just another struggling young model in a very crowded field. Mikeblas 14:19, 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 Delete, as not notable --Steve (Stephen) talk 09:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genetic Research and Security Organization

Genetic Research and Security Organization (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No sourcing or evidence of notability, only 7 ghits for "Genetic Research and Security Organization" -wikipedia, representing about 3 unique websites, indicates a lack of notability or likely reliable sources. Prod removed without relevant edit summary. — Swpb talk contribs 01:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Swpb talk contribs 14:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No secondary sources with real world context. Jay32183 19:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete fails verification and npov. VanTucky 07:11, 1 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. Peter 12:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Mexican bus lines

List of Mexican bus lines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This can probably fall under WP:NOT as Wikipedia is not a map tool. Bulldog123 14:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not Travelocity™ Rackabello 14:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Serves as a central page for the Mexican bus transport system, as well as a way to illustrate transportation infrastructure. This information is certainly as notable as articles on individual railway stations. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 20:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: What information? This is a list of redlinks or no links at all, and unsourced to boot. Only a single bus line has a valid link, and all the rest of the blue links are merely the names of municipalities. Then toss in the article's assertion that only "notable" bus lines (based upon what criteria?) have links, and you have a complete mishmash. It might be, as DS1952 asserts, a "useful tool for organizing articles on the bus systems in Mexico," if such articles exist, which they apparently do not. This might be forgivable in an article a week old, but in fact the article is ten months old now, and its creator hasn't been seen in half a year. Odds that this article is improvable is debatable, but odds that it will be improved are slim.  RGTraynor  20:00, 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 as patent nonsense. The Rambling Man 14:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MJ's Human Teleportation

MJ's Human Teleportation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An essay, pure original research. The Rambling Man 13:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete Salt I don't think we need to waste our time on this Rackabello 14:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Apparently this article has been speeded previously, and the contributor has been warned several times. Rackabello 14:23, 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 Speedy delete as a copyvio. The Rambling Man 14:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brand identity guru

Brand identity guru (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

It's an essay so is pure WP:OR. The Rambling Man 13:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - was subsequently tagged as copyvio for speedy deletion. The Rambling Man 14:18, 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 No consensus, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 17:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Frenay

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

With respect to the "under construction" tag, this article hasn't been edited in nearly three weeks, doesn't assert the notability of the subject, and almost entirely consists of an absurdly long quote that is most likely a copyright violation. PC78 13:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete looks like a copyvio. OysterGuitarst 22:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep but if this AfD is closed as a "keep", I am going to cut the article to about 2 sentences. His 2006 book was published by a major publisher and had some reasonable reviews. -- DS1953 talk 04:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I began this article after attempting to do research on some of the issues mentioned in Frenay's book, blogs and articles and discovered that he didn't even have an entry on wikipedia. As a lecturer in current circulation and author of very ambitious nonfiction book about technology and the environment, I believe Frenay is notable enough to be worthy of an article here. I hope you will review the article before deleting it: I have added his birth year, removed the long quotes, added reference to the short quotes I kept, added additional notable information, etc. I also removed the under construction tag.--Markisgreen 14:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article will need to be cleanup up significantly to meet standards of sourcing and neutrality. It really needs to avoid peacock terms- right off the bat he's described as profound, influential, and a noted lecturer. It's got an incredibly promotional tone through and through.-Wafulz 14:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete there does not seem to be enough for notability. One possibly notable book, if DS1953 will add what he found, there might be more of a basis for judging. DGG 23:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:COI, WP:NOT, and as as noted above, non-notable. Bearian 21:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment What is the standard that makes glamour model Mel Lisboa a woman who makes her living posing for photographs notable enough to have a wikipedia article, but Robert Frenay the author of a published book challenging people to think about the environment and sustainability not notable enough? I'm just curious. There is no conflict of interest in my creation of this article. I am not Robert Frenay nor am I related to him nor have I ever met him, though I have read his book. I do not stand to profit in any financial way from sales of his book, his lectures or spreading his message. I just find his writing thoughtful and important and his career interesting and he seems quite notable to me. He seems like an important author and thinker that researchers should be able to look up on Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Markisgreen (talk • contribs)
  • The standard is generally Wikipedia:Notability (people), as well as having enough reliable sources. There's no sense in making the comparison between an author and a model/actress- if there is information present about the model, then she gets an article regardless of how she compares to a more "noble" profession.Wafulz 14:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Unlike Mel Lisboa, Robert Frenay did not pose for Playboy Brazil, a significant publication. She also has name recognition, a major criteria for notability. Tdmg 18:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, there are enough google news archive results to verify the basic details of this bio, and the book appears to be notable,[10][11] and is held by a lot of libraries OCLC 61229712. John Vandenberg 04:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Article as it stands contains zero third party, independent sources aside from the very week "Midwest Review" source that seems to be more book summary ala Amazon than real commentary or review. That said, the Google News hits in the search above imply that a decent case for NOTE could be made, if someone were to try. Neutral for now, but if it's not fixed shortly, downgrading to delete. MrZaiustalk 05:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not satisfy the criteria of WP:BIO, a simple web-based book review and a personal website are not enough to demonstrate notability. Tdmg 18:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The content of this article has changed considerably since the AfD began, so credit to Markisgreen for putting in the effort. It looks a lot better now, and I'm inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt regarding notability, but a decent chunck of the article is still lacking any citations. PC78 02:23, 7 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. Sr13 06:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Hooper

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

Non-notable front office official of arena football team. Reads like a resume. Leeannedy 13:30, 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 Keep. NawlinWiki 18:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Italian football transfers 2007-08

List of Italian football transfers 2007-08 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unmanageable, indiscriminate collection of facts of doubtful notability. See relevant discussion at WikiProject football. MaxSem 12:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Dave101→talk  12:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to List of Articles Deleted in 2007-2008 Rackabello 14:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. --Angelo 23:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP Should not be deleted. Does not fall under indiscriminate as explained on that article. English transfer articles have gotten free passes for the years they have them. The Italian transfer page from last season was never put up for deletion. Ridiculous nomination. Bigdottawa 00:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • To be coherent, in my opinion we can also delete the English ones. As I've noted in the WPF discussion, that list would be pretty unmanageable (which transfer moves to include? all the ones, including youth players or only the major ones, and who decides which one is major?). By the way the page is already 33 Kb long and there are still two months of summer transfer market... --Angelo 00:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I also nominated
List of English football transfers 2006-07 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of Turkish football transfers 2006-07 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of transfers of Serie A - 2006/2007 season (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of transfers of La Liga - 2005/2006 season (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of transfers of La Liga - 2006/2007 season (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of transfers of La Liga - 2007/2008 season (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

They should tread the same. Matthew_hk tc 10:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - The team that one plays for is notable; and changing teams is just as notable. Having them all listed in coherent and non-indiscriminate fashion like this (separated by league, year, etc) is beneficial to wikipedia's goals. Neier 11:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per Neier. Also I think is encyclopediadic and many people around the world will be interested of transfers made in such leagues of great level. --KRBN 18:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • KeepThey are defintley not of "doubtful notability". Transfers between major clubs are notable. Englishrose 20:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an important list for roster changes in Italy's biggest soccer tournament.-RomeW
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Copyvio and Spam Non Admin Closure Rackabello 16:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict neutral

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

At least half of the article is taken from the Kimberley Process website and therefore a possible copyvio, the style is unencyclopedical and it lacks indepent sources establishing the notability of the term. Article has been tagged for cleanup since March. Don Cuan 11:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • CSD G12 for Copyvio possibly G11 for Spam Rackabello 14:35, 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 merge and redirect. To this effect. The page will become a redirect, but the history will be preserved. —Kurykh 04:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QWERTY effect

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

Reason for nomination: Non-notable. 230 ghits for "qwerty effect" -wikipedia Antonrojo 11:01, 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 keep. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 22:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Institute for Discovery Science

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/National Institute for Discovery Science
National Institute for Discovery Science (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organisation outside of crank ufo circles. Propose for deletion under WP:Corp Jefffire 10:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I've just spent some time adding a few references found via Google including 1 from a local television station, 1 from a local newspaper and one from space.com. I think these should establish notability via WP:RS standards. FWIW, I'm not into the whole UFO thing but saw this listed and thought I'd check it out. JodyB talk 13:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Of these, only the space.com seems notable, and that's not really about the organisation. Personally I think it takes more than a single article like that to establish the actual organisation's notability, but it is on the right track to establish notability. Jefffire 15:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The space.com article is almost entirely about the orgnization's research, which conclusions are outside the usual "crank-UFO" reports. Deseret News is a major newspaper located in Salt Lake City and Channel 8 is a local broadcast news organization. Each of these are secondary sources with editorial oversight and each reported within contexts with which they have expertise, thus bring these three into full compliance with WP:V. Perhaps take another look. Anyway, I'll not belabor the point further. Thanks. JodyB talk 20:16, 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 no consensus to delete so article is kept JodyB talk 17:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Оccupation of Baltic republics by Nazi Germany

I have created this article to separate the Nazi occupation from the Soviet one, both of which presently covered in Occupation of Baltic states, as the topics have little in common and can confuse a reader. Since some people want to speedy delete this article, I hereby place it in AFD in hope it will be kept.--Dojarca 10:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


  • Speedy keep as stated above. This topic has nothing in common with "soviet occupation" and no need to represent them both in one article.--Dojarca 10:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Community consensus is against splitting the page, see Talk:Occupation of Baltic states#Nazi occupation. While the article might be needed in the future (and then named Occupation of the Baltic states by Germany, 1941-1944 (or Nazi Germany)), at the moment that is unneeded fork. I nominated the article for speedy deletion, but Dojarca kept removing the tag (for an article he created himself), instead of placing {{hangon}} tag like the rules require. DLX 10:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    I think there is already enough content for a separate article.--Dojarca 14:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as unreferenced: surely this can be covered elsewhere without what looks like a POV fork? Moreschi Talk 10:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    The article now is a copy of section from Occupation of Baltic states, I did not change it. If it to be deleted from here, it should also be deleted from that article.--Dojarca 10:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    Oh, I see: there it's referenced, here it isn't. So why do we have this fork at all? Moreschi Talk 10:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    References added. The reason is that the topics have nothing in common and confuse a reader. Such different topics worth separate articles.--Dojarca 10:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per DLX. this is an unwanted fork.--Alexia Death 10:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
A redirect would be appropriate...--Alexia Death 12:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Did anyone notice that the "O" in Occupation is actually a zero? Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not even that - it's unicode code point 041E "CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER O". Odd. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per DLX. Pavel Vozenilek 21:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Coment I would like to point out that there already exit articles about this period for two out of three Baltic states separately.--Alexia Death 04:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    Then why it is needed to keep this information in Occupation of Baltic States? There are also already exist articles on Soviet history of the Baltics, so this article seems also unnecessary.--Dojarca 23:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Occupation of Baltic states; if the current section in the future will be over expanded this additional info could go under this name. BTW >> Occupation of Baltic republics by Nazi Germany. M.K. 14:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong and speedy keep - Subject is verifiable and is certainly notable. In fact, we have tens or possibly hundreds of articles on different aspects of the Nazi occupation of the Baltic republics. The subject is also clearly demarcated from related topics; it is defined by the time frame and the presence of German troops. (The last point is something that cannot be said about most other "occupation" related articles.) The motivation for this AfD seems to be an extreme form of nationalistic POV-pushing. Those attacking this article want to present the Nazi occupation and the associated Holocaust in the Baltics as an subchapter in the larger crime of "Soviet occupation". I am sorry to have to use the word again, but I see this POV bordering on Holocaust denial. (Yes, the Holocast happened, but it did not happen here and we did not take part in it. Besides, Stalin killed far more people...) I am not saying that this AfD, or support for it, was done in bad faith. It seems that they genuinely believe in their nationalist POV. It is however clear, that until Baltic editors fully accept Wikipedia's principle of neutral point of view, our coverage of Baltic history will not meet our standards. -- Petri Krohn 23:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Please stop personal attacks and accusations. We've had quite enough of these from you already, we do not need or want more. DLX 04:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What, is the subject not notable? Who disputes the fact of the occupation? Certainly keep in hopes of speedy improvement. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and turn Occupation of Baltic States into a disambiguation page where the occupation is specified by time and event. --Yury Petrachenko 12:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete but first Merge any information that does not appear in Occupation of Baltic Republics. The subject is no doubt notable. This is not part of a coverup or a "POV-pushing". There is no need for the information to be displayed in a dozen different places. There are already articles that deal with the occupation of Estonia and Latvia separately and both this article and Occupation of Baltic Republics link to them. The reason for this article to be deleted is because it is superfluous and unnecessary. Lorangriel 18:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Totally different matter. Clear distinction. Most other encyclopedia differentiate Nazi occupation of Baltic states.Vlad fedorov 19:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Most other encyclopedias use other measures of avoiding systematic unreliability -- measures that are not available to Wikipedia. For example, an encyclopedia built by a small team of respect-earned experts will not need something like the WP:POVFORK policy. Digwuren 08:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. As pointed out by Vecrumba, forking is rather problematic -- especially in light of Wikipedia policies such as WP:POVFORK. Digwuren 08:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    This is not a POV fork, it is simply splittiong of the article to avoid messing up Soviet and German occupation in one article.--Dojarca 08:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I find it strange that the article hasn't been expanded during this AfD, I am sure that most Delete votes would become Keep then - I know that I then definitely would like to keep the article when it has meaningful and properly sourced content. At the moment there is still no reason for this split (or POVfork). Also, not Baltic republics, Baltic states should be correct, as has been discussed previously - see Talk:Occupation of Baltic states#Requested move or just Baltic states. Sander Säde 10:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    In fact the article expanded greatly during the AFD [12].--Dojarca 09:24, 7 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. Sr13 06:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super Sleuth

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

Non notable game emulator Sploooshman 09:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No, it doesn't seem to be notable, 1k ghits and no apparent WP:RS.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:10, 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 speedy delete. Moreschi Talk 10:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Donald Dye

James Donald Dye (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Page appears to be pure vandelism. Salavat 09:17, 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 Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kwadendamme

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

Non notable town, very small population, no historical significance, no past or present achievements Sploooshman 09:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep. Real town. Period. Nominator has been asked to stop this ridiculous AFD spree. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
While cities and large towns are notable and deserving to be recognised in a comprehensive encyclopedia, smaller townships and villages with no historical, cultural, social or other significance are not. As this town has no past or present achievements or any form of notoriety it does not pass notability guidelines and until it reaches these its deletion is justified. Just because you disagree with an article's nomination does not make it ridiculous Sploooshman 09:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The current consensus is that villages and towns are notable regardless of size.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep It's a real place, so it's notable. Wikipedia consensus holds all towns and villages notable and this one won't be any different. It's incredibly arrogant to think that a town where people live can be held unworthy of an entry here. Nick mallory 10:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:23, 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 Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blundellsands & Crosby railway station

Blundellsands & Crosby railway station (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable railway station Sploooshman 09:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep. This is one in a spree of nominations, many of them ridiculous in nature. Railway stations are important nodes in the transportation network as has been established countless times in the past. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
While larger stations and nodes are notable and deserving to be recognised in a comprehensive encyclopedia, smaller stations such as this with no historical, cultural, social or other significance with respect to transportation are not. As this station has no past or present achievements or any form of notoriety it does not pass notability guidelines and until it reaches these its deletion is justified. And please refrain from making personal attacks, I have raised this on your talk page. Sploooshman 09:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep This article is about a notable railway station in England, I am struggling to see what other policies or guidelines the nominator believes this fails and why, the article needs some reliable references added however. The Sunshine Man 10:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that railway stations are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:25, 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 Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zaspa-Młyniec

Zaspa-Młyniec (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable town Sploooshman 09:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Another in a spree of strange AFD nominations by Splooshman. Real towns and major sections of cities is something I would expect a comprehensive encylopedia to cover. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
While cities and large towns are notable and deserving to be recognised in a comprehensive encyclopedia, smaller townships and villages with no historical, cultural, social or other significance are not. As this town has no past or present achievements or any form of notoriety it does not pass notability guidelines and until it reaches these its deletion and the discussion of its deletion is justified Sploooshman 09:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
So presumably if this debate goes against you then you'll accept the consensus about the notability of towns and villages in future? 124.183.234.246 10:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. That's much larger than the village of 603 inhabitants you nominated for deletion, and even that I said should be kept because villages and towns are notable regardless of size.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep It's a real place, it's notable, these are silly nominations. Nick mallory 10:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:25, 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 Speedy keep, nom has made several bad faith AfD's per above and below; also, nobody voted delete. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brisbane Punk Rock

Brisbane Punk Rock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Most of article is anti-government propaganda, would need a complete rewrite, music scene could be non notable given most bands not recognised Sploooshman 09:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep and review of the spree of nominations by the user Sploooshman Recurring dreams 09:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Please judge each article on its own merits, I suspect you have not even considered why it was nominated Sploooshman 09:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article actually uses other Wikipedia articles as references. Ugh. Need to remove those.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's just not valid to say that there is problems with an article and that because of these problems we must delete the article. Notability concerns are valid, but here the problem is not with the bands themselves, as this article is about Brisbane Punk Rock. It's entirely appropriate to have minor bands in the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now -- The article needs a serious NPOV rewrite and references, but it appears that there is enough there where an article can be written, and it seems notable enough. BTW, a music scene can be notable even though few if any bands from that scene are notable -- in the same way, a high school or college can be notable without any notable graduates. -- ArglebargleIV 16:16, 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 Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rognac

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

Non notable town/commune Sploooshman 09:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, towns are notable. 96T 11:43, 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 Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kasuga, Gifu

Kasuga, Gifu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable town that no longer exists Sploooshman 09:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Real historic village and therefore of historic interest. Notability does not expire. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
While cities and large towns are notable and deserving to be recognised in a comprehensive encyclopedia, smaller townships and villages with no historical, cultural, social or other significance are not. As this town has no past or present achievements or any form of notoriety it does not pass notability guidelines and until it reaches these its deletion is justified. The town had not historic interest before it was merged Sploooshman 09:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:27, 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 Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kasuga, Hyōgo

Kasuga, Hyōgo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Town that no longer exists, wasn't notable before it got merged Sploooshman 09:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Real historic village and therefore of historic interest. Notability does not expire. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
While cities and large towns are notable and deserving to be recognised in a comprehensive encyclopedia, smaller townships and villages with no historical, cultural, social or other significance are not. As this town has no past or present achievements or any form of notoriety it does not pass notability guidelines and until it reaches these its deletion is justified. The town had no historic interest before it was merged Sploooshman 09:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:27, 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 Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haruhi, Aichi

Haruhi, Aichi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable town Sploooshman 09:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Real places are notable, this is a complete waste of time.Nick mallory 10:53, 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 Keep (non-admin closure). Although some of the !votes appear questionable, there is unanimity and sufficient input from established editors to safely close this out. — Caknuck 17:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swarf (band)

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

Non notable band, only releases have been with non notable independent labels Sploooshman 09:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)



  • Strong Keep They've released a significant number of physical releases, which is more than many bands in the "download age" manage to do. They've also toured internationally, and with names like John Foxx and All About Eve / Julianne Regan. The fanbase is vocal and strong, albeit within its small community. As to "non notable independent labels", then this isn't an article about their label, it's an article about the band. Besides which, Wasp Factory are very notable within the genre.
I'd also keep the Myspace link. It's the band's own space and although MS is a dire abomination in general and not credible as a 3rd party reference, they're more relevant when they belong to a musicians using them for hosting / streaming of their own output. To quote the external links policy, "Such [linked] pages could contain [..] information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as [...]" I would argue that MySpace's support for streaming hosting of the band's own material, a feature not available through Wikipedia itself, justifies this.
The article could certainly be better, but that's a case for improvement, not deletion. Andy Dingley 21:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but ... wikify, verify, source! 21:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to sign this before. Bearian 00:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


  • Strong Keep Merely because they are not a Top 40 band and are on a small independent label is not grounds imho for deleting this entry. They are a band with a solid and loyal fanbase within the Gothic and Electronic/Dance genres, and small independent labels have traditionally been a source of tremendous music within the UK - Oasis, arguably the largest band in the UK over the past ten or fifteen years, started out on the (then) tiny Creation label: A band's (and a Label's) value is not measured simply in the number of sales or downloads. Quality counts just as much as quantity.

Additionally, the link to the MySpace page should stay. Although MySpace is a hideous site with an abyssmal interface, the material there has been put up by Liz and Andrew themselves and is as accurate as that on the band's own website. Captain Lucy 01:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC) — Captain Lucy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Strong Keep I agree with Captain Lucy to the letter.86.135.85.238 (Julianne Regan)
  • Keep Swarf have been the subject of non-trivial published works featured in The Scotsman, Metal Hammer and The BBC, which is the first criterion for Notability (music).The_Axel 23:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia for knowledge, therefore i can't see why every time a band appears in here that is not on a major label it gets flagged for deletion. why does it matter whether they have appeared on television or not? their musicians, they are supposed to be out there playing and recording music.

Keep this article, and allow other hard working musicians to be able to have their lives documented in here. Nevla

  • Strong Keep I agree with Captain Lucy and the others completely. I've simply no idea what grounds there are for deleting an article on a real band, who've been active on the live and recording fronts for some time now. They are a fact, like them or not; as much so as any more mainstream act and certainly more real than many in the charts! Is Wiki a depository for only "convenient facts"? BleepyF 11:54, 3 July 2007 (GMT)
  • Strong Keep Put me down as another one agreeing with Captain Lucy RichardHMorris 11:26, 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 Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Forest High School (Delaware)

Lake Forest High School (Delaware) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable school Sploooshman 08:58, 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 Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cambridge, Minnesota

Cambridge, Minnesota (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable town with only 5520 people, no notable history Sploooshman 08:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Real town. Towns and villages are precisely the kind of things which encyclopedias cover. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
While cities and large towns are notable and deserving to be recognised in a comprehensive encyclopedia, smaller townships and villages with no historical, cultural, social or other significance are not. As this town has no past or present achievements or any form of notoriety it does not pass notability guidelines and until it reaches these its deletion is justified Sploooshman 09:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Consensus is that all communities are notable, no exception. --Charlene 10:41, 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 Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Despard, West Virginia

Despard, West Virginia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable town, article only lists geographics and demographics Sploooshman 08:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Real community, geography is important for an encyclopedia to cover comprehensively. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
While cities and large towns are notable and deserving to be recognised in a comprehensive encyclopedia, smaller townships and villages with no historical, cultural, social or other significance are not. As this town has no past or present achievements or any form of notoriety it does not pass notability guidelines and until it reaches these its deletion is justified Sploooshman 09:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:29, 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 no consensus. —Kurykh 04:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Achduart

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

Non notable cluster of houses, not even enough to be a village Sploooshman 08:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
But this is not a city, town our village -Nv8200p talk 02:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not even a village? JJL 15:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not enough to be a village. OysterGuitarst 22:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, real place. Five houses could make this in the nature of 15 to 30 people or so, we have articles about places with smaller populations. Lots of them. Corvus cornix 03:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above, not notable for a village. Bearian 00:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, one google news result for "Achduart". Achiltibuie indicates that is the "end of the line". It appears to also be known as Torridonian, which turns up many more news results. John Vandenberg 08:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep --MacRusgail 16:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not large enough to be a village. A keep should not be predicated on the fact that some articles have fewer people, they might be notable for other reasons (or maybe should also be considered for AfD). No sources asserting notability Tdmg 17:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg 08:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No significant third party information sources. -Nv8200p talk 02:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is an actual place where people live. Google Maps recognizes it. Just because it's not technically called a "village" doesn't mean it's not inherently notable. --Oakshade 14:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I consider all settlements to be notable, no matter how small. Cheers, DWaterson 23:20, 8 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 Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Briggs, Virginia

Briggs, Virginia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable town Sploooshman 08:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a real place, it's notable, how many hundred of these are there going to be? Nick mallory 11:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, towns are notable. 96T 11:38, 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 Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Route 601

U.S. Route 601 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable road Sploooshman 08:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Highways make up the backbone of an areas tranpsortation infrastructure, and are as important as railway lines. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 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 Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pottsville Escarpment

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

Non notable geographic feature Sploooshman 08:34, 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 Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waterford Township, New Jersey

Waterford Township, New Jersey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable township, article only gives demographic and geographic information Sploooshman 08:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Why on Earth is a town of 10000 people up for deletion? Real towns and communities are precisely what an encyclopedia should cover. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
While cities and large towns are notable and deserving to be recognised in a comprehensive encyclopedia, smaller townships (such as those with only 10000 people) and villages with no historical, cultural, social or other significance are not. As this town has no past or present achievements or any form of notoriety it does not pass notability guidelines and until it reaches these its deletion is justified Sploooshman 09:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:30, 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 delete until independent notability can be established. ck lostsword•T•C 12:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edina Lekovic

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

Note: This debate was included in the list of Islam-related deletions at 19:04, 30 June 2007 by 80.137.218.65 (talk · contribs). -- John Vandenberg 07:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Subject is barely notable apart from a few mentions in a few news articles, a look at the edit history shows severe BLP issues. and in its current state is 2 sentences long. Bleh999 08:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Note to closing admin This discussion is riddled with sockpuppet comments.--SefringleTalk 05:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Subject is non-notable, notability by association with the Council she works for cannot really be claimed Recurring dreams 09:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

* Just commenting I don't really wish to vote because I don't know really know what the threshold for notability is here but her MPAC page states that:

"Edina has appeared on national media outlets, including CNN, BBC, MSNBC, and the History Channel. Since joining MPAC, Edina's work has also been featured in several leading newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Associated Press, Chicago Tribune, and Los Angeles Times. Edina has also participated in numerous national and international conferences and interfaith dialogues speaking on a variety of issues related to American Muslims. In December 2004, Edina represented MPAC at a United Nations seminar on "Confronting Islamophobia." In 2003, Edina was invited by the Malaysian government to be one of two U.S. representatives to the International Conference of Muslim Young Leaders, which served as a precursor to the annual conference of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC)":I feel that User:Matt57 created the page primarily to disparage Edina and that User:Karl Meier and User:Arrow740 wanted to keep it that way. I was arguing that what they were inserting was a guilty by association attack, explicitly disallowed by your BLP policy. After User:Arrow740 reported an alleged conflict of interest, between the admin who protected the page and Matt57, on the noticeboard, it backfired with even more people telling him that it was a policy violation to include such material. Thank you. Lekociv 16:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
This user was a sock puppet of His Excellency. Thanks to the people who initiated the check user. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

::I suspect you are Edina Lekovic. Per WP:BLP, wikipedians aren't supposed to edit articles about themselves.--SefringleTalk 02:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Apparently not, unless H.E. is Edina Lekovic.--SefringleTalk 23:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, I don't see any particular evidence that a full biography of this person is possible, though it might be beneficial to mention her in connection with some of the more notable events. And Sefringle, since when did WP:BLP ever say a subject may not edit an article about themself? People are certainly advised to be careful in doing so, but there's not a blanket, 100% prohibition on it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
That user Lekociv has been exposed as a sock puppet of His Excellency.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for now: reopen if at some point this entry is presented as a full biography. A list of sources is insufficient. Given the now-deleted material this entry was not off to a very good start; it was the very definition of WP:COAT. -Jmh123 04:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete changed to Strong delete per my comment below. If this article is going to be about the woman, then keep. But if it is going to be a violation of WP:COAT, then delete. Seeing as the article has taken the latter path, it ought to be deleted. WP:BLP also makes the deletion of this article seem favorable.--Flamgirlant 06:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC) (Kirbytime sockpuppet--SefringleTalk 02:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC))
  • Delete. She's a spokesperson. She gets quoted because that's her job. These articles aren't about her, and provide no biographical information that we could use to create anything more than a stub. Jehochman Hablar 08:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep She appears on national TV as a pundit in her own right. Her utter defeat in a debate with Robert Spencer is a classic. Arrow740 09:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
She was rudely cut off by the host, Mr. Spencer got both the first AND the last word...how can you characterize this attempt by Fox News to smear this woman as a "debate"? If this is the kind of stuff that is going to appear in this article, I am changing my vote from delete to strong delete. There is no room for such obvious marginalization of a woman. That host should be ashamed for being such a bitch.--Flamgirlant 10:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC) (Kirbytime sockpuppet--SefringleTalk 02:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC))
  • Delete for now and then allow a fresh start, sufficient references available. Addhoc 10:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per BLP issues. I'd rather not have the article recreated right away, either, or we might be right back where we started. Mangojuicetalk 21:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • delete other than her association with the council she has no WP:BIO claim. BLP concerns have been dealt with already it would seem. After BLP cleanup not much of value remains... nuke it.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: per Alkivar. Article should also not be re-created unless substantial additional notability has been established to address WP:COAT concerns which is problematic on a BLP article and any re-creation should be dealt with per WP:CSD#G4. → AA (talk • contribs) — 10:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - She's just a spokeswoman, nothing notable about her. Lizrael 12:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Nothing notable? Did you the long list of News links I gave above? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - See Matt57's comment above.--Kitrus 04:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I will recreate this article later that will address all concerns of notability and BLP stuff. Notability is established already. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:26, 9 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. —Kurykh 04:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IGF World Heavyweight Championship

IGF World Heavyweight Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-existent wrestling title. While Inoki Genome Federation is an actual wrestling company, it does not have an official world heavyweight championship. The title in this article refers to a belt that IGF claims represents the IWGP World Heavyweight Championship, and is disputed by New Japan Pro Wrestling (the company that awards the IWGP title). No reliable sources, nor IGF, have called this belt the IGF World Heavyweight Championship; it appears to be a fanmade name to separate the title from the IWGP title history and thus is original research. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that this page should be moved to IWGP World Heavyweight Championship (IGF) for the time being. Tnova4 14:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep They do have an actual World Title, more then notable wrestler Kurt Angle has just won it, and will be carrying it on TNA TV, also. Kris 16:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • delete From reports of the 6/29 Sumo Hall show, Inoki was referring to the belt as the "IWGP Third Belt". I merged the IGF World Heavyweight Championship page into the main Inoki Genome Federation page and renamed the title "IWGP Third Belt Championship", as it should be.TheNewMinistry 16:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Darrenhusted 15:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, if nobody can find sources...then delete it as original research. Nikki311 03:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, unclear at this point if this title will continue to exist as the IWGP title, will be unified with New Japan's IWGP title, will be renamed by this new promotion, or abandoned (especially if the IGF flops and quickly dies). Pure Josh 03:19, 8 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 Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 17:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Diocese of Grand Island

Roman Catholic Diocese of Grand Island (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Small, non notable diocese Sploooshman 08:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep a diocese is likely to be notable to begin with; this one has schools and a past bishop that have articles so it seems notable to me. JJL 15:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - all dioceses are notable. -- BPMullins | Talk 15:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep a diocese important enought to have 4 high schools is notable.DGG 00:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all dioceses deserve a page. Bjoel5785 14:16, 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 keep. Non admin closure. Qst 15:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atlantic City Sandpipers

Atlantic City Sandpipers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable team that didn't complete a single season Sploooshman 08:29, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two Kinds of People

Two Kinds of People (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Disam page that doesn't link to any articles Sploooshman 08:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • abstain - can't tell if it should be killed or not; not like it's doing any harm here. Guroadrunner 08:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Although it doesn't disambiguate between two articles, it disambiguates between two subjects which are covered in other, linked articles (in this case the albums the songs belong on. Weak keep, unless it can be shown by policies that disambiguating by article-less subject is A Bad ThingTM. -- saberwyn 11:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Changing to weak delete per Mandsford below. -- saberwyn 00:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Gotta agree with the Splooshter on this one... not like it's doing any good here, serving to disambiguate between two things that don't merit their own article. Is extending disambiguation by article-less subject "A Bad Thing"? Extrapolating this would show that the answer is yes... imagine what it opens the door for. It has been said that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", and this is analogous to looking at Webster's and seeing that a word can refer to more than one meaning. Mandsford 13:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete don't see why it's here. OysterGuitarst 22:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the two meanings don't have any article and neither seems to be notable songs, unless I'm wrong.--JForget 01:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. DAB pages are not needed for unimportant subjects. Neither song has its own article, and neither is covered extensively in either of the linked articles. Album names (as opposed to song names) might be worth disambiguating, though. EdJohnston 01:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as unnecessary, per above. Bearian 00:37, 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 keep with nomination withdrawn, non-admin closure. Someguy1221 21:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elliott 803

close this AFD - nomination withdrawn

Elliott 803 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

AFD withdrawn by nominator - no longer a copyvio of http://www.sli-institute.ac.uk/~bob/elliott803.htm, and notability shown by the responses I got here. -- Guroadrunner 01:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Technically a copyvio as the article was "reproduced with permission". However, this computer also may not be notable even if the article was rewritten. Guroadrunner 08:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Not notable? Not notable??? I wrote my first programmes on one of these back in the 1960s! Seriously though, it was a major landmark in the history of British computing -- some 250 were delivered, and most universitites and colleges had one -- and the associated Algol compiler byTony Hoare, in which he implemented his new Quicksort is rightly regarded as a classic.
Comment - is it possible that you could help rewrite the article so it is not a direct copy of another web site? I'll consider removing the AFD if some help is given. Guroadrunner 10:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Of course it's notable. Without early computers like this wikipedia would be built via carrier pigeon. Nick mallory 10:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Computer history is notable. Albeit article needs a lot of work, including fixing the little issue of Copyvio Rackabello 14:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The notability of the Elliott 803 is beyond doubt. Surely an alternative approach to a rewrite would be to obtain whatever permission is required to allow this article to stand. Perhaps Guroadrunner could advise one what needs to be done to permit this. Thanks --TraceyR 15:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have now rewritten the entry. Richard Pinch 21:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nick mallory. OysterGuitarst 22:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per RichardPinch's rewrite. -- GURoadrunner (original nominator)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 16:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Margaret Mitchell House & Museum

Margaret Mitchell House & Museum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Building only notable because once was house of author, rest of article fails to assert notability and merely about history Sploooshman 08:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep, the Crescent Apartments are a National Register of Historic Places property and thus have been deemed notable by a professional review process at the state and federal levels. --Dhartung | Talk 10:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. OysterGuitarst 22:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dhartung, though article lacks sources -SCEhardT 04:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - house is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, presumably because of its association with Margaret Mitchell. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - Quite notable; though it's totally spurious, when I lived in Atlanta, my mother drove from Ontario, and *this* is what she wanted to see. This isn't just a house, but an entire museum. Also the nom has, after joining a few days ago, gone a little AfD crazy (see his talk page). This should be closed quickly, and kept while people work on reining him in. --Thespian 09:06, 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 no consensus. —Kurykh 04:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] West Plano Transit Center

West Plano Transit Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable bus company Sploooshman 08:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Guroadrunner 08:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It is actually just a bus station. Wow! Bus stations are not inherently notable unless something really notable happened there. Corpx 08:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. OysterGuitarst 22:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep One of a comprehensive set of articles about the Dallas Area Rapid Transit system which seems well-researched by someone dedicated to the subject. Nate 07:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • How does that prove the notability to this bus terminal? Corpx 07:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article was nominated in questionable faith by an editor seemingly trying to make a point. The issue was forwarded to WP:ANI (discussion) and the nom has been formally warned by an admin. As far as this article goes, it was created by members of WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth (of which I am a member) as part of a series of articles about Dallas' public transit system. Caknuck 16:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as useful, although of marginal notability. Bearian 18:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, 35 news results from planning to the present should be enough to write a reasonable article. Mbrstooge efforts look good. Merges to deal with minor notability can of course be discussed on talk pages; to use Afd for this is disruptive. John Vandenberg 09:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep While this is just one station in the Dallas Area Rapid Transit system it does appear that there has been sufficient news about the subject of this article (as pointed out by John Vandenberg). The article currently appears to be more of a stub but a conscientious editor would be able to make it more robust based on available content. A nomination made "in questionable faith" should not result in the deletion of an article with merit. Drew30319 17:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, sure the article is hardly noticeable, but members of WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth (like me) are striving to make articles like these stand out a little more with what sources are available. Putting frivolous AFDs (in question of faith or otherwise) is really unnecessary. Mbrstooge 17:48, 7 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 Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weimer Township, Minnesota

Weimer Township, Minnesota (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Town of 172, no notability Sploooshman 08:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • weak keep -- it is geographic information. Guroadrunner 08:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Real place. Suspect that this spree of AFD nominations is a WP:POINT action. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
While cities and large towns are notable and deserving to be recognised in a comprehensive encyclopedia, smaller townships and villages with no historical, cultural, social or other significance are not. As this town has no past or present achievements or any form of notoriety it does not pass notability guidelines and until it reaches these its deletion is justified Sploooshman 09:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus in the past has deemed all cities, villages, and towns sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:35, 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 delete. Sr13 06:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shinju Arisa

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

Non notable artist, no references to assert notability Sploooshman 08:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable, seems to be written by artist. OysterGuitarst 22:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as noted above, esp. no refs at all. Bearian 21:57, 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 Keep. JodyB talk 01:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Haryono Suyono

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

Non notable speech writer, website no longer exists Sploooshman 08:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable individual, extremely limited information, its not verifiable. The Sunshine Man 10:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete No verifiable assertion of notability Rackabello 15:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. OysterGuitarst 22:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - 'delete' was a fair call before I worked on the article. Now, it asserts notability and provides reference - please reconsider. thanks Merbabu 10:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep according to this webpage [13] he is unless, it is another individual with the same name, a former Indonesian Welfare Minister in 1999. WP:BIO states that politician in a national or provincial level are all notable, which means he automatically passes WP:BIO even though it was in 1999. Past Ministers are notable, but this article of course would need to add some info, although It may be difficult somewhat.--JForget 02:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, plenty of google scholar results and worldcat results. John Vandenberg 09:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - i've just given the article a clean up and added references and info. Although I can understand the first two delete suggestions (the article was indeed previously rubbish), the article now asserts notability and provides a reference, albeit in Indonesian. Merbabu 10:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As it has been cleaned up and seems to have some notability. Qst 11:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The WP Indonesian project does maintain and support articles in whatever condition about former ministers - it needs to be kept - SatuSuro 13:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep seeing that it has been cleaned up it seems to be notable Oysterguitarst 15:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep looks like its been improved and notability has been established. Keep up the good work! Rackabello 17:23, 5 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 00:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BORPS

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

Neologism that doesn't seem to have caught on. Weregerbil 07:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, nothing relevant found in Google Scholar, Google News or Google News Archive save one press release. --Dhartung | Talk 08:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete already. This has been speedied and prod'ed, yet still recreated. It's still a neologism. eaolson 13:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article keeps coming back... Iknowyourider (t c) 14:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Eaolson. OysterGuitarst 22:20, 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 Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 16:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zooomr

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Zooomr Articles for deletion/Zooomr (2nd nomination)
Zooomr (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is clearly spam created by the Zooomr team to advertise their product which has little recognition and serves to bolster the reputation of its unknown founder. This article should be deleted immediately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rangers2032 (talk • contribs).

— Rangers2032 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep, article appears to be appropriately documented. Brasscat 08:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, sources on article have not been shown to be wrong. Djackmanson 06:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, numerous results on current Google News, red-link nominator. Coverage in wired, CNBC, MSN, CNET, etc. etc. --Dhartung | Talk 08:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, article is obvious spam. The article is self-aggrandizing and the coverage is mostly of Thomas Hawk, not Zooomr.--AnimenManga | Talk 18:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
— AnimenManga (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Speedy keep, article has plenty of reliable sources and doesn't seem spammy to me. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep has reliable sources. OysterGuitarst 22:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep describes the site as it should. if you don't like it then fix it, don't delete it. --65.95.156.62 06:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Nominator seems like a sockpuppet. --Matt 20:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above, verifiable sources, notable, although I use a competitor's service. Bearian 00:41, 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 delete ck lostsword•T•C 12:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wheel of Fortune in popular culture

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Wheel of Fortune in popular culture Articles for deletion/Wheel of Fortune in popular culture (2nd nomination)
Wheel of Fortune in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Jeopardy! in popular culture was just listed for deletion, I feel that the same situation could be applied here, do we really need another _____ in popular culture article? If there's anything of major significance here, maybe merge it into Wheel of Fortune? Rackabello 06:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Pat: Alright Rackabello, pick five consonants and a vowel... Me: I'll take a D an E an L another E a T and another E Rackabello 06:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's just a massive list of poorly sourced trivia. --Haemo 08:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a bunch of trivial mentions. Every time person X from one show mentions person Y from another show, a line would be added to wikipedia. This is the same as Presidents in popular culture where we could docuement every time that a tv show refers to the presidency. Corpx 08:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge notable bits to main TV show article - Ed Grimley says "that's completely mental, I must say!" Guroadrunner 08:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Overlistification#trivia proposal. Not every TV show can have a list like this. Bulldog123 15:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a directory of loosely associated topics. That a TV show parodied WoF or someone said "I'd like to buy a vowel" on another show tells us nothing about the show containing the quote, WoF or the world in general. Otto4711 17:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete that's horrible! OysterGuitarst 22:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Partial Merge some of the content as mentionned by Guroadrunner. All the less useful stuff can be thrown out.--JForget 02:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • DLT, and I'd like to be an "E", Pat. per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 23:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg 09:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Otto. Yet another violation of WP:NOT#INFO. Not to mention it completely lacks sources. María (críticame) 12:28, 5 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 all. Sr13 01:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All pages in Category:2008 National Football League season by team and Category:2009 National Football League season by team

(View AfD)

Crystal-ball gazing en masse. The 2007 season hasn't even begun yet. All of the content in these articles - the coach, the home arena, even the home city and whether the team will still exist - are far from known at this point. This is just empty content until at least the offseason before the actual season. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete I agree. I see no reason for the articles to exist until the season before it is completed.►Chris Nelson 05:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree this is totally jumping the gun. Ironically 2009 NFL season as the main page hasn't even been created, and yet these are all done for the teams. 2008 NFL season redirects to List of NFL seasons but maybe that should be included in here too. Way to early. --Breno talk 06:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As someone who's worked on the individual season articles for the New York Jets as well as most of the 2006 and 2007 articles, I agree there's no need for them. The only information that can be put on the majority of them is the current incomplete schedule for each team. As previously mentioned, the 2008 articles can be created after the 2007 season is completed, when, at the very least, the team's complete list of opponents will be known.--Highway99 06:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:CRYSTAL Rackabello 06:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:CRYSTAL - We shouldnt be creating articles about stuff yet to happen. Let's stay in the present tense Corpx 08:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As I said before. --WillMak050389 15:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete way too early to be making these. OysterGuitarst 22:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete definitely fails WP:CRYSTAL.--JForget 02:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:CRYSTAL; we can be relatively certain about the schedules, and probably the stadiums too, but I don't think that's really enough to merit articles yet. Maxamegalon2000 05:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom., and all.--JayJasper 13:56, 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 Keep Rick Johnson, redirect The Rick Johnson Rock And Roll Machine to Rick Johnson (Musician). NawlinWiki 17:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Johnson (Musician)

Rick Johnson (Musician) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
The Rick Johnson Rock And Roll Machine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Not notable per WP:MUSIC despite many minor accomplishments. I am also nominating the article on his performing gig. Since the author has no unrelated contribs, a conflict of interest seems to be at work. YechielMan 03:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn. MSJapan 15:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep member of notable band == notable musician. Band easily satisfies notability. Capmango 04:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect the one man band article for sure. Mustard Plug, on the other hand, is clearly notable, so it's possible that he deserves his own article. Also note that the parenthetical should be lowercase per the MOS. Dekimasuよ! 23:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~ DES (talk) 05:39, 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 delete. Sr13 01:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of elementary schools in California

List of elementary schools in California (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Elementary schools are not inherently notable, so neither should a list of them be Corpx 05:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete brutally fails WP:LIST, as this one is not informative, does not aid navigation and does not aid in development. It is also safe to say that it is unmanageable, and it lacks context. For instance, where is "Palms" and why do I care? Resolute 05:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Rackabello 06:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Btw Palms is an LA district. Who said AfD wasn't educational. --Breno talk 06:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Corpx, if you don't think elementary schools are inherently non-notable, you might want to visit Category:Elementary and primary schools. Notability is relative/subjective, Resolute. The context is right in the article name: it's a "list of elementary schools in California" (and one district on the list even has its own page). Until each school gets its own entry (and appropriately categorized), this list suffices as a compilation of California elementary schools (in a few districts anyway). ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 07:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If an elementary school is notable, then so is the gas station at the corner over here. I'm already well on my way to nominating most of the items on in that category! Each elementary school in the nation does NOT deserve its own entry. They have no claim to notability other than that they're a school. Corpx 07:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
No. Again, notability is relative. An elementary school may be notable for many reasons: its name, news reports (i.e. Columbine High School comes to mind, but that's a high school, of course), # of "famous" (another relative term) people who attended it or worked at it, test scores, etc. Again, check the categories to see just how many elementary/primary schools there are on Wikipedia (204 in California alone--I don't know of a way to get compiled totals from every category and its subcategories). Just because you don't think something (an elementary school or otherwise) is notable, doesn't mean someone else won't. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 08:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that highschools are inherently notable due to their status, but HS alumni dont really get famous because of what they did in elementary schools. Most alumns identify to their college and or high schools. Here is one of my nominations for AFD about a bunch of elementary schools. I've started my deletion requests from elementary schools in Texas and will work my way up to California. Back to this article, none of the items in this list mention anything notable about the respective schools. If there are notable elementary schools, then they should belong in a category, not be all mentioned in a list. Corpx 08:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete — these schools would be better discussed in the article of the relevant school district. Cedars 08:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is what Category:Elementary schools in California is for. --Piet Delport 08:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not because elementary schools are "non-notable" (we all went to one or more) but because, as Resolute points out, the list fails to be useful, and as others note, this is covered elsewhere. I think the author was testing the water by listing three districts; it's too cold to swim in this one 13:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this list is not useful. OysterGuitarst 22:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as useless listcruft. However, WP:LIST is a guideline, which explictly allows exceptions, so I do not promise to voye always this way in such cases. Bearian 00:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Just for the record, all rules on Wikipedia allow exceptions, and you never have to worry about promising to vote in a certain way: article deletions are considered separately. --Piet Delport 08:47, 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 delete. Anas talk? 10:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Necrose / 7 MON

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Necrose / 7 MON
Necrose / 7 MON (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion of this album/tape being notable. The article basically consists of a track listing. A stand-alone article on an album/tape should have at least some notability. Delete. Bryson 21:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep Both artists are (or were. I don't think either is around anymore) notable in their field--Ispy1981 06:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete This is one mix tape that is already listed on each artist's own page. I don't think it needs its own page also. Frog47 05:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DES (talk) 05:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC) DES (talk) 05:00, 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 Delete. No policy on Wikipedia establishing that all high schools are inherently notable. Without encyclopedic content, this article is a clear violation of the very 1st pillar of Wikipedia.--Húsönd 00:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Father Michael Goetz Secondary School

Father Michael Goetz Secondary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable school. No famous alumni, nor anything else of special note. Unless we would like WP to turn into an indiscriminate collection of schools all over the world, it would seem this page does not add much to the encyclopedia xC | ☎ 04:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep based on the premise that highschools are inherently notable. Corpx 04:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Like Corpx, I'm of the opinion that all high schools should be included until such time as consensus for school notability rules is established. - Richfife 19:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Expel per nom. Fascinating picture of an empty hallway, just as notable as the rest of the article. Clarityfiend 20:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OysterGuitarst 22:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete They can possibly most of them be found notable, if something notable can be found to say about them. This article doesnt have any real contentDGG 00:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Articles on high schools can be useful, even if many of them need work. -- DS1953 talk 03:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nominator and User:Clarityfiend. Why are all high schools inherently notable? That seems counter-intuitive and should be cleared up.Kilburnian 16:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability asserted and article development progressing well. EagleFan 20:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Most high schools have ample coverage from reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. This school is no exception. While some material has been added, additional sources should be added to further cement the notability of this school. Alansohn 23:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • comment I don;t think we keep articles around because someone might someday find something to show them notable. There should be no prejudice against re-creation of the article when someone does do the work on it.DGG 00:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing of note here and high schools in and of themselves in my view are not inherently notable. Eusebeus 07:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — But|seriously|folks  04:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep; information about high schools is usually easily found in reliable sources. google news and gov.on.ca have enough results to justify at least a stub. I've have trimmed the article down a bit and removed the image that conveyed nothing to the reader. John Vandenberg 10:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep because all high schools are inherently notable, as I argue here. Noroton 23:34, 5 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. Sr13 01:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Goodbye the band

Hello Goodbye the band (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No established Notability even after 30 days Frog47 04:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete Non notable band, its definitely pushing the limits of neutrality) (i.e The band are committed), certainly in violation of WP:BAND. The Sunshine Man 10:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete "Florida's premier musical tribute to The Beatles". Even if that were true, they still wouldn't meet notability. So that's how you make one of the little cross thingies. - Richfife 16:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per The Sunshine Man. OysterGuitarst 22:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Just to confuse people who search for the Here (In Your Arms) band.--Perceive 02:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable (WP:MUSIC) and no references. Precious Roy 07:32, 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 per WP:NOT#COOL. —« ANIMUM » 17:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typies

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

Wikipedia is not for non-notable neologisms made up one day at school. Haemo 03:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete Nonsense. IrisKawling 03:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
DeleteFrog47 04:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Hiyahiyahiya 05:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Snowball delete per WP:NOT.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete I would say this is a speedy for vandalism! 172.149.91.237 12:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Per WP:AGF this is probably not vandalism.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:11, 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 delete. Sr13 00:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DaxFlame

DaxFlame (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • Copycat uTube actor/soap opera that is not notable. Article provides no reliable sources. I'm also thinking WP:SPAM. Evb-wiki 03:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - who said a youtube video can be a article on wikipedia? Hirohisat Freedom of Speech 03:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not a video. It's an entire saga of videos. Try actually reading the article before trying to delete it, moron. Lonelygirl15 gets an article; Daxflame gets an article. End of story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zewb509 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 30 June 2007. Zewb509 is the original editor of this article.
Other articles on the same topic existing is not a valid keep reason. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Can someone block Zewb509 since the account is only being used to vandlize/add obscene photos to Wikipedia. Crazysuit 04:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, WJBscribe has already blocked them. Well done! Crazysuit 04:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Fictional character with no reliable sources. (By contrast, Lonelygirl15 has an extensive list of media and other independent references.) —C.Fred (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I think the only (reliable) source needed in the Daxflame article is concerning the question if he's "real" or "fake". For this purpose I have added a reference in the article. But I don't see why the other content (synopsis, etc.) should need a source. — Slaapwel 16:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Reliable sources are still needed to establish the notability of the videos. If he's real, his videos are his claim to fame. If he's fake, his videos are the central subject of the article. Either way, unless verifiable sources can meet the notability criteria—and WP:WEB is in play since we're talking about YouTube—the article stands to be deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I still find it odd that you would only consider established mainstream media as the only kind of reliable source to determine if somebody/something is notable or not. With that kind of reasoning everything outside of the mainstream (cult followings, etc.) would be considered not notable. That really doesn't make any sense to me. — Slaapwel 02:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
          • The problem is, the standard we're working to meet is skewed that way. WP:WEB states that to be notable, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[,] except for" press release reprints and trivial coverage. WP:RS gives more leeway: "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The reliability of a source depends on the context.... In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources...." I don't think it has to be mainstream media to be reliable; however, the more well-known a publication is, the better its reputation for being good with fact-checking. —C.Fred (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
            • I think the problem is how people choose to interpret that standard, or more precisely the notability guideline. People seem to deduct the level of fame/notability based on coverage in mainstream media and call this "notability". While if you do a blogsearch on Daxflame you'll find numerous posts on him and his videos in all kinds of blogs from all over the world, and outside the YouTube community. For me this counts as significant coverage, independent of the subject. And so it meets the notability criterion. We should also keep the context of this article in mind, this is not an article about for example exact science. — Slaapwel 19:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
              • The problem becomes, how trustworthy are bloggers? That's where the standard writes in a level of judgment. To me, the quantity of appearances in blogs is irrelevant; the quality of blogs he's written up in is what is important. (Note also that WP:WEB doesn't list Ghits as a criterion any more. Volume isn't the key.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
                • My question is: trustworthy about what? Since we are not relying on these blogs to actually provide us with any kind of information. (Except maybe for disputed facts that should be able to be verified like the real/fake debate. In that case the argument of citizen journalism still stands I think.) These blogs/sources are merely to prove that he is notable. So if a regular blogger decides to make a post about Daxflame in his or her blog (not just link the video, but actually write something about it), I do believe this actually demonstrates his notability. Same goes for fansites, forum threads, etc. But I agree however that quantity to some extent is meaningless since this is not a popularity contest. — Slaapwel 21:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
                • I've found another more "reliable source" on Newscloud.com. Daxflame is the subject of an article entitle "Is the latest lonely diarist too good to be true?" I'll add this to the article as a reference. — Slaapwel 21:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
        • As to the "real or fake" debate, the link in the article clearly shows it's a character. People have even published his yearbook with his real name on YouTube. And that's the reason why I think the article should exist, because it's all just a mockumentary (hoax, if you will). If he was just a regular "popular" video blogger I would probably not object to deletion. — Slaapwel 02:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Changed from strong delete to just delete in light of the assertion he was featured on G4tv. The seed of doubt is in my mind that he's not just another internet meme of the day. —C.Fred (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. --Haemo 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete CSD A7 Web content that does not assert the importance of the subject It's on youtube. That's no assertion of importance, so are tens of thousands of other videos. "End of story". Crazysuit 04:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Crazysuit. lonelygirl15 has been covered extensively by the media. DaxFlame has not --Breno talk 07:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A7-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete not important. OysterGuitarst 21:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm trying to get the discussion going here, but I'm not getting a lot of response. So here goes another try. I would like to point out that the people who just make a (speedy) delete vote are not really making any kind of argument as to why the article should be deleted in their opinion. (see: arguments to avoid) As I understand it, the deletion process is not about counting the votes but about discussion and argumentation. Merely stating "speedy delete" without a reason is basically irrelevant. For the people who made the argument about notability and reliable sources I have tried to counter that, but I still haven't gotten any response so far. — Slaapwel 00:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Implicitly, "speedy delete" implies the editor thinks the article does not assert significance or importance—either that or blatant advertising, but since (s)he said "not important," I think it's fair to assume they mean A7. —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • please don't delete this article. there is question if this is a real person on Youtube or not. This article helped me determine he's not a real person, just an actor. If there is an article on ask a ninja then there should be one on DaxFlame. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fifthnail (talk • contribs) 01:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC).
    • Once again, other articles on the same topic existing is not a valid keep reason. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Ask a Ninja and lonelygirl15 have both been featured extensively on the media, with Ninja even going on Mythbusters for an episode. DaxFlame just doesn't cut it - yet. Doing a Google News search yields only two results: a video from a non-news source reportedly outing DaxFlame as Madison Patrello, and an Engadget story about Apple TV which makes a trivial reference in passing. For DaxFlame to be notable and therefore have his own article, he needs to be covered by secondary sources to cite. --Breno talk 06:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
      • He was featured on Attack of the Show! on G4tv. I added this to his article. Slaapwel 13:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Is a synopsis available at the G4tv website? Link it if you've got it, please! —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
          • It was part of an item called YouTube Star of the Moment (link), a recording of the show can be found here (edited by the user though). — Slaapwel 02:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't think the notability criterion should be interpreted as "acknowledged by mainstream media". I agree these are usually more authoritative and reliable sources; but I also think some degree of citizen journalism should be taken into account. Especially since the article we're discussing is considered to be an internet phenomenon. There are numerous blogs and vlogs discussing Daxflame. Which in my opinion counts as a significant coverage, independent of the subject. I don't think this article can be considered as merely an advertisement of a trivial Youtube blogger. The article concerns an example of an internet phenomenon and/or hoax. — Slaapwel 16:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep He's an internet phenomenon with 2,144,949 youtube channel views and 26514 subscribers; that should count for something. It's obviously fictional, it's a mockumentary, it's comedy. So how does one define "reliable sources" then? I agree the article needs work, but deleting it isn't going to fix that. Slaapwel 10:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)— Slaapwel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong Keep. The guy is notable; that's all there is to it. I think we need to accept that internet celebrities can be notable purley as such. Having an enormou number of blog posts about you and being one of the most recognizable youtubers DOES in itself qualify a person as notable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jglassman (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP! it might need some editing but dax has 2 million views!! the kid is worthy of an Oscar.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucskarn (talk • contribs) — Lucskarn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • KEEP! it might need some editing but dax has 2 million views!! the kid is worthy of an Oscar. There are a bunch of people with a beef against him. But the article meets all requirements—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucskarn (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Disputed notability combined with uncompelling cases all around. Cheers, WilyD 17:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All at Once

All at Once (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No proof that the song is a single - the only source proves speculation, which is hardly notable, and the {{prod}} would have deleted this article had an anyonymous ip not removed it, which, while techinically legal, was hardly orthodox given that the requirements listed in the prod (which were essentially that some proof be provided) were not sufficed. danielfolsom 03:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete the source does not prove that it is a single. OysterGuitarst 21:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing to say it's a single. It's mainly speculation. Acalamari 03:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg 12:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The song is charting, indicating that it's getting nationwide airplay. For what it's worth (which is, I know, nothing), I've heard it on the radio. Chubbles 05:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, and I happen to have read WP:MUSIC - hearing it on the radio is not a reason to keep an article.--danielfolsom 15:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
      • That was not my argument! If you would go and read the sentence that I wrote, that was an aside, noting a personal experience. Ugh, AfD gets my blood boiling. My official argument here is: Charted hits merit inclusion because they have been placed in rotation in a national market and because they have chart exposure. Yikes. Chubbles 16:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
        • If it's not your argument then why bother mentioning it? I like pink elephants! But don't use that against me because my blood might "boil" because I care that much about an afd. Relax. Ok, then as to your other point - which thanks to your clarification I can assume was your argument - unless nothing was your argument in which case this is just getting confusing. But here we go - the article itself says it's a single - which no proof has been provided. I guess you could edit the article to remove the "single" stuff, but even then the fact that it's gaining ground on one chart is hardly notable - the article would still be deleted because it would fail the general notability guideline.--danielfolsom 17:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
          • What might have tipped you off was the parenthetical comment (Which is, I know, nothing). Instead of bringing some levity to the debate, it just ends up being attacked as a straw man argument. In any case, under the proposed song notability guidelines, this charting hit merits inclusion. It's getting radio airplay and was recorded by a multiplatinum artist - why delete it? If you find some of the material in the article controversial, be bold and remove it. Chubbles 17:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
            • A)Do I have to explain the difference between proposed and established - until the proposed is established we go by the aforementioned general notability guideline which this article does not suffice. B) For what it's worth, which I know, is nothing, I LOVE pink elephants - like seriously, what could be better - IDK!--danielfolsom 18:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
              • PS, internet connection acting up, so sorry if it takes me forever to respond18:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Whether or not it's a single, it has charted in Billboard magazine. If having a song chart makes a band notable (and it does), then it's enough to make the song notable. Precious Roy 08:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Says who? Again I think since there is no established policy on songs we have to use the general notability guideline - which this song fails pitifully. You can't just use a spur of the moment policy that you created to back up your vote.--danielfolsom 10:29, 9 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 merge JodyB talk 18:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bed (J. Holiday song)

Bed (J. Holiday song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable rumored single. Sancho 03:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete If the creating artist isnt notable enough, then the song isnt either Corpx 04:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak merge to the article on this single's album, Back Of My Lac. This should go wherever the album goes, which (considering the fate of the article on the artist, J. Holiday) may include deletion. This is not to be interpreted as a keep not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 11:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Article on the artist, J. Holiday, has been recreated. -- saberwyn 06:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable, artist doesn't even have a page. OysterGuitarst 21:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable, never charted, hasn't been released, only handful of people have ever heard it Tdmg 17:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep with an alternative of merging it to the album page. "Never charted" is inaccurate and shows a lack of research. It is J. Holiday's current single, still rising on the charts, has already outperformed the debut "Be with Me," and the only reason the artist doesn't have a page is because it keeps getting deleted, but not necessarily in policy since the guy already has two hit singles to his name, although those are now at AfD... I would also note that the album will be coming out on a major label. GassyGuy 18:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg 12:51, 5 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 merge JodyB talk 18:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Be with Me (J. Holiday song)

Be with Me (J. Holiday song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable single Sancho 03:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete If the creating artist isnt notable enough, then the song isnt either Corpx 04:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak merge to the article on this single's album, Back Of My Lac. This should go wherever the album goes, which (considering the fate of the article on the artist, J. Holiday) may include deletion. This is not to be interpreted as a keep not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 11:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Article on the artist, J. Holiday, has been recreated. -- saberwyn 06:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment It's gone again. tdmg 20:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. OysterGuitarst 21:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable because it never charted and has not yet been released so only a handful of people have ever heard it. Tdmg 17:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Strong Delete I have changed my vote to strong for a few reasons, my old reason of not being notable enough still stands (the song has charted, but too low in my opinion). The reason is that the line: "offering the age-old tale of a man wanting to be more than just friends with the object of his affections. “You be giving me the coldest shoulder/‘cause you don’t want your emotions taking over,” he croons. “Instead of talking about you looking for a soldier/are you trying to say you don’t see that in me?”" is copy-pasted directly from J. Holiday's Myspace Page and is a copyright violation. Enough Said. tdmg 20:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep or, if not, merge to the page for "Back of My Lac." A minor hit for J. Holiday that certainly was heard by more than a "handful" of people as it got played nationally on urban radio, albeit not a huge hit. The argument which claims it did not chart is incorrect. GassyGuy 18:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:55, 5 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 and redirect. Sr13 00:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uwm football

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

Article contains no content, creator removed CSD tag. east.718 03:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete and redirect to UW-Milwaukee athletics, which happens to state that the football program was discontinued in 1974. CitiCat 04:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • USERFY to the creator's page. Most notable D1 programs have pages about their football programs so this should, as well, but definately not in the condition it is now. Corpx 04:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and do not redirect this malformed term. Perhaps UWM Panthers football should be started but we need more than an incomplete infobox. --Dhartung | Talk 08:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per corpx. OysterGuitarst 21:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • delete. it's a duplicate Kripto 01:37, 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 no consensus. But please, do clean up the thing. —Kurykh 18:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Area codes in Germany

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Area codes in Germany Articles for deletion/Area codes in Germany (2nd nomination)
Area codes in Germany (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I am renominating this article after no consensus last time. Wikipedia is not a directory, or a phone book. This is not encyclopedic. I feel very strongly that this content need be deleted. Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.OysterGuitarst 03:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.Hirohisat Freedom of Speech 03:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Can be distinctively useful in understanding geographic distribution and usage of phone area codes. However, I will change my vote if it can be demonstrated that this information is available, accessible, and in a simple format, off-wiki. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 04:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
See WP:NOT. It doesnt matter if its useful - to you. We are building an encyclopaedia, not a phone book. Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It should not be wikipedia's concern if the information is easily avaliable and accessible elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a phonebook. Might want to merge it to the main Germany article though. Corpx 05:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above. I dont know about merging all the content, obviously, but the main point of this article (if there is actually, a main point to this.. mess [sorry, but it has to be said]) could possibly be integrated into the Germany article. Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Now who will be brave enough to tackle North American area codes, since if German ones aren't suitable for Wikipedia neither are most North American ones (321 and 867 might be given the non-trivial third party interest in their creation, but the others...?) --Charlene 05:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:NOT aka Delete per Anonymous Dissident Rackabello 06:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Super-strong keep and delete... Why not keep the introductory paragraph (or an improved version thereof) and delete the list? It is not really the task of an encyclopaedia to list every area code in the world, but a description of the system through which area codes are assigned in a certain country is probably of general interest (although telephone numbers are not as relevant to most people's everyday life as minor pokemon characters, obviously). Pharamond 06:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I would endorse this too! Corpx 08:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. The article drills down into too much detail per area code. If the article only went down to say the 4 digit codes, the artice wouldn't be so massive and would make a useful list. Reform this list similar to List of North American area codes. Also, the way I interpret Wikipedia is not a directory is that area code listings are definitely not phone book listings, in the way that they do not go down to the actual telephone numbers do in the White or Yellow Pages. --Breno talk 06:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The introductory paragraph might be useful somewhere though. Hut 8.5 10:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand The history of area codes, exchange codes, and other telephone numbers (postal codes too) is extraordinarily useful for determining the date of a document. For example, if one comes across an undated letter that uses the New York City code 646 one can assign a terminus post quem to the letter. What I'd particularly like would be a list of telephone codes for Germany during the period 1900 to 1945, with information on what changed when. This article can be the basis for that.Jmkleeberg 12:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. Mandsford 13:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Thruppence 14:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a phone book Jaranda wat's sup 20:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment As I mentioned above Wikipedia is not a directory would mean the list has the name and actual numbers of people/companies. Coupld someone explain how this policy relates to a list of area codes? Thanks. --Breno talk 13:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Think of it this way: Have you ever seen anything like this in any other encyclopedia anywhere? In Brittanica or in a print encyclopedia? You wont have. Thats why this is being proposed for deletion on an encyclopedia. You may have seen something like this in a phone book or directory, and so that is where this unencyclopedic content belongs. I rest my case. Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Ok but Wikipedia is not paper. --Breno talk 06:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
          • True. But its not a directory either. Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Which comes back to the original question. After re-reading the 4-point WP:NOT#DIR policy, can I please get a clear statement how this policy applies. This list does not contain loosely associated topics, phonebook entries, business resources, or sales catalogues. The only part I'd say is open to interpretation on is point 3 where it links to Directory (databases), which states a directory is a repository or database of information. Weither some read this as a list of area codes are a repository or database, or indeed any "List of..." articles, is open to interpretation. Again, if someone else can clarify how this policy applies to this article I'm all ears. Thanks. --Breno talk 14:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. There might be a question about some of the list content, but not really of the article.DGG 00:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve per DGG, more than just a list or telephone directory. Carlossuarez46 23:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'll try not to pull WP:USEFUL as an argument, (and I'm generally not a fan of lists) but we have a list which is 1) well-defined 2) satisfying WP:LIST#Purpose of lists#Information. I don't think WP:NOT#DIRECTORY applies: this is not a directory of loosely related data, but of cities. I do acknowledge that Category:Telephone numbering plans and Category:Area codes are in a major mess in organization, naming and formatting, but I don't see why getting rid of well-organized information expanding Telephone_numbering_plan/European#Germany. If the consensus be that we don't need any such list (why Germany but not Austria? Or as a precedent?), so be it; but it needs a wider input from the community, at least in the form of a mass AfD. Duja► 11:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Its late where I live, but tomorrow, I'll mass nom every single article "Area codes in X". I just cant believe that this should be on wikipedia. Also WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS about your claim about "why Germany but not Austria?" Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. My remark regarding Austria wasn't meant as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but rather a request for clarification. If you wanted this one deleted as precedent, you just should have said so; mass nominations often work better that way (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Hellenism, which caused an avalanche of deletion of similar crap). If one fails, it's probably better to stay away from mass-nominating all (otherwise, the people will tend to accuse you of being WP:POINTy.) Personally, I find WP:LIST criteria somewhat vague, so the arguments in LfDs often boil down to WP:USEFUL. I wouldn't be terribly upset if it's gone, but I do think that it's... erm... useful. Duja► 15:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
      • If this time the list has consensus to keep or delete, it will probably set precedence for other Area code list articles. Might be best to wait a few more days on the outcome before taking on the project. --Breno talk 14:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is not paper. This can be a list page that links to the regions that the area codes corresponds to. If this is deleted, then *all* area code lists, and country code lists should be deleted. 70.55.86.129 04:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete list would be endless and provides no useful information.--SefringleTalk 06:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep unless we're going to go about deleting all lists. dcandeto 20:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The idea of integrating this into the Germany goes against the idea of offloading sub-content from articles that are large already. The cited WP:NOT#DIRECTORY clearly doesn't apply simply for the notability of each entry. Agathoclea 15:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. I interpret "directory" in WP:NOT#DIR as lists of actual telephone numbers of people and businesses, not a list of area codes. However, I do agree that the article is a whole mess; it took a long time to load on my computer! --Joshua Say "hi" to me!What have I done? 14:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Area codes fit within Wikipedia is not a directory - Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. -- Jreferee (Talk) 06:32, 9 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. Sr13 23:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reggaeton Pop

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

Another article by same user who brought us such gems as Bhangraton and Rocketon - genres do not exist. Sfacets 02:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Not the place for neologisms Corpx 05:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Almost 50K Google hits, but not all for "Reggaeton Pop" are relevant to the subject, and article reads like entirely WP:OR.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per corpx. OysterGuitarst 21:43, 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 delete. Sr13 23:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rocketon

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

Genre is made up. User has also previously created articles such as Bhangraton, another inexistant genre Sfacets 02:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Not the place for neologisms Corpx 05:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Next person that makes a portmanteau of two music genres and pats themself on the back gets, well, get my iller will at the very least. - Richfife 16:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per corpx. OysterGuitarst 21:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. Bfp (talk) 11:38, 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 delete. Sr13 23:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Musafir Indian restaurant, Istanbul

Non-notable restaurant; tagged for prod a while ago but creator deprodded. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • delete. this is an ad. Kripto 02:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kripto. Hirohisat Freedom of Speech 03:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Blatant Advertising! Corpx 05:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy/snowball as blatant advertising.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Carry out It's an ad, and not a very good one at that. Mandsford 14:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • speedy delete as advert. Chris 20:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. OysterGuitarst 21:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per advertisement.--JForget 02:02, 1 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.--Húsönd 00:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dousha

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

A non-notable constructed language supposedly invented in 2002. Nothing in the article is attributed to reliable sources. Google scholar returns 0 relevant hits. Google returns 12,000 hits for Dousha as a fairly common proper noun, but few of these refer to the language, and scanning through the first few pages yielded no reliable sources. proposed deletion contested by anon IP. Delete Aagtbdfoua 01:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The source article is on the Portuguese wiki. The references are: the official website, a page on Langmaker (anyone can make one), one japanese and two hungarian grammar articles (that do not mention Dousha), another site that purports to have various materials with examples for helping to learn the language (I get a blank page when I accessed this), a link to an internet forum with 4 registered users, a link to Dousha on another wiki, and a downloadable dictionary from a geocities site. None of these constitute reliable sources. - Aagtbdfoua 12:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

"Verbs are conjugated by tense, voice and mood. Each one has six participle forms, and also six infinitives." Future generations of high school students will be grateful if this becomes this Dousha is disposed of. Mandsford 14:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete for lack of non-self-published sources to establish notability of subject. The original article in Portuguese is not any better in this regard, as Aagtbdfoua explained. -- Schaefer (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless multiple reliable sources can be found. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete referenced do not assert notability (they in fact serve to tarnish its notability), keep only if some scholarly article can be referenced (any constructed language of note will be mentioned in a scholarly article). Tdmg 17:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:57, 5 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. Sr13 23:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bhangraton

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

Non-existant or specific genre. This is simply a mishmash of Bhangra and Reggaeton - justified by providing three examples (OR) of songs that could be classified as Bhangraton, but could just as easily be classified as anything else. Sfacets 01:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete No mentions found through google search by independent media. A links are from forums and such Corpx 01:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.OysterGuitarst
  • Delete No ref. Hoax or neologism.Obina 23:36, 1 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 redirect to Boyband (New Zealand band), no sourced information to merge. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jay Coote

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

non-notable person in a band with dubious notability in and of itelf. Possibly written by subject, no sources Kripto 00:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment The band he is in is clearly notable (charted #1 hit in NZ), though that by itself does not establish his notability. Chubbles 01:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Smeerge/redirect to article on band which - as Chubbles points out - is clearly notable. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge the coverage that he has received is in relation to Boyband. Capitalistroadster 01:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the individual needs to prove more individual notability, but can be merged with the Boyband article per the discussion above. The individual is not necessarily notable, but Boyband has established itself. Not now. Barkeep 04:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails to establish notability. Thruppence 14:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no notability. OysterGuitarst 21:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:58, 5 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. It wouldn't hurt to delete this, considering it's only a sentence, and someone else (who knows Serbian) can rewrite with sources. Sr13 22:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SezamPro

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

Fails WP:CORP. There are no references given or that I can find to support SezamPro is notable. Nv8200p talk 00:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • delete - obviously there's nothing to say about it, save what and where it is. So, keeping it seems pointless. Kripto 00:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established nor even really asserted, no references in secondary sources.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.OysterGuitarst 03:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No indication of notability, nothing showing that it passes WP:CORP, no sources. Indeed could be speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A7 (no assertion of importance). DES (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. Thruppence 14:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. SezamPro is one of biggest Serbian internet providers. Sources (all Serbian though) can be found e.g. from Ekonomist magazine, PC press, PC press (well, disclaimer: PC press is the original founder or the sister magazine of SezamPro, and Dejan Ristanović owns/manages both, but nevertheless...). It even has a few Scholar hits (subtract the ones containing @sezampro.co.yu). That being said, no, I'm not inclined to expand the article as I find the topic boring :-), so I'm indifferent with the destiny of the current sub-sub-stub. Duja► 10:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    ...also, here and here. Duja► 11:46, 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.--Húsönd 00:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Combine combat technology in Half-Life 2

List of Combine combat technology in Half-Life 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a low-quality fanpage, of little use in a general encyclopedia. It's full of advice for the reader, technical detail (like specific stats and damage), and unsourced speculative claims. Additionally, it's full of unnecessary non-free images. This is not at all suited to an encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as instruction manual. Combination 16:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It could be rewritten, some of the junk removed. However, it's the notability and sourcing that bother me. Kwsn(Ni!) 16:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Combination. OysterGuitarst 21:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Eye-glazing instruction manual detail. --Calton | Talk 16:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Anyone who doesn't think that the exhaustively well-researched sub-articles for the main Half-Life 2 page aren't one of the reasons why it's a featured article should re-examine the spiderweb of articles coming from it. Additionally, this is all relevant to WP:POINT anyway. MalikCarr 21:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    You caught on to my plan to disrupt Wikipedia by nominating for deletion an article I feel is composed entirely of original research and game guide. I'm meeeeeeeeelting! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    Well, I'm afraid to say that your belief that this article is composed entirely of OR would be a false one. MarphyBlack 16:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I was never entirely wild over the existence of this article, but I believe the reasons given to delete are very weak:
  1. "low-quality"
    • Not only is this is a personal opinion, this is in no way a valid reason to delete an article. Note that AfD is not the place to send articles that need cleaning up. Simply use a template if you feel there are quality issues. Also be aware that claiming an article is low quality without reasoning is akin to an attack on all the editors who work to maintain said article.
  2. "full of advice for the reader"
    • Granted. However, this article isn't simply an instruction manual. I understand how a statement such as "City scanners can easily be destroyed by launched objects" can be construed as "You should kill City scanners by launching objects at it with the gravity gun to save ammo", but there's a crucial difference between the two. One is describing the characteristics and abilities of a game entity; the other is directly advising the reader about gameplay techniques and strategies regarding them. There is certainly a fine line as to how far a game description can go without becoming a game guide, but this article is definitely no how-to book.
  3. "technical detail (like specific stats and damage)"
    • Then simply remove the technical detail! It's not like these bits are deeply entrenched within the writing. They're clearly labeled (First Seen, Health total, Weapon damage, and Entity), and removing them would still leave a great deal of prose leftover. The specific NPC data has indeed bothered me for some time too. I've simply been too swamped with work and other things to get around to removing them.
  4. "unsourced speculative claims"
    • You're simply going to have to assume good faith here (Oh, the horror!), but I have personally been keeping a very close eye on this article, and you're just going to have to trust me when I say that a majority of the article is based on citable facts. As the rather meager references section indicates, much of the information is stated in Half-Life 2: Raising the Bar, the official strategy guide (Which, contrary to what its title suggests, actually offers a great deal of extra backstory and explanatory stuff), or is directly alluded to within the in-game dialogue itself. After a quick glance at the whole article right now, I see there are a few glaring speculative statements that have slipped in over time, but those can be weeded out with little effort. I know there are no inline citations, but that happens to be a very long and tedious process which I'm not exactly jumping at the chance to do. (We're not in a rush here, right?)
Ideally, I would like to greatly condense and merge the useful information here to Combine (Half-Life 2) and make this a redirect. In the mean time, though, this article is hardly as horrendously delete-worthy as it's being made out to be. MarphyBlack 14:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The article is low-quality because of all the other problems I state after saying it's low-quality.
How is a description of how to best bypass, defeat, or overcome that entity anything but a game guide? A game guide doesn't have to be in imperative form, and this article is somewhere between one-third and half game guide by volume.
No amount of assuming good faith makes these statements not speculative:
"It appears that city scanners are mass-produced in the Citadel"
"It also appears that a city scanner was used in one of the more recent "evolutions" of Dog"
"This is perhaps a reference or inspired by the film Toys, where in one part teenagers unknowingly controlled remote-controlled military robots in a vast arcade with varying games to "play.""
"Some fans have noted the rollermines have a resemblance to a katamari from the Katamari Damacy video game series."
And those are just the glaring examples in the first third of the article. I could easily quadruple the size of that list.
The problems with this article are systemic, and it's never not going to be full of statements like "It appears that..." or "Players have speculated..." or "The best way to defeat them is..." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
One could argue that merely mentioning Mario's signature stomp attack or Sonic's famous spin-dash could constitute game guide information since both are abilities used in each character's respective game series for, uh, gameplay purposes. There's a difference between describing a video game character's attributes and telling the readers how to play the game. Also, as I said, there were a couple glarlingly obvious speculative statements, and it seems you selected the precise few sentences I was speaking of. Not hard to fix. (I will point out, however, that the use of a scanner for Dog's face is a fact, not speculation, so I don't know why that sentence is worded as such. Other than being brutally obvious, you can also find this confirmed in writing here, among many other places. Again, if you have problems with the wording in an article, simply tag it for cleanup, not AfD.) MarphyBlack 16:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Mentioning Mario's stomp is fine. Mentioning that there are enemies that are immune to it in every Mario game is fine. Listing those enemies is where you start having problems. This list describes the ideal way to deal with each of these objects that is an obstacle, and none of these are even close to the importance of Mario or Sonic. There's a difference between describing gameplay as part of a larger context, and devoting an entire article to it.
I don't have a problem with the wording of this article. I have a problem with the fact that it's a game guide written by observing the article subject and deriving conclusions from that personal observation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above --SkyWalker 17:36, 5 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} SPEEDILY CLOSED. Mythsearcher will redirect this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MA-08 Big Zam

MA-08 Big Zam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A low-quality fanpage. This is completely unreferenced, apparently written based on personal observation of the subject (Mobile Suit Gundam, in this case), and full of in-universe detail inappropriate for an encyclopedia. This isn't an encyclopedia article, and has little or no potential to become an encyclopedia article. As there's no good place to merge any of this, it's probably best to delete it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, I was thinking of saving this one within those five days, but then I figured there are really nothing in the current version needs saving. Too bad now it is in AfD, it couldn't be blanked, I'd say just delete it, and redirect it to Mobile Units of Mobile Suit Gundam, and have people(possibly me) write the new article over there. Or we can just hold the AfD, just redirect the page now, saves a lot of trouble. MythSearchertalk 07:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)M
    P.S. I have already included a draft version on that page, see if you can clean it up a bit and I can go find some references for now. MythSearchertalk 07:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    If you want to merge this, I have no real objections; I just couldn't see a worthwhile merge target. I'll speedy close this.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jay_Riemenschneider

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Jay Riemenschneider
Jay_Riemenschneider (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Seinfeld character which was never on screen, and in fact was only mentioned in one sentence of one episode. Extremely non-notable. Biggs541 09:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable, they were never on screen and were only mentioned in a scene. OysterGuitarst 21:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • delete immediately. sooner, if you can. Kripto 01:29, 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 Speedied under G1. --Evilclown93(talk) 22:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fucknoob

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

Non-notable neologism. It is not documented that the term is commonly used. Gathers about 300 hits on Google, of which at least 200 seem to be someones actual username. Pekaje 14:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Utter nonsense. Get rid of it. Now. WWGB 14:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this should have been speddy deleted, it's nonsense. OysterGuitarst 21:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • While I agree in principle, this looks like a (non-notable) neologism, which is generally considered a non-criterion for speedy deletion (unless very obvious, which I don't think this one is). There is a chance that this is indeed a commonly used phrase in gaming (I actually wouldn't be surprised), which someone else might be able to find evidence of. --Pekaje 22:15, 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 delete. Sr13 22:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tuwid Abante sa Pagbabago at Tagumpay

Tuwid Abante sa Pagbabago at Tagumpay (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG. This student organization does not have significant reliable third party media coverage. The article also smacks of vanity. Nv8200p talk 14:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Student organizations that exist at only a single school are generally non-notable. The subject is described as one of three political parties that exist within a single department's student society at a single university. --Metropolitan90 17:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. OysterGuitarst 21:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as especially non-notable, vanity, see above. Bearian 18:57, 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 delete. Sr13 21:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thursday Tour Dates

Thursday Tour Dates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information Will (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


Delete - I only created the page to remove clutter from Thursday (band). Pbroks13 18:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete advertisement--SefringleTalk 05:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • delete. this is not a gig guide. Kripto 01:27, 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. I originally closed this as withdrawn, but I started kicking myself after. I've decided to go with consensus, since the article is pretty much fraudulent. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 01:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Slave Trade

Jewish Slave Trade (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The biggest issue with this "article" is that all the sources are misrepresented. It was created by banned user Serenesoulnyc who recently reappeared with many abusive sockpuppets. It's poorly written and chock-full of original research. The only instance where a statement is directly cited is through a link to the web that has nothing at all to do with what is being claimed. I checked two of the references listed at the bottom. Davis (1988) pp. 64-66 (which is presented as a supposed citation under References), as expected, says nothing at all lending support to any claims in the article–it only very briefly describes the concept of slavery in Judaism. Potok (1978), p. 395 makes no mention of slavery whatsoever, and the only instances in which slavery is mentioned in the entire book are mostly in relation to Bibilical accounts of Jews being enslaved. One reference is impossible to check and there is no doubt that the other is as blatantly misrepresented. I was going to tag the article for speedy deletion given that it nearly qualifies as WP:PN and was created by a now banned and abusive vandal, but since I am not quite sure, I'm nominating it instead. — Zerida 19:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page on which claims in Jewish Slave Trade are purportedly based:

Sharmuta (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — Zerida 19:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am withdrawing the nomination as there has not been sufficient discussion to address the doubts that seem to have been raised, nor more specifically the contents of the article. Admin, please close nomination as withdrawn. — Zerida 20:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete the article doesn't seem to have much real content not covered elsewhere. VanTucky 07:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete changed to Neutral or Merge with Arab slave trade: (see reasons for change below) the user seem to be fond of hoaxes, this article as well as Sharmuta and the old Swedish Slave trade (deliberately similar to Swedish slave trade) all look like hoaxes. Additionally, some statements are made which I am quite sure to be incorrect, and the online reference cannot be opened. Dan Gluck 15:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: the online reference can be opened, and says nothing about jewish slave traders. Rather, Jewish slaves in Roman times are mentioned. Dan Gluck 17:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I changed my vote because I am no longer sure that Serenesoulnyc is a hoaxer, maybe he just "doesn't play by the rules" and got involved in some fight with Zerida. Still, the article seems odd and at least the online link is unrelated. In any case, if it is not a hoax then merging with Arab slave trade should be considered, because both deal with the same period and geographical area Dan Gluck 18:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Dan, please assume good faith. To begin with, Serenesoulnyc was not banned because he got into "a fight" with me. He was banned because of his repeated abuse of policy with respect to sockpuppetry and his insertion of false information into articles, which continues as of this writing. I have indicated on WP:ANI before that people not familiar with these topics may not be able to tell whether this and other articles are indeed hoaxes, which is why I spent time actually checking the references and page numbers cited. Obviously, you do not have to believe me; you can check the references yourself (on that note, I am going to see if I can find more knowledgeable Wikipedians on the topic willing to comment), but you are implying that I am lying by saying that I made the nomination because of "a fight". The latter itself is not true, because there was no "fight" to begin with, only a consistent pattern of vandalism and abuse of policy on articles whose topic I am familiar with, and whose writers asked me to comment.
I should, however, mention that these articles have no affect on me personally. For example, the Coptic flag article in which he continuously inserts a bogus self-made flag of Egypt, has no particular significance to me. On a personal level, I neither identify with the Coptic flag (impossible) nor always agree with its supporters. I am, however, trying to point out that he is deliberately introducing false information into Wikipedia. I know this because it happens to be about a topic with which I am at least familiar. There is, however, no excuse for introducing false information into articles regardless of the nature of the content dispute. Please, assume good faith — Zerida 19:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Origional research--SefringleTalk 05:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —SefringleTalk 05:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. Jon513 10:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No verfiable sources; the ones listed are a misrepresentation and a smokescreen for the fact that this is indubitably a hoax. No reason to merge suspect content elsewhere, so deletion is the way to go here.--Isotope23 15:25, 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 withdrawn by nominator. Please re-nominate if you believe the article is a candidate for deletion. — Zerida 01:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sharmuta

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

I have provided a more thorough explanation at this related AFD. This one is obvious: 1. WP:DICDEF and 2. it is entirely made-up of original research. I was unable to verify any of the claims in the article. — Zerida 20:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn per my comment on other AFD. — Zerida 21:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete or move to Wikitionary per Zerida.Dan Gluck 18:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note, a section very similar to this entry appears in the Wikipedia article on Sarmatians, in a section called Senuric legacy. 140.147.160.78 19:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

  • Wiktionary It's a WP:DICDEF.--Flamgirlant 10:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Confirmed sockpuppet of User:Kirbytime.
  • Delete, or merge or move. Too minor for its own stub. 19:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Bearian 19:02, 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 merge JodyB talk 18:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starfleet Security

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Starfleet Security Articles for deletion/Starfleet Security (2nd nomination)
Starfleet Security (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article does not substantiate any real-world notability for the titular branch/organization. General Starfleet security officers used for comic/dramatic effect is covered in redshirt, and individual characters who have been members of this branch have their own articles. Most of the material here is plot summary and trivia covered elsewhere. The original AfD focused mainly on original research, and I think those issues have been addressed -- however, after whittling it down to just what's presented in dialog in the shows, there isn't much here to sustain notability. The dearth of secondary sources on this topic supports this: there is no "Starfleet Security" entry in the Star Trek Encyclopedia -- by no means a 100 percent thorough text, but it's telling that the group isn't worth mentioning, or there isn't enough substance to mention, in this fan-targeted publication. --EEMeltonIV 20:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep or perhaps a merge redshirt to here. Wikipedia can and should cover articles on Star Trek more throughly than an outdated Star Trek Encyclopedia which was restricted to paper. By this I do not mean WP:OR synthesis of course. Plenty of information on star trek is covered on the show itself which is more than a reliable primary source. -- Cat chi? 20:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • For anything significant in this article (probably the two [uncited] sentences in the TOS section), I'd support your initial suggestion of moving it to Redshirt (character) rather than vice versa. The "redshirt" stock figure is a more generalizable, real-world term. Even the Star Trek fan film about these security types is titled "Redshirt Blues". --EEMeltonIV 20:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It is really a flawed approach to request "real world" implications of something purely cultural. Merge to Starfleet sounds OK to be but this article was forked out of Starfleet as it was getting too long. So in that context I am confused. -- Cat chi? 10:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, not only is the request for real world context not flawed, it is required. Please read WP:WAF and WP:FICT. Jay32183 19:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Starfleet. JJL 21:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The article doesn't have secondary sources to establish real world context. Jay32183 02:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge As stated above. This material in this article should not be deleted but it could exist elsewhere as stated above. Martin-C 02:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • merge as above Kripto 01:26, 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. Anas talk? 23:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corey Brown

Non-notable second round MLB Draft pick, unlike Rick Porcello, who I recently closed as a no consensus, this one claims no notablity at all, and the odds of a MLB Draft pick reaching the Major Leagues are fairly low, Delete Jaranda wat's sup 20:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete My feeling in these cases is to wait with the article until a recognizable level of notability is achieved. The subject appears NN at present. --Stormbay 22:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Stormbay. Daniel 5127 02:31, 1 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.--Húsönd 00:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural deadzone

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

neologism; cites no sources Will (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. If not a neologism, then it's original research. Only 26 Google hits. eaolson 22:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • delete. nice idea, though. 01:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No references to assert notability. Might just be made up, but I wouldn't know Tdmg 17:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:00, 5 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 Keep, I cleaned up the article and added references. Appears to be a very prominent matador. NawlinWiki 18:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nimeño II

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

Engrish, doubt notability Will (talk) 22:39, 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.