Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 5

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holly Phillips

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

Delete - non-notable; no references CBSfan 21:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete TV appearances don't make somebody notable. TV about someone makes them notable. JulesH 15:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - in Soviet Wikipedia, TV must get on YOU! 81.104.175.145 04:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Claim of significance is weak and not supported by WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 16:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arnold Walfred Lindall

Arnold Walfred Lindall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

written by someone named Terrance Lindall, this seems like a vanity page written by a relative. Postcard Cathy 15:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete in amongst all the trivia there is a vague possibility that he could be notable, but nothing is sourced and I can't find anything via Google bar a couple of abstracts from the American Association of Anatomists, so unless this can be imporoved, it'll have to go. (Edit - as DGG has done. Changed to Keep). EliminatorJR ^Talk 10:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep "Dr Lindall over the years published over 90 scientific papers and abstracts in a wide variety of fields". Fortunately, PubMed now goes back to 1950, at least for most english language journals. They list 45 peer reviewed articles; Web of Science lists 50. They are about 3/4 in such journals as JAMA, J. Nutrition, PNAS, Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. , Endocrinology, Diabetes, J Neurochemistry, J. Cell Biology--all the leading journals for their fields. and about 1/4 in Minnesota Medicine. To judge the importance, with WebofScience: his 7 highest papers got 90, 86, 71, 61, 48, 39, 35. h=13: 13 papers with more than 13 citations. This is reasonably good, though not spectacular, in medical science. His industrial career is as important as his academic--his best papers were published when with one of his companies. He probably never reached full professor because he made the switch. I formatted it and shortened the article appropriately.

You can't judge by the looks of the page. Family write similar pages for people of distinction as for people of no distinction; faculty typically write too much or too little if they do it themselves; students usually omit the important things when they do a favorite professor; PR people sound like PR people anywhere; the only way a good WP page gets written is when someone very familiar with WP writes it. DGG 04:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 23:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliable sources attest notability. I'm uncomfortable hanging an article on merely the scholarly citations (really, the number of citations) alone. --Dhartung | Talk 07:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. The article asserts notability and there are sources that indicate it but it would be best if the sources were cited. Capitalistroadster 07:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A terrible article that makes a very poor case of notability. "He traveled to Europe many times and lectured at scientific conferences" is vacuous at best. Only supervising six graduate students suggests non-notability. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - does not quite assert significance. He's had a full career, but nothing particularly notable. Also, no WP:RS to support what little is there. --Evb-wiki 16:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. The two merge commentors were split, suggesting merge into different articles. That leaves Delete. Herostratus 02:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs by Avril Lavigne

List of songs by Avril Lavigne (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I've considered nominating this article for deletion on and off for a while now. It's borderline but IMO, it crosses the line into listcruft and 'an indiscriminate collection of information'. I can find no record online of many of these supposed 'cover versions' and 'remixes' and I suspect that there's been quite a bit of false information added since the article was created. Kurt Shaped Box 23:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - This should only be included in the CD articles of Avril and/or Avril's article itself. That's unnecessary to have a full list separately even if she did three CD's so far.--JForget 02:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This seems like a poorly sourced Avril Lavigne discography article. We have them for other artists, though I'm not sure it's needed here. Take away the tracklistings of her notable CDs and you have an unsourced list of covers she's done. Are these MP3s floating about the internets, or what? --Dhartung | Talk 07:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All this info can be found at Avril Lavigne discography or the articles on her albums. Malc82 12:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Avril Lavigne discography, or delete. Otto4711 13:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to discography article. 132.205.44.134 02:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The keepers have failed to fully meet the nominator's objections with two of the three keepers arguing against deletion based on allowing more time for development. TerriersFan 16:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Posse Cat

Fails WP:NOT#INFO. The article is a plot summary; policy states that articles on fiction and media "should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." I see no sources available that would enable creation of such an article. Contested prod. MastCell ^Talk 23:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep and close Is this a joke? This is a classic MGM Tom and Jerry theatrical short. It is not just a plot summary; it's an article that contains a plot summary (along with some "real world context" such as release dates, length, creators, relation to other Tom and Jerry cartoons). The fact that an article about an MGM Tom and Jerry theatrical short was originally prodded for having "no evidence of independent notability" is bizarre. Nominator claims "no sources available" but it took me less than a minute to find three reliable sources for this cartoon.

I've just noticed that this highly questionable nomination was made by an admin. It would be a good idea if any other AFD nominations they make are watched closely by any experienced admin reading this. Especially if they start AFDing Warner Bros or Disney shorts for the same reasons. Something's seriously wrong when an admin makes a nomination like this. 172.209.136.217 22:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Easy there. This isn't personal, so please don't personalize it. You've clearly been around, so you should know better. The sources you've found are brief plot summaries. They do not establish notability. Wikipedia is not a repository of plot summaries, and your sources don't allow expansion of the article into anything else. MastCell ^Talk 23:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Expand There are many articles about episodes of particular TV series. All this articles needs is to add a little more about production and the staff, and any cultural references, ir possible. Then it would be up to standard. Hence there is still hope for this article.--Kylohk 11:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Yes, if it had those things it would be a keeper. But I couldn't find any such sources, and despite all the heat above, no one has produced them. As it is now, the article fails WP:NOT#INFO, and I don't see sources being produced to get over that bar. MastCell ^Talk 17:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Although the nominator is right on principle, I think this article just needs more time. RFerreira 06:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Sr13 08:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glen Waverley Secondary College

As Schoolcruft. A bad article asserting no notability, no citations or references to reliable sources, or anywhere information can be verified. Thewinchester ^(talk) 23:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 23:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - very major state school in Melbourne's east. However, the article is an absolute mess (I once had a go at fixing it but it's drifted since), probably needs a complete rewrite to get it to WP standard. Orderinchaos 04:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article needs extensive surgery and pruning, but the article makes explicit claims of notability, complete with reliables sources. Alansohn 04:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the content, Keep the article. Sorry, it has been recognised elsewhere that lists of houses are not encyclopedic information nor are the names and positions of junior staff members. But there seems to be a sprinkling of encyclopedic content mixed in with the trivia.Garrie 04:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment How can an article have such a large In the media section and zero references?Garrie 04:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 05:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, plenty of RS were quoted in the article. John Vandenberg 06:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Sources appear to indicate notability but there is extraneous material which needs pruning. Capitalistroadster 07:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 22:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gamelux

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

unsourced, non notable, reads like an advertisement ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources cited other than the web site. Google news comes up blank. Appears to fail WP:WEB. ~ Infrangible 02:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sounds like WP:SPAM. Fails WP:WEB. --Evb-wiki 02:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- if If gamelux truly is the biggest esports site in benelux, that rates an entry. However, the article needs to be completely rewritten (it's clearly an advertisement as it stands) and independent external sources need to be referenced. The author(s) should be given some time to do that and if they can't then it should be deleted. Capmango 16:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I've rewritten the article, including two sources varifying that Gamelux is the biggest eSports site in the Benelux. Zerter 19:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Normally a closer doesn't do this, but I looked at the full NYT article via Proquest and it was a trivial mention that only compounds the confusion here, we just need better sources than the ones that we have so far. If anyone wants to work on this article I will make the content available to you. W.marsh 22:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kechia Jenkins

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

Apparently this person is "now a monument in the Gospel arena". But there are no sources to support it (are there ever?) Guy (Help!) 22:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Since being a former artist and several other professions, there's no reason whatsoever to delete the article. Although, the article is a complete mess and a major clean-up is required along with additionnal expansion and more sources required.--JForget 02:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional keep Only if it can be verified that the singles listed did actually chart on Billboard. It would also help to have some outside references. The discogs.com page just seems to be a press-release-type deal. Closenplay 02:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Google News Archive comes up with one mention in the New York Times referring to a rising hit. [1]

Capitalistroadster 07:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• All Music Guide doesn't have her and they have records of charting artists in the US so I support a delete. All Music Guide would certainly have her if she was a notable gospel artist. Capitalistroadster 07:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's misspelled as "Keisha" Jenkins, but there's not much to it. I don't think it's that she's notable as a Gospel artist, it's her secular career that seems to rate notability. Her few singles appear to be pretty popular with House and Garage fans (they've been re-released on tons of compilations—see her discogs.com listing). Unless someone can't come up with solid Billboard references, that makes her notable. She's not listed at billboard.com but I've been told that the information there is not complete. Closenplay 11:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep based on that information. We need to consider whether the article needs to be renamed. Capitalistroadster 18:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If it's kept, it shouldn't be renamed; her name is misspelled @ AMG, not here. Closenplay 19:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Crano

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

Generic professor. Worthy, but not encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliable sources are placed to verify notability. Amazon confirms that he is an author but that alone doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF. JodyB _talk 22:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Full professor in a notable graduate school (Claremont). Fellow, not just member, of the American Psychological Association (APA) and American Psychological Society (APS), NATO Senior Scientist, Fulbright Fellow. Director of the Program in Social Psychology at the National Science Foundation (NSF). Ede. board of several journals. Book by a major publisher in field (Erlbaum), chapters in others (Blackwell, Cambridge UP) Eighteen peer-reviewed journal articls. That's just what was in the article. This is what makes for notability as a scientist. The average scientist has nothing of the sort. "Generic professor" can I supposed by applied to any professor with equal lack of logic or explanation.DGG 23:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. Article could certainly use some enhancement by way of citations to absolutely verify the listed claims. But assuming they are, in fact, true, he's well beyond "generic professor". Mwelch 01:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• keep passes wp:prof with ease.--Buridan 10:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless all full professors are to be considered notable. And to become full professor you normally need at least one book and eighteen articles; actually, that's not many for full professor. In that sense he is indeed a "generic professor," in that he has (barely) done what it takes to be full professor. But WP:PROF suggests a rather higher hurdle has to be overcome. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. Nominating immediately after creation is inappropriate. John Vandenberg 09:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. Seems a clear pass for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein 19:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International reaction to Bronze Soldier relocation

International reaction to Bronze Soldier relocation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is now our 8th "International reaction to..." article. Like all the others, it deals with a 2006/7 event. Like all the others, it's also probably unnecessary. It smacks of recentism (shouldn't we first have "International reactions to the German invasion of Poland", "International reactions to the Bombing of Pearl Harbor", "International reactions to the North Korean invasion of South Korea", etc?). Many of the reactions, from countries like Tajikistan, Israel, Norway or Georgia, are not of encyclopedic value. I wouldn't mind keeping a couple of key reactions in the main body of the text - let's say one each from Estonia, Russia and the EU, and indeed those are still there. However, the Bronze Soldier already has an 80kb article and the story is, all things considered, not such a big deal. Let's keep some perspective here and delete this lengthy digression. WP:NOT#IINFO, if you want a specific policy basis. Biruitorul 23:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, but merge appropriate info into main Bronze Soldier of Tallinn article. These little split-off articles always annoy me, I'm all for consolidation...K. Lásztocska 00:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as a creator. All of the content is from the main article, Bronze Soldier of Tallinn - that article was almost 110KB, so, after discussion on the talk page, consensus was to move reaction to another article - it was more then quarter of the main article. While everyone agrees that the reaction should be kept, all of it is not needed in the main article, which is simply getting too cluttered. Bronze Soldier of Tallinn is still too big (78KB), so very likely further sub-articles are needed. Considering that consensus to split was reached, I find this AfD somewhat weird and unneeded. DLX 03:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: if the Bronze Soldier article was getting too long and messy, perhaps the section on international reaction should simply be tightened up, condensed, and made to fit into one clear, concise paragraph. (Getting rid of all those little flags would be a good start.) I personally find these little split-off sub-articles annoying and unnecessary, not to mention potentially confusing. I like to fit as much information into main articles as possible. K. Lásztocska 03:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• To be honest, I would have preferred that as well. But unfortunately there are some users (one of them got permanently blocked two days ago, though) who would have labeled it as "Estonian vandalism" and started a revert war. Article about Bronze Soldier was coming nicely along, but now the editing has more or less stopped because of those users - which may have been what they wanted all along. DLX 05:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and merge the actually notable reactions into Bronze Soldier of Tallinn Bigdaddy1981 05:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Notable reactions are in main article already - two from Estonian officials, two from Russian officials. One from EU, one from NATO, one from UN - and yet I was accused of vandalism and trolling, "You should Return The reaction back or drop all reaction from the Soldier. Given your trolling history, each war could be your last war." DLX 05:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: May be a case for inclusion in the main article of German and possibly other Baltic states' reactions to the issue; I agree that the main notable reactions are included already. Bigdaddy1981 18:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete if not merged back to the main, Keep if insisted on keeping all reactions. I point out that splitting out the less relevant reactions was consensus on the talk.--Alexia Death 05:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; merge anything encyclopedic to the main article. Carlossuarez46 18:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep consensus on talk. We cannot delete this info but want to split from the main article Alex Bakharev 13:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - We cannot delete this info - of course we can. You may not want to delete it, which is fine, but we can if a consensus to delete emerges. After all, this encyclopedia's quality will not suffer markedly if we omit mention of (eg) the Tajik Council of War Veterans' reaction to the Bronze Soldier relocation. Biruitorul 01:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: aw c'mon, what have you got against the Tajiks? :P But seriously, I do agree. This article is terribly bloated (not least by those insufferable flag icons!) and would need SERIOUS pruning, condensing, clarifying and general tightening-up if we were to keep it--at which point we could probably just stuff it back into the main Bronze Soldier article....so perhaps that was a moot point? Anyway...K. Lásztocska 01:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Further comment: an idea has just struck me: why not have an article May 2007 controversy over relocation of Bronze Soldier of Tallinn? Right now, apparently, all the info about the controversy is jammed into the article about the monument itself, which is certainly not the best way to do things...and leads inevitably to these sorts of problems. This international reaction stuff does not fit at all into the main Bronze Soldier article, but could work just fine (in an improved form!) in an article specifically about the controversy. K. Lásztocska 01:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Reply: This has been suggested and talked about several times, however, no consensus has been reached. Perhaps "freeze" this AfD and do a RfC about the split? And, if the consensus is to split, move contents from International reaction to Bronze Soldier relocation to the "controversy" article? DLX 05:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if not merged back to the main page, at least reaction of major powers and circum-Baltic countries. Colchicum 19:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Or, more precisely, merge back the reaction by US, German, Israeli, Swedish, Finnish, Latvian, Lithuanian and Polish _officials_ (one from each country) and delete other stuff. Colchicum 19:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge back to main article. The reactions are notable. Merge back most notable statements.21:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Biophys 21:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge back whatever reactions are notable. (Sorry, Biophys, we usually agree on things, but here I must disagree; e.g., what is notable about what the UN Secretary-General said? Diplomatic jargon rarely stands out, don't you think so?) Turgidson 13:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No strong objections; but then someone should put back at least a few most notable statements.Biophys 16:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Fully agree on that. See how easy is to find a compromise? Turgidson 22:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as a general rule, I don't like these "international reaction to XYZ" articles because isolated quotes can be misleading. If we are to have such articles, then they should be on significant topics (such as International reactions to the 2006 Lebanon War), not diplomatic quibbles such as this.--Ploutarchos 13:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge back any actually notable reactions (that are not already in there). Per Turgidson I agree that non-notable responses from notable individuals (UN Sec Gen) should not be included. Bigdaddy1981 19:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per consensus at the main article - can be pruned or re-merged possibly once the situation has stabilised further, but for now it is important to ensure a rounded and balanced coverage of reactions (incl those from interested parties in other former Soviet territories) and to reduce the length of the main article. This article represents a reasonable solution to some of the difficulties at the original article, and this AfD is quite unhelpful. (Rather blinkered, by the way, to refer to the matter as a "diplomatic quibble"). HeartofaDog 10:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Contrary to what the nom claims, the story is actually quite a big deal in the perspective of Russian-Estonian relations. That said, I see no purpose to recording dozens of quotes about the incident. As regards shortening the main article ... perhaps a split for the relocation could do that. Delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 22:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rose (goat)

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

Nowhere near being notable. It's a goat, for Pete's sake. Prod contested. Sean William @ 23:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Not saying you're necessarily wrong that this should be deleted but you should present an actual argument - not just "it's a goat". We have a whole category of stuff like that. Category:Famous animals Haukur 23:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, people should view the article and make their own decision. Sean William @ 23:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. "Nowhere near being notable" is patently false, the BBC wrote an obituary for it, for god's sake. It's possibly one of the most notable goats ever. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  Do you want to write a biography on the goat? If you can't, then we shouldn't have an article on it. Sean William @ 01:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  I think we have a pretty viable start right now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The goat sex may, perhaps, possibly have been notable, but not the goat, come on. ^(H) 01:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • How many goats do you know that achieve international fame and get an obituary from the BBC? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Zero. Does that make the goat encyclopedic? No. ^(H) 01:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • First, you know one, and her name is Rose. Second, yes, it absolutely does make it encyclopedic for our purposes. --batdlydrawnjeff talk 01:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is not a tabloid. If it got news coverage, we shouldn't be forced to include it. Sean William @ 01:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
          • The BBC is not a tabloid. We judge encyclopedicness by the sources available. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
          • The goat was covered as news by The Guardian [2], The Times [3], and The Daily Telegraph [4]. None of which are tabloid newspapers.
• Delete by all means. +sj + 01:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Presumptively notable per WP:N, and I see no compelling reason to delete. Yes, it's a bit tabloid and "News of the weird", but the references demonstrate a continuing interest. It meets the policies and guidelines, and I think it's OK for WP to have a playful side too.--Kubigula (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree the event may be notable, but how is the goat itself informative in any way? ^(H) 05:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Coverage appears to be extensive and, perhaps most importantly, over a reasonably wide span of time. Maxamegalon2000 05:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Note the existence of the largely duplicate article Charles Tombe. I feel that this might make an amusing, and possibly illuminating, aside in an article such as Marriage in Sudan, but unfortunately the wiki's coverage of African topics is pitiful and such an article doesn't yet exist. I also can't resist repeating a line from the Juba Post update that is either a miracle of dry humor or a obtuse result of overly conscientious reporting: "Since last year, the wedded goat has now produced a kid; but not a human one." - BanyanTree 05:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  FYI, Zscout370 has redirected Mr. Tombe's article to Rose (goat). - BanyanTree 06:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The reason why I made the redirect is that all information in Tombe's article is included here. I just felt uneasy with Tombe's article stating nothing but he married a goat because he boned it. Btw, delete this article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. A handful of special interest and lighthearted reports that hardly strike me as journalism are not the sort of thing that satisfies long-term encyclopedic importance or a historical impact on society for this goat, and most assuredly not enough to justify Wikipedia participating in the public humiliation of the man that is more the subject of this article than the goat. Last I checked, not only was Wikipedia not a shameless tabloid, but some wise soul had actually written that into policy, as well. Dmcdevit·t 06:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Multiple independent sources are cited to demonstrate the goat's notability. I'm not really sure which notability guideline the goat falls under (no one's yet written WP:GOAT) but it meets the primary notability criterion of WP:N, i.e. multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources. I will wikify the page to introduce inline citations, however. Walton^{alternate account} 08:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Biographies of Deceased Bovidae. No, seriously per Dmcdevit. -Doc^g 08:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Internet phenoms are so flash in the pan that honestly, I don't think most of them deserve inclusion. Notability? On a "light news of the day" part of a newspaper, maybe. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:N#Notability_is_not_temporary. If a subject passes the notability guidelines at any point in time, it is notable, and remains so indefinitely. --Ashenai 08:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit.--Doc^g 08:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not an argument. Please try to remain constructive. --Ashenai 08:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well stop and think. What the press note today is not necessarily notable in any enduring sense. Then read what you linked to, because it says "a burst of news coverage about a subject does not provide objective evidence of long-term notability"--Doc^g 08:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I did read the page, and it's clear to me that my original reply ("if a subject passes the notability guidelines at any point in time, it is notable, and remains so indefinitely") is 100% founded in policy. Our job is to determine whether it passes the notability guidelines, not to speculate on whether it will still be popular in 10 years. --Ashenai 09:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there 'objective evidence of long-term notability"?--Doc^g 09:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, and that's a much better argument than "it's a goat, for god's sake". I believe there is: I posit that any peson (well, entity) with a BBC obit is notable enough for Wikipedia. Is there even a single counter-example, other than the subject in question? --Ashenai 09:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The BBC, as with most media outlets, routinely collects light-hearted human interest stories to run as the proverbial Dead donkey at the end of the news. That does not make them notable. Unless we are allowing the BBC to do our thinking for us. WP:NOT a newspaper.--Doc^g 11:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But this brouhaha made it into at least four separate major media outlets. Certainly, Wikipedia shouldn't include everyhing that makes it into a newspaper. But insisting that something is non-notable after it's been covered in the BBC, the Times, Fox News, and the Daily Mail (which, admittedly, is a tabloid) seems like just being hard-headed. The subject matter is obviously absurd, but so is AYBABTU. We're not here to judge that. --Ashenai 11:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but news services are lazy. They crib and copy. That a 'sex with goat' story got grabbed by the press networks is neither surprising nor notable.--Doc^g 11:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I'm now ambivalent on the issue. I feel that this goat is right on the edge of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. --Ashenai 11:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the story has retained traction - coverage has lasted over a year - is enough to distinguish it from the majority of fleeting news stories. The article meets the policies and guidelines, so the real question is whether we want to allow room on WP for this kind of light-hearted fare. My feeling is that we should, if the content meets our criteria; we can take a harder line against the stuff that is less well sourced or more obviously a flash in the pan.--Kubigula (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't understand why "it's a goat" is any sort of argument for non-notability. The Holy Prepuce is a foreskin that probably does not even exist, and it has an article. I'm open to revising my opinion if anyone comes up witzh a better reason than "it's a goat", and "it's an Internet fad", since we have articles on both animals and Internet fads. --Ashenai 08:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Difficult issue, I'm right on the fence here. Neutral/Undecided. --Ashenai 11:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Neither of those were not an argument, and I think I am a someone. Could you give more of a response to legitimate concens than dismissing them like that? Dmcdevit·t 09:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that they are both arguments, which is why I showed that they are fallacious arguments. "It's a goat" is a fallacious argument because we have (justified, uncontroversial, stable) articles about far more trivial objects. "It's an Internet fad" is fallacious because we have (justified, uncontroversial, stable) articles about Internet fads, see AYBABTU.

Your argument appears to boil down to two main points. The first is the "it's a fad" argument, which I've addressed, above. The second is "it's humiliating to the person involved, which I must admit gives me more pause. To be quite honest, I never quite know how to interpret that bit of policy. --Ashenai 09:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- even if there are more famous goats, this doesn't mean that this one should not be memorialised, for future generations. -- 62.25.109.196 11:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, blatantly passes WP:N. One of the most read stories in the history of the BBC News website, that is certainly noteworthy. However, I think consensus is needed whether or not the article should be here or in Charles Tombe, the human involved in the incident, but we can leave that till after this AfD. --Darksun 12:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep absolutely. We definitely cannot delete this. AndyJones 12:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  Why can't we? Sean William @ 12:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  Well, obviously, because it's an article about a goat who got caught having sex with a man and was forced to marry him. It doesn't come more notable than that. AndyJones 16:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  Just a small correction: please note that the man was forced to marry the goat, not the other way around. As far as I know, there are no sources discussing whether the marriage was in accordance with the goat's wishes, or whether she was coerced into wedlock :) --Ashenai 17:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Someone's gotta BLP this just for fun, because BLP obviously applies to dead goats. Other than that, keep per numerous media coverage.  Grue  13:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  Uh, how about the guy who had sex with the goat? Is he not a living person? Sean William @ 14:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  BLP does apply, because the article contains biographical material about a living person, but it also happens to be 100% BLP-compliant, as far as I can see. I don't even see how this could be debated (though I've learned never to underestimate Wikipedian creativity) --Ashenai 14:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  You don't see how Wikipedia plastering the name of the man that was publicly humiliated after having sex with a goat on a top 10 website and turning what would have been a short-lived fad into an article that already is and probably always will be the top Google result for his name could possibly even maybe be a BLP issue? Dmcdevit·t 18:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  The BBC is also a top 10 (or at least, very highly ranked) website, and is the 2nd Google result for his name, and probably always will be, unless himself or someone with the same name does something notable. I don't really think Wikipedia is making the issue worse. --Darksun 18:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  And what about the poor goat? Did anybody ever ask the goat if the goat's humiliation should be protected under BLP? Are we not showing insensitivity towards the poor goat and should give it the benefit of the utmost sensitivity towards it plight? FOR GOD'S SAKE, WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE GOATS???  :D (Sorry, am in a silly mood at the moment, but you may log this as a Comment that a long AfD over this is just plain silly in itself.) 216.201.119.71 18:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep no arguement for deletion has been given as "its a goat" does not cut it. PS this is entirely complient to BLP. Hypnosadist 18:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per any of the other delete reasons. Adam Bishop 18:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Straightforward speedy under the biographies of living goats policy. Nah, seriously, delete as newscruft. --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that BLP does not advocate the removal of sourced, neutral material. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, the written form of the policy is somewhat out of date. I guess we can fix that. Note that my deletion reason above is not concerned with the BLP. However there may be BLP concerns. --Tony Sidaway 19:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Passes BLP, WP:N, NPOV, and every other policy. There's no reason to delete this. If someone wants these kinds of articles deleted WP:N will have to be changed. WP:POINT McKay 21:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  Are you accusing me of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? I assure you, that was not my intention. Sean William @ 21:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  Your only reason for deleting the article is that She's a goat. This should be Speedy Kept because you didn't provide a valid reason for deleting. Do you also think that Bill the Goat, Domestic goat, Three Billy Goats Gruff, and other articles be deleted too? We have a policy, it's called WP:N, which it clearly passes via the primary notablity criterion. (BBC obit for one, heck, even the BBC obit is probably notable, as the obit probably has substantial press coverage). McKay 21:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  No, my reason for deletion is "Nowhere near being notable". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I have a serious problem with press coverage dictating notability: News services will pick up any story that they think will get attention. In doing so, they end up picking up stories about random individuals that are not notable at all, but instead got their misfortune covered by a major news outlet. News services could care less about the person affected, as long as people read their article on it. Would you create an article on Angel Aguilar, just because his death was covered by Reuters ([5])? Sean William @ 22:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  The current WP:N policy guideline is the primary notability criterion. If anyone would like to follow policy, they should use that. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Reuters is reliable, but it isn't enough. A Reuters death coverage doesn't count for "significant", WP:N elaborates "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." Multiple sources is the WP:N guide. If you've got a problem with that, you should bring it up there. McKay 22:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  WP:N is not policy. Don't treat it like one. Sean William @ 22:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  Sorry. McKay 22:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep when the BBC runs your obituary... you're notable... As odd as it may be for a goat to have a biography... it did get media coverage. If the main character for Mister Ed and Lassie are notable enough to have articles... If Sadie the war hero dog gets an article... I cant see why this goat isnt notable enough for an article.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Hell... if Paris Hilton's dog Tinkerbell gets a freaking article... do I need to even finish that thought?  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    Just because other crap exists doesn't mean that this pile of excrement should. Sean William @ 22:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    So, could you please tell us what you think should be the bar for inclusion? McKay 22:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    I prefer to deal with things like these on a case-by-case basis. Drawing a specific line would be, in my mind, a bad thing, due to the need for guidelines to be very flexible. Notability is one of those things that can't be defined by a single guideline. Instead, notability must be judged by debates, which is why we have AfD. Sean William @ 23:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Deletion request is invalid, 'it's a goat for pete's sake' is not a reason to delete an article. Close deletion request pending user actually coming up with a coherent reason for deletion. Current argument runs to 'not notable because it's a goat'. Completely useless. 84.9.39.232 22:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  My comment below the nomination comes to "Read this article and come to your own conclusion". This goat isn't notable, because news sources don't care about what they publish. If they can get readers, then they'll tell the people the random stories they want to hear. Sean William @ 22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  I'm afraid you come across as time-wasting. "News sources don't care about what they publish" is an absurd assertion, clearly they do, otherwise, the newspapers would be filled with the first million digits of pi. The BBC will not print that my son had his birthday party yesterday for instance, because it is not a notable event. They *will* print things that are notable. Now please stop wasting people's time and properly explain why this is *not* notable, rather than baldly stating, contrary to all common sense, that things printed in hundreds of news sources are not notable. There are plenty of things that are not notable, e.g., Paris Hilton, except insofar as that people are interested in them. So I don't quite get the 'this is not notable, because it's only printed because people find it interesting' 84.9.39.232 22:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  News sources will publish whatever will get them readers. If they think that goat sex will attract attention, then they'll write about it. Read the article, and come to your own conclusion. Sean William @ 23:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I happen to disagree with Sean William as to this particular article, but I see no signs that this was a bad faith nomination or designed to make a point. The article falls into one of the gray areas under WP:N and WP:NOT, and reasonable people can disagree about how those principles apply.--Kubigula (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• I still have enough of an inclusionist in me to say keep. Chronicling ephemeral phenomena like this has traditionally been one of Wikipedia's fortes. On BBC or the Guardian people can read about this as 'funny news of the day'. Here they can read about this and then e.g. browse categories with similar things, getting some context. Make sure that the article treats the person involved appropriately, certainly, but the goat can be kept. Haukur 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• What you perceive as a forte, I perceive as a failing. ^(H) 00:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• We disagree, then, and that's all right. Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_so_great mentions Wikipedia:Unusual articles as one of the strengths of Wikipedia so I'm probably not the only one who thinks of it like that. Which doesn't mean you're wrong, of course. Haukur 09:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This reminds of Cindy the Dolphin, one of several fantastic articles we list at Wikipedia:Unusual articles. Inclusion of other articles is not an indicator of notability though, but that is not a concern either as this article stands on its own merits, meeting and and exceeding our policy standards. Strange, yes, but this is something that most definitely passes the 100 year test, and is quirky enough that I wouldn't be totally shocked to see its inclusion in the likes of Encyclopedia Brittanica. You know, one of those "real" encyclopedias. RFerreira 06:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• You sincerely think this will pass the 100 year test? Or show up in a regular encyclopedia? If either of those happen I will eat my user page. ^(H) 13:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  Yeah, even if nothing else, there'll be stupid trivia questions like "Who was the only goat to have been legally married to a human?" or something like that. I'd say be prepared to eat your user page. McKay 15:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a regular encyclopedia --Darksun 15:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep due to enduring popular and media notoriety. --Itub 13:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There aren't too many notable goats. Rose though happens to be an exception, as shown by the massive news coverage covering her marriage and untimely demise, her life and times if you will. Rose lived, she loved, she achieved international fame. [6]. Our job is to chronicle that existence impartially, with all the savoir faire wikipedians bring to their excellent bios of our animal friends. Frankly, I detect a strange species bias in some of the comments here. We need to fight that. --JJay 17:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment yet another test case that demonstrates how incredibly crippled and inane the WP:NOTABLE guideline is. Per wikipedia's policies this is notable an obvious keep. Per a better policy, probably not. But unfortunately, people who have attempted to amend WP:NOTE are generally blocked by deletionists. WP:IAR is not the answer here because it would quickly devolve into deletion discussions being WP:IDONTLIKEIT (already the case with most list deletions). The answer is not running these AFDs. The answer is amending the notability guideline. --JayHenry 17:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  I really like the notability guideline. I think it's great, it makes so much sense. It neatly meshes WP:NPOV with WP:RS. Can you propose something better? So what if some articles get included that wouldn't get mentioned otherwise. Wikipedia is WP:NOT paper. I think having a seperate article for each of the pokemon is overkill, but does it hurt us having them? No. Who cares if some goat gets an article? Does somehow covering more of human knowledge make wikpiedia worse somehow? McKay 05:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I'll admit that my first reaction was: "A goat!? What the hell?" However, after overcoming my gut speciesist response and actually looking at the article ... yes, this goat is notable. That a goat is more notable than myself is perhaps a somewhat depressing thought, but it doesn't change the facts of the matter. I don't think refocusing the article to be about the goatsex is necessarily a good idea (as it complicates matters with regard to WP:BLP), but it's worth considering. However, I see no merit in the arguments for deletion. "It's a goat, for Pete's sake" is a good first reaction, but an inadequate deletion rationale. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The goat itself is not notable, and is a (hoax?) name established by the western media, the actual event can be mentioned in an article about bestiality. Delete this and merge into another article as it provides little context on its own. Are we going to mention every case of bestiality? Bleh999 01:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  Are you saying that no case of bestiality could ever warrant an article? I definitely think it's inappropriate to list every case of bestiality, but I do believe in the primary WP:Notability criterion, essentially being "newsworthy = notable". It makes sense for so many reasons. Do you have a criterion that's better somehow? McKay 05:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The main point is that the goat itself is not notable (the article is named after the goat), the story is notable only because of media coverage. Since the goat is dead, the article will never rise above stub class, this is wholly unencyclopedic to have an article on a name of a goat assigned by the media just because of a bestiality case in Sudan. If it were apart of an article that included a lot more information about related cases, then it might be encylopedic, you can make an article about every story in the 'odd news' section of a newspaper, it would be easy to fill up wikipedia with 1000s of such articles, what makes this story so special? I should add that it would be more encyclopedic to have the article named after the individual accused of bestiality with the goat, and the laws regarding his case in Sudan, but then I bet many of the people voting 'keep' would be voting delete as he is non notable. Bleh999 08:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The most notable goat since the Three Billy Goats Gruff, and probably more renowned than any of the famous or fictional goats we already cover. BBC obituary establishes notability for me. --DeLarge 14:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable, verifiable, etc. --Myles Long 19:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:N#Notability is not temporary: "In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability.". Encyclopedias record things of long-term notability. akuyume^T_C 09:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not really what I call a 'short burst' though. I was frequently popping in and out of the 'most read' section of the BBC News site for over a year, and the story was spread over a year with an obituary. How often do you get an obituary for an 'and finally' story - an obituary about the GOAT, noless? This is more than a simple amusing news item. --Darksun 10:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - It might be grotesque, agreed, but if it hadn't been for the verifiable facts in the article, I would have believed that it is an urban myth, if I would come across it at some billboard press magazine or sensational and unreliable website. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that collects verifiable facts, isn't it? Is it a notable fact? You bet. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 13:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep BLP requires sourcing. This is sourced. If someone wanted to edit it to remove the proper names (the name of the owner, and the initial of the husband; the goat does not fall under BLP), I would think that faintly silly, since they're in the sources; but deleting it is political correctness. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I noticed earlier today that the original 'man marries goat' article was in the top 5 most emailed stories on the BBC News website. This was the original story, and those emailing the story would not be aware that the goat has since died, but it is clearly of very long-term interest. 87.74.13.55 23:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it's all been said. Maaaaah! Johnbod 00:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep', popular, notable, verifiable. bbx 06:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Come on guys, this is just silly. If this warrants inclusion for notability, what doesn't? Xihr 08:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  Anything that fails the guidelines at WP:NOTE. This doesn't. --Darksun 08:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  Not quite. Notability is a guideline. What Wikipedia is not is policy. --Tony Sidaway 11:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  Yes tony, you are correct, NOT is a policy, Notability is a guideline. But this has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation, except that wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so we shouldn't just be deleting articles because we don't like them. this goat clearly passes all of the sections in WP:NOT. So your arguments, though correct, are meaningless. McKay 16:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, notable goat, referenced sufficiently. I believe the original article was in 2004, and 3 years later, a further news story appeared. That is sufficient evidence of long-lasting media attention. There are many "news-worthy" topics that don't get articles 3 weeks after they took place, yet we have articles on them on Wikipedia. Neil ╦ 12:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as pure newscruft. Although publicized, the incident may be considered notable in an "Odd News of the Week" way, but the goat and her "marriage" are not encyclopedic. María (habla conmigo) 14:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  A couple of questions. you say that this is "pure newscruft" but we don't have any policies saying "newscruft" isn't allowed. Also, what makes you think that the goat and the marriage are not encyclopedic. Could you please clarify? McKay 16:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Newscruft has already been cited above as a reason for deletion. Although I recognize it's not a policy, it closely ties in with WP:NOT in that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, relating to News reports. "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." I think that strongly relates to this subject matter. María (habla conmigo) 16:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sure. That policy does apply here. Just like Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This goat is not a dictionary entry, nor is this goat something that has been in the news for a brief period of time. The goat had news references spanning 3 years. That doesn't really qualify as a "brief period of time". McKay 17:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Other than the initial newsbreak, its subsequent rehashings of the same story, and the humorous obituary that followed a year later, this news event is at best a blip on the radar. I would categorize it as both brief and unsubstantial. María (habla conmigo) 18:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and not an archive of water-cooler stories that got emailed around. The "obituary" was described as a joke, and the naming "Rose" was described as a joke. This is not a jokebook (My Pet Goat?) She had a kid before she died. Was her "husband" assumed to be the father under Sudanese law? Was the rape a crime of passion, or was he just trying to get his neighbor's goat? Also agree with María. Edison 18:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. >Radiant< 12:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asia Link

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

orphaned for many months, I don't see this as a notable organization based on what is presented in the article. If it was more notable, even as is, other articles would link to it. Combine the orphan status and lack of notability shown in the article, I don't see why this is a wiki worthy article. Postcard Cathy 20:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 23:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The content of the article utterly fails to distinguish this organization from any other - WP:HOLE. YechielMan 08:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. >Radiant< 12:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] European Retail Round Table

European Retail Round Table (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Propose delete on grounds that this is not a notable trade association. Article has list of big retailers as members, but cites no external references other than its webiste. I think this could also be deleted as spam, as in some ways you could say the article is an advert for a (shadowy) lobby group.--Gavin Collins 20:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Using the google method I pull up almost a thousand hits some of them on very reliable sources. mark with unreferenced tag. --Djsasso 22:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 23:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 & redirect, lack of content to merge. >Radiant< 12:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aqualand el Arenal

Aqualand el Arenal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I already sent the parent organization's article, Aqualand, to AfD. There's enough lag that I'm giving this article its own due process. Non-notable water park, no secondary sources cited. —C.Fred (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It's a water park. Need I say more? YechielMan 23:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete While I think the chain is notable, I don't think the individual parks are. JulesH 10:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Aqualand, which could use the content. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Aqualand. John Vandenberg 13:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 23:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 22:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Springfield Isotopes

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

Pure Simpsons fancruft, very little of note on the page. Pretty much the only reason it exists is because there is a real life Albuquerque Isotopes. However, that is really minor and can easily be mentioned at the section on the Springfield page. It seems unnecessary for this page to exist when there is already a section. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - No new arguments for deletion presented since Scorpion initiated the last AFD. Otto4711 23:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Did you actually read the old afd? Because there was no section on the Springfield page at that point, and thus it is a new reason to delete the article. Also, in a rebuff to the "Oh, it has real world context" argument (which I know is coming), lots of Simpsons stuff has real world influence. For example, in a promotion for The Simpsons Movie, several convenience stores will sell "Squishees", but there is no need for Squishee to have its own page because it has a section at the fictional products page. The same can be said for this article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I did indeed read the old AFD, and especially enjoyed the part where you didn't know that there was a real team named for the fictional one. Otto4711 00:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Your point? What does me not knowing something have to do with this afd? And obviously you DIDN'T read it before or else you would have seen that there are new arguments presented here, so please stop lying. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Mmmmmm, Simpsonscruft. (Actually, I think it qualifies because the team is featured in multiple episodes and because of the real-world Albuquerque connection. I purposely didn't look at the previous AfD, just at the article as it stands now.) Deor 02:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And why can't the page be merged with Springfield? The page is a stub and all of the information here fits just fine in the sports section. You have to remember, even despite the real world connection, the Isotopes have been featured in a small fraction of episodes. Compare this with Simpsons characters like Lunchlady Doris, the Rich Texan, Lindsay Naegle and even locales/organizations like the First Church of Springfield which have appeared in dozens of episodes and don't have their own pages. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notability established by the multiple episode occurrences and the team's real-world influence. I'd like to point out that the section on the Springfield page was added today when Scorpion0422 attempted to merge this article with the Springfield article, despite the earlier AfD and its closing admin's request that any merge or redirect be discussed at the article's talk page to determine consensus first. Scorpion, I think you actually make a rather convincing argument for an article on the Squishee. Maxamegalon2000 03:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Great. Here we are trying to cut down on the amount of Simpsons cruft on Wikipedia (I mean, I'm a Simpsons fan but are 800 Simpsons articles REALLY needed?) and you inclusionists are trying to force us to make more useless pages. It's also humurous to note that both pages have been discuseed by the Simpsons WikiProject and nobody thought either page was needed and yet several random users seem to think they are essential. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) It appears that there used to be an article on the Squishee, but it was merged by Scorpion0422 less than two months ago, despite his belief that "odds are that it would be kept if it went through an afd". I just thought it worth mentioning, considering he uses that article's status to supplement his argument regarding this article. --Maxamegalon2000 03:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point: Why create pages for marginally notable items, when they can have sections on big pages? The Isotopes page is a stub and there is no reason why it can't be merged. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about you, but I find big pages to be often distracting and tending to bury information in ways that individual articles don't. This isn't to say that there aren't times when a merge is appropriate, but there are times when it's not needed. FrozenPurpleCube 15:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge per WP:FICT and nom. -- Ned Scott 04:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Springfield (The Simpsons) - There hasn't been enough said on The Simpsons to merit having a whole article about the Isotopes. The fact that an actual team ended up being named after this team is certainly notable information, but there's still no need to have a whole separate article. On another note, I think everybody above needs to cool down. This debate discussion is getting far too heated. I see what appears to be personal animosity on both sides and both are coming pretty close to making personal attacks. Everybody, let's remember to assume good faith on the part of everybody and remember that we don't want any angry mastodons here.--Hnsampat 05:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep no valid reason for deletion given. If you simply think that this could be covered elsewhere, then try to convince people for a merge. But I don't see that happening, as this is a relatively distinct subject that isn't completely connected to the town of Springfield. FrozenPurpleCube 14:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There's really no valid reason to keep it. Apart from the small part about the real life Isotopes, there's really nothing that could be added to the page apart from cruft a bunch of random unimportant useless facts from random episodes. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but anybody who bases their argument on the word "cruft" is not going to convince me. If you can't articulate your objection to the content in better terms than that you're not going to persuade me. I really find the use of the term offensive. If you want to try to do without the word, feel free. I'll listen to any actual argument you care to present. FrozenPurpleCube 23:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Very well, it has been changed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing to indicate these are random, unimportant, useless facts. The page is about a particular organization that is featured in several episodes of a major television show. Not random(it is specific), unimportant(it's featured in several episodes), or useless (given that many people are interested in the Simpsons, I can't see how we can say information on this is useless). Sorry. FrozenPurpleCube 01:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Precedent has already been set on what Simpsons notability is. Dozens of character and item pages have been merged and many of them appeared in more episodes than the Isotopes. The way you mention them, you would think that they appeared on a weekly basis. They don't. The Isotopes played a background role in a few episodes, nothing more. Following your "logic" we could EASILY make 200+ pages relating to Simpsons characters, items and places but we don't because said information can be mentioned on the various group pages. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Precedent is a poor argument to make here, this article was already nominated and kept. If we're going to go by that logic, then this discussion should just be closed. So, maybe that's not the way to go. But as I said before, if you want to make an argument for merge, then try to convince people of that. Deletion, however, doesn't make any sense to me. There are other venues for discussion of mergers than AFD. Use them. For example, the article's talk page. Since there's no discussion there, I can only assume you didn't try that option, despite the explicit suggestion to do so. Is there some reason you didn't? Did you think that another AFD would be more effective? So far, it hasn't been. FrozenPurpleCube 04:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer that the page be deleted (hence the afd) but I am letting people know that there IS a place for a redirect to go, as that was in issue in the previous afd. -- 04:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Your case for deletion has not been convincing from what I can tell. Sorry. Perhaps if you avoided terms like cruft, and made a better attempt to articular your position beyond rather exaggerated comments. Frankly, I think your choice of redirect is poor, maybe you should look for a better one. FrozenPurpleCube 04:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Also, I read through WP:FICT and couldn't find anything that supported this article. Even with the real world connection, it is a MINOR part of the Simpsons and everything necessary could easily be said on the Springfield page. As per the WP:FICT guideline: "Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice."

Again, if you want to talk about merging this somewhere, that's an entirely different question. Try convincing folks of that instead on the talk page. FrozenPurpleCube 01:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge per WP:FICT and nom. --Maitch 09:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No sources to establish real world context. Jay32183 00:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added some sources. --Maxamegalon2000 00:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Reply It seems to me that all of that information would be better off at the Albuquerque Isotopes page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree. Although the information can be connected to the fictional team, it is all about a real team. We need real world context of the fictional team. Concept and creation inforamtion as well as reaction information to the fictioanl team, rather than episodes in which they appeared. Jay32183 01:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think much of it is probably relevant to both articles, though I only added information that sources specifically connected to the Springfield Isotopes. My goal was to better establish the real-world influence of the Springfield Isotopes, so I didn't touch on other things about the Albuquerque team, such as their colors, stadium, or other nicknames considered. --Maxamegalon2000 01:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 21:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stefan Ottermanns

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

Incomplete AfD by unregistered user. Previously, a different unregistered user who claims to be the individual in question on the article's talk page requested that the article be deleted. This is a procedural nomination. Therefore, I abstain. Seed 2.0 23:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The article in the German Wikipedia has already been deleted. Pharamond 05:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Because of how poorly it is written and that notability is not asserted, this would need to be brought down to a stub which would pretty much leave nothing. Freshacconci 20:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 22:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate Creations

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

The grounds of this company's notability is contested and there has been thus far a demonstrated inability to provide verifiable reliable independent sources to establish notability. The article has been speedily deleted previously for copyright violation/no notability assertion. There is some form of notability assertion now, but the validity of it has been discussed a great deal, see Talk:Corporate Creations. Just as a note (not a deletion criteria, but still something to keep in mind), this article was created (and recreated) by User:Jimsfins4 who is an admitted employee of the company in question, so I take his assertions of the company's notability with a grain of salt in the absence of sources that I can see. At this point, I don't believe the company is notable given that the only seemingly non-trivial source I can verify is a paid advertisement section in Fortune magazine that was sponsored not by the company, but by an organization that they are a member of: [7] Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 23:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete when there is no independent evidence for notability, then COI might be the deciding factor--I would AGF if there were any support besides directory listings and awards for which there is no real source. DGG 23:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It sounds like a good, nice company - and the founder sounds like a subject for a biography article in the future, but the company itself does not appear to meet notability standards at all in that industry. I am disturbed that the author (an admitted officer of the company) and another guy that is a suspected sockpuppet are pushing this article this hard and using a Fortune Magazine article as a reference that turned out to be a paid advertisement on closer examination. Dougieb 23:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Remember assume good faith as far as the other editor...hasn't done anything too "disruptive" that I've seen. Making last ditch efforts for notability isn't a crime. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 23:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Response. I know. The first guy was honest at least. I'm just not understanding the HARD push for inclusion. Hey, with 150 employees, they are only one "disturbed/disgruntled worker with an AK" away from a permanent and VERY notable article (and if that ever occurs, I will be sure and note that it is minority owned - LOL). I also said that I would write the damn thing if they just sent me something notable. It just burns me on that Fortune Magazine reference. I was in total agreement with you for inclusion with that reference, then when I found the truth, I smelled fish. Dougieb 00:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: This is my final comment regarding the Corporate Creations article. The Fortune article was mentioned at the company's Press page, then listed by me along with many other articles. The apparent focus on press coverage as a factor of notability is naive because most press coverage is influenced by publicists. The real issue is whether Corporate Creations provides services for major companies. That fact is easily confirmed by reviewing the Raves page of Corporate Creations and confirming those claims at state sites. Dougieb's sarcasm seems to dominate his comments. Maybe he needs some T&A to soften his edge. Truthandaccuracy 12:10 am, 6 June 2007.
  • Comment. Having some form of media coverage from a reliable source is one way to establish notability, but not the only one. It's just typically the easiest and most clearcut way to do it for a company. I'm sure there are hundreds upon hundreds of tiny little niche companies that happen to do services for much larger ones...that doesn't make them notable IMHO. It's not too far down that line of thought to say that a sandwich guy is notable because he sells food in the lunchroom of a big company...like the one in my company's lunchroom...ok, now I'm hungry. Now, if it has gained widespread attention in the public eye (let's say the sandwich guy got angry one day and wiped his rear with the sandwiches and it got exposed in the news...just as an example:-P), then that's probably notable. This big huge companies usually have to publically disclose who they contract for things, especially legal services. This amounts to a trivial listing...no one is going out of there way to make note of a topic they aren't affiliated with. I hope that made some form of sense...I'm getting some food before I pass out. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 04:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. First, I am ALWAYS down for some T&A to take off the edge - ESPECIALLY Florida T&A which I have enjoyed on many a spring break. Interesting sandwich analogy Cquan (lol). T&A, no offense intended - just joking around. Don't take any of my sarcasm seriously - just trying to have fun. Unfortunately, using the "Raves" page of Corporate Creations just isn't a reliable 3rd party source. As for then confirming those claims at state sites, this unfortunately was already argued constitutes original research - and this exact same paradigm was already discounted in the Registered Agents article as a reference. I argued FOR this, so I back you on this 100% and you're preaching to the choir. I absolutely agree with you that state online databases should be allowed as a reference. I just think that from the article as it sits now, it's like, "ABC Co. is owned by this guy - and this guy did this stuff." So... the article IMHO should be on the guy, then mention that he founded this company rather than an article about the company talking about the guy. My offer to do an article on the company still stands if I can get some notability. The Office Depot thing is a big deal. I had no idea that any Fortune 500 company - or 1,000 company for that matter was represented outside the Big Four. If this article stands as-is, that opens the door to "Clem's Agent Services" (SC) on the grounds that Clem is transgendered and gives money to charity. Dougieb 08:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless independent sources can be found. I only found the fortune article mentioed above and was rather confused by it as well for a moment. Moreover, the article contained three links to search screens of state datbases, that I removed since I would consider this as an inivitation to do original reasearch about which corporation has which registered agent. Tikiwont 09:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. In defense of Jimsfins and T&A, I personally have no problem with links to search screens of state databases since they generally do not accept URLs with parameters for reference purposes (and the SOS databases are the most current source of information and don't require more than putting in a name to get the information which I think is grey area for "original research" policy). No disrepect or offense meant to Tiki though who I've butted heads with often, but respect. The Fortune article however was a complete shill piece and really annoyed me since I was fooled by it as well. Dougieb 09:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete on grounds of non-notability; the company's site does not provide any financial information (such as 10k filings), and since it is a private, rather than a stock exchange listed company, it is probable that the company's income and assets are relatively insignificant. --Gavin Collins 11:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - possible hoax, probable nonsense, certainly not encyclopedic. Dweller 13:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haza

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

Appears to be a hoax. I find no such reference in a Google search. The claims are specious and there is no verification via reliable sources. JodyB _talk 22:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this - possibly use as redirect to Ofra Haza? Grutness...wha? 01:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete cough (bullshit) cough cough ~ Infrangible 02:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unimaginative hoax Bigdaddy1981 05:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 17:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Tree Full of Secrets

A Tree Full of Secrets (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Subject of this article is an unverifiable and unnotable collection of bootleg recordings (i.e.: not released by the band) and the whole article is basically OR. Fails WP:MUSIC. The band that recorded them is notable, the songs themselves are perhaps notable, but a random bootleg collection of these songs is NOT notable and impossible to verify. All of the songs are available on a wide array of other bootlegs. Please discuss notability of the subject, not the individual songs as they are irrelevant to establishing whether this bootleg collection is verifiable and notable. The Parsnip! 16:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep I've heard of it and seen it used as a source in numerous articles about Syd Barrett, Bob Klose, etc. 18,700 GHits. Notable collection. - Richfife 20:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment You may have heard of it, but can you provide non-trivial independent sources? Simply saying you've heard of it is WP:OR. It's not even made up of CDs but CD-Roms. Not trying to take a tone here, just trying to make a point. The Parsnip! 02:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not because it's a bootleg, but because it's a CD-R (with .nfo files, it sounds more like a torrent). And because the article is little more than a track listing. Closenplay 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 23:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and here's why: Even if the bootleg were notable (i.e., if it deserved a mention on pages related to the band), this particular article merely replicates wholesale a very long track-list that is of no interest beyond the Pink Floyd collectors community. What's more, it's already available elsewhere; reproducing it on Wikipedia only draws on unverified original research. Get rid of it! BotleySmith 13:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted at author's request --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 05:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heeshem

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

Deleted a few days ago, recreated with different text, so not eligible under G4 - but then I attempted under CSD A7. A user deleted the CSD template, so I'm calling it contested, if not incorrectly. As near as I can tell, there is no notability for this company, and a Google search for this company turns up nothing that points to such an existence. Given circumstances and despite my opinion that this company is not notable, I am calling this procedural and am accordingly abstaining from !voting. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It's sourced and notable enough. The aim is to build an encyclopedia not delete everything from it. Xanucia 22:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The company's sole claim to notability is that it intends to market some products. DGG 23:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Know what, it's a relativly small company and they are probably going to fail in the near future. I don't really care actually when it gets to be a big company I'll put it back in. So since I'm the creator of it, just delete it. --New York Warrior 99 00:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC) — New York Warrior 99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Wow. Same tone as the previous AfD. Upgrade to Speedy Delete and Salt. G7 is as good as any reason to get rid of it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the AfD on the main article. Sr13 20:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slobodan B. Iwanief

Slobodan B. Iwanief (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Suspected hoax, Google only returns Wikipedia result DuncanHill 22:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_5#Armenian_Court_of_Administrative_Appeals which is the alleged court in which this alleged person allegedly works. DuncanHill 22:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I suggest AfD rather than speedy, in the hope that someone can find some actual source or something to confirm it's a hoax so we can prevent re-creation. Personally, I find the cited books particularly unlikely, and also the photo in an earlier version of the article.[8] DGG 23:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Seems very likely to be a hoax. Lurker 10:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - this article should stand and fall with the decision on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_5#Armenian_Court_of_Administrative_Appeals. The biography is distinctly thin in what he did and where he worked while allegedly in the USA. Peterkingiron 23:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Sublime covered songs

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

Delete - it is not notable that one artist simply sang a song of another artist. If a particular recorded cover is notable, then it should be mentioned in an article for the song and/or a discography for the recording artist. Otto4711 22:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Looks like WP:LISTCRUFT to me. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 22:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 22:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per precedent. If a band covering a song is notable, include it in the articles for the band and the song. Resolute 23:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I created the page in question. The reason I did this was to clean up the main Sublime (band) page. The way I found it was disorderly and I thought separating that information from the main page would make sense. I don't really care much for it, I was just moving someone's hard work somewhere else. -Indolences 07:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holmegammage

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

This town appears to be a hoax, judging by the lack of ghits for it: [9] and the fact Multimap.com does not find it either:[10]. There are no sources cited, and the major English place-name books, including A.D. Mills Dictionary of English Place-Names and also Eilert Ekwall's book on the subject, do not seem to have anything on it, and neither do any of the other books/material on English place-names. Unless sources can be found for this, I think it should probably be deleted per Wikipedia:Don't create hoaxes. --SunStar Net ^talk 20:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• delete Hoax. Senordingdong 22:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per WP:HOAX, and if it is not a hoax then WP:VERI. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 22:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it's either a hoax, or impossible to very. In either case, deletion is the proper course of action. --Haemo 22:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No such place. ~ Infrangible 02:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 21:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ray Navarrete

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

Non-notable subject. This player was a minor league player who now plays in the Atlantic League of Professional Baseball, an independent league. Fbdave 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• delete, as mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Price. Gimmetrow 21:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Insufficient sourcing. I will reconsider if you can show me better sources. W.marsh 22:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horror Incorporated

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

Questionable Notability: A local low budget TV show, shown after midnight (infer small audiences) with a non-notable cast. Senordingdong 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I agree, it does appear to fail WP:N. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 22:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's real and a TV show. Stop trying to delete everything from Wikipedia. Let's build this encyclopedia not delete it. Xanucia 23:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP I have definitely heard of the show. It is real, and it was on television. What does it matter that it was on late?WacoJacko 06:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Award appears to meet the brick of WP:PORNBIO. (nonadmin) Navou 17:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Olivia Saint

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

The current version contains no assertion of notability (say by WP:PORNBIO), thus the article qualifies for deletion. Fresh 20:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete While Ass Cream Pies may be an epic story worthy of numerous Oscar nominations, she's still not notable enough per WP:PORNBIO. Wildthing61476 21:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Good one.--Fresh 21:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable porn actress in one named film not keepable. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• delete. This person fails the notability standard, that much is obvious. Firestorm 21:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - is this a joke? Her style, originality, timing and mood show a remarkable sense of presence and dynamic self expression. - in the film Ass Cream Pies?! Really? Non-notable! --Haemo 22:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree. It does fail WP:PORNBIO. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 22:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tabercil 22:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 22:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment She won a 2002 XRCO award for Unsung Siren. Epbr123 22:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep 245 films is notable enough for me. And will keep me occupied for a while. Xanucia 23:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as notable per WP:PORNBIO: XRCO award winner. Tabercil 04:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep winning an award means satisfying the notability criteria. -- fdewaele, 8 June 2007, 16:18.
• Keep per XRCO award. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 08:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs about eating disorders

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

More random listcruft. If we kept lists like this we would have lists like List of songs about water or List of songs about night. Tim Q. Wells 20:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This list gives me a stomach ache. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, same notability and reliable source concerns as all the other "List of songs about..." articles. However, I'm going to create an article List of songs about dental floss with the sole entry of Montana (Frank Zappa song). --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Nope You missed "27 Yards of Dental Floss" by Ry Cooder! —Gaff ^ταλκ 23:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --JayJasper 21:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:IINFO, and WP:LISTCRUFT. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 22:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 22:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Lists are what make Wikipedia great. Xanucia 23:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure, if they don't violate WP:LIST. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or to transfer to a new related category.--JForget 02:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Kind of arbitrary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. "Songs about x" lists are generally quite hard to verify. Lyrics can be interpreted in several ways, and it's not always known what the writer had in mind. Furthermore, this just seems to be arbitrary, per the tiger above. (Strange, we've got a tiger voting, and now an otter voting too... nice to see that more than one species is represented on Wikipedia!) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Promise (Chi Rho album)

The Promise (Chi Rho album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nn album by nn band. Corvus cornix 20:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Appears not a notable album by a long stretch. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• delete. Doesn't seem notable at all. Firestorm 21:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John Vandenberg 19:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse 3 sign

Reverse 3 sign (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Originally {{prod}}ed as non-notable non-standard medical term. Still appears non-notable, and I've run across other uses of the term in radiological diagnosis. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge info into Aortic coarctation and turn this page into a redirect to Aortic coarctation. It may be non-standard from a literature standpoint, but this term is used (at least I have run into it). I can easily imagine some medical student searching google for "Reverse 3 sign," after hearing it on rounds. It would be a good thing if they could find it on Wikipedia! —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Go ahead. I'll withdraw the nomination if a reputable editor merges it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect per Gaff. Could be useful to have a redirect, but an entire article is unnecessary.Firestorm 21:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'm fine with that. I was considering adding it to a larger article talking about 'shorthand jargon of radiology' but if you'd like to merge it that's fine. I will be more cautious in the future. Chantoke 23:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Withdrawn as merged (even though the AfD notice shouldn't have been deleted). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 03:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prakash Vir Shastri Avenue

Non-notable street. Just because the person it was named after is notable and it has a notable landmark, does not make the street, itself notable. No source presented has more than a passing mention of the street. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Jesus do some people have nothing better to do that search Wikipedia for things they think are non-notable? It's notable. Stop trying to ruin Wikipedia by deleting everything. Xanucia 23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The references do mention the street's name. I am unsure of how to get you to stop haranguing about this other than translating the Hindi to English for you, which I just don't think is practical. Chantoke 23:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to meet WP:50k comfortably. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears to be New Delhi's equivalent of one of the List of state-named roadways in Washington, D.C.. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - So I guess the Pennsylvania Avenue article should be deleted because it's just named after a state and has a couple of landmarks on it (including the address of a president of a country with a smaller popolation than India) like this street does. This is deletionism gone array. --Oakshade 17:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - When I nominated it, the sources did not name the street. Perhaps the Hindi sources do, now, but I can't tell. The English-language sources still do not, except for those mentioning the name change. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, as merged. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voice-to-note

Voice-to-note (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Appears to be used with this definition only in a few sources, including the reference. It may have other meanings. {{prod}} removed by article creator and sole editor. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

my apologies. was looking for your argument on the article itself's discussion page. i agree with merging it into a main article like Voice recording or whatever if such exists. Do not think it should be deleted. Chantoke 23:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glen Watts

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

unsourced apparent vanity page, non-notable Smerus 20:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Per Smerus--Fresh 21:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not quite speedy, as vanity isn't a speedy criterion. Firestorm 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The bands he supposedly wrote songs for peaked in popularity before this kid got out of kindergarten. ~ Infrangible 02:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Hoax article created by someone with a penchant for vandalism.Closenplay 02:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 09:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Kindl

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

Vanity page, not encyclopedic, and not notable EvilOverlordX 20:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per CSD A7. Why is this here? --Finngall ^talk 20:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete A7 as well, if this wasn't already here i'd SD it right out. Firestorm 21:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete OK I agree this one certainly is non-notable. Xanucia 23:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Five Wei Generals

Five Wei Generals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A term that's not historically used contemporaily, introduced by the novelilst Luo Guanzhong in his Romance of the Three Kingdoms that's not really independently significant. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• I am also proposing the deletion of Five Tiger Generals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for the same reason, although here my opinion of delete is weaker in that the term is somewhat more commonly used. --Nlu (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 20:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Five Tiger Generals because of its famousness, although it is strictly from novel. We can also merge the Five Wei Generals into Five Tiger Generals like with zh:五虎将 and make the article a discussion of the concept in the Chinese arts. _dk 21:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep What does contemporary usage have to do with it? it's an historical term used for a major set of characters in an extremely important historical novel. DGG 00:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • When I said "contemporary usage," I meant contemporary to the time of the characters -- during the Three Kingdoms period and the following dynasty, Jin. Effectively, they're terms invented over a thousand years later that don't really make sense historically. --Nlu (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Keep Notable element of ROTK. Ling.Nut 11:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep These articles serve as the only descriptive piece of information relating to the terms "Five Tiger General" and "Five Wei General". Reading through an officer's ROTK description and learning that such-and-such officer was a member of the Five Tiger Generals merely adds more questions if there is no article explaining the meaning of such a title. Gamer Junkie 20:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Sr13 02:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 UEFA qualifier fan attack

2008 UEFA qualifier fan attack (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Page not really needed as it is not a major part of the qualifying, it has its own section of the main article anyway Chaza93 19:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is the biggest scandal in Danish football ever, and is too large and complicated to be a section. kalaha 19:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Plenty of reliable sources covering this, a rather unusual incident that is perhaps more important than the qualification matches it occurred during. Definitely deserves a separate article. JulesH 20:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: It's probaly the biggest scandal in Scandinavian football as long as anybody remembers. Though it needs to improved and I don't think the current title is ideal.--Bagande 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think it should be moved to a general article about the match such as some of those Category:Football (soccer) matches. The name would then be Denmark v Sweden (2007). --Bagande 20:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, recentism. Jon Harald Søby 20:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • To clarify, I feel the subject should be covered, but does not merit an article in its own rights; so it should be merged into whatever article is appropriate. Jon Harald Søby 21:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Since you were kind enough to inform me that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it would also be helpful if you could tell us what article is the "whatever article". I'm not sure the parent article could swallow this article. Odengatan 22:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• CommentI think it is too early to say whether or not this incident will gain a lot of attention in the media. However, this incident has the potential to change many laws concerning stadium safety and may even prevent a nation from qualifying for the European Championships, which is something that has on international level never been seen before. It is a fact that this incident has received a lot of media attention in many parts of the world. It will be a very emotional issue between the sets of supporters, which in turn has the potential to go on for a long time. I do reiterate that I definetly believe that it is way too early to delete the page as the incident has just occured a couple of days ago. Wwicki 15:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • European Championships, not World Cup..... ChrisTheDude 15:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a major sporting scandal and deserves a separate article. Camptown 21:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 21:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - a major incident. ArtVandelay13 21:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - major event in European football and the greatest danish sports scandal in years. -- Imladros 22:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki to WikiNews - While this incident may be newsworthy, I'm not sure it is encyclopedically notable. There's also a hint of recentism, as Jon Harald Søby indicates. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It is technically notable as it has been covered by muliple, non trivial sources, but then again, any random player scoring a goal in the UEFA tournament will also have multiple articles written about it. Not sure that anyone would keep 2007 David Beckham goal around. This is a severe case of recentism, and I'm not convinced that it needs its own article. This is already adequately covered in Denmark national football team season 2007 (and incidents like this are one of the reasons why I personally favour team season articles, it affords a good place to put these incidents), and deserves a mention on List of violent spectator incidents in sports. Resolute 23:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This was a major incident that received a lot of coverage and which could have a big affect as to which countries qualify for the European Championship because of the actions of one fan. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect I attempted to start a merge discussion on this article, but the merge tag was quickly removed twice. While it is not noteworthy to stand on its own article. It's certainly worth a mention in the parent article. --Monotonehell 10:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect per Monotonehell, and also per points raised by Resolute - also ambiguous title. Comment: Which fan attack, as it won't be or hasn't been the only one? If it is Kept, it should specify further in some way. Why not "2008 UEFA qualifier Danish fan attack"? However, I would go with Montonehell. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since it happened in 2007 I think it is unfortunate to have 2008 as part of its title. --Bagande 13:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Wow... "it was never a big story in England, so it obviously wasn't major news" Has the IRC gone totally crazy...? Sorry... ;) --Camptown 10:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - I am also from England. It barely scratches the surface as a newsworthy item here. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Is that so... then, we'd better keep it! ;) Camptown 11:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - When i said it wasn't heard about in England, i meant that if it was such a major incident, it would have been heard about over all of europe. Jack Milne – 12:06, 6 June 2007 (Talk — Contributions)
      • Comment #2 - After some discussion with Camptown, i think we should wait for UEFA's decission. Jackrm 12:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (Talk — Contributions)
• Transwiki as per Aecis --OZOO (vote saxon) 13:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect or alternatively transwiki. Relevant only within the UEFA Euro 2008 qualifications, not a major event (if you look at the whole set of Italian football leagues, you can find events like these in a monthly basis), no need for a standalone article. --Angelo 13:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah... in Italy matches are frequently rigged, managers sent to jail and stadiums are closed to the fans. But, frankly, does it often occur that international soccer championship matches are suspended because the referee has been assaulted by a spectator, affecting as to which countries qualify in the international championship, and the national stadium being considered for down-grading? I'm asking, because I'm not a soccer pundit, yet still surprized that this shouldn't qulify as a notable event! --Camptown 14:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I am not against talking about the event, however I don't think we should make it as a standalone article about a single attempted (and failed) attack to a football referee. Events like these are unfortunately more frequent than you can believe, they even implicitly assigned a "scudetto" to Napoli over ten years ago (look around the web for the Alemao coin throwing incident). I might tell you of what a friend of mine told about a Serie D football match in which a linesman was hit by a drum thrown by a single fan who allegedly shouted "it was me!" following the event and justified himself by saying "the linesman was clearly bribed". But the question is: would you recall the event as so important in the next five years? I think no. --Angelo 17:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment With all due respect, an incident in a Serie D match is not much of a comparison. It's the fact that this incident happened in such a major game that makes it noteworthy. A match of this importance has never before been suspended because of a spectator attacking the referee. To make another bad comparison. There's a lenghty article on the travels of Pope John Paul II. You could say that a lot of people travel from Italy, but that would be missing the point. The news here is not primarily the attack, it's the consequences it had on an official UEFA qualifier being suspended for the first time ever. JdeJ 18:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment In fact I am not asking to delete the article, but to merge it into either UEFA Euro 2008 or 2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying. As you stated, the event is encyclopedic solely due to the context in which it happened, so there's no trouble in merging it into the main "context" article. --Angelo 19:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment. But, then 2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying would be too long - and subsequently have to split. Bondkaka 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Comment. I do not think that we shoudl merge this article if this means decreasing th length and the depth. I doubt that we'll be able to merge it because it will probably make up most off the new article. It would be far more productive if we create a separate paragraph on the article of the 2008 European Championship Qualifications. Then we should link it to this article here, which goes on in greater depth about the incident. Wwicki 07:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Comment. The thing is that it is relevant outside of the UEFA Euro 2008 qualifications. It is very likely that it will lead to news laws and/or regulations being implemented in Denmark and possibly also in Sweden/Norway. It will probably lead to a significant loss of revenue for the Danish FA and Parken Sport & Entertainment (owners of the Parken Stadium), who will then try to hold the fan liable. Furthermore it is likely that it will lead to a trial on the violent behavior of Christian Poulsen, which would then set a precedent. etc. etc.--Bagande 12:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is a major event in Sweden were I come from, and also in Denmark. Keep the page, 'cause this will be a thing people will talk about for a long, long time. This is so much bigger than just an ordinary football game with some gruffing. --193.13.131.253 14:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time an UEFA game has been suspended (and not started again) because of supporter violence. Being the first such incident, it will influence how similar incidents in the future will be judged. Not being an ordinary incident but instead the first of its kind in an important game, the article should be kept. JdeJ 14:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Off-topic: afaik something similar happened about 20 years ago, during a qualifier between the Netherlands and Cyprus. That particular game had to be replayed without spectators. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Similar yes, but I understand that match was unique as it was abandoned (and not played again later). And hopefully, UEFA will develop further why the referee took that decision. Camptown 21:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons well-stated by JdeJ. NawlinWiki 14:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Important news. The article is a worthy candidat for WP:ITN; and as such should not be deleted or merged. Odengatan 17:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopædia, not a newspaper. Jon Harald Søby 21:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Does that imply that the article must be deleted? Odengatan 21:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • True, it's an encyclopedia. That doesn't imply that we always have to wait a year to create an article on significant events, there are recent articles on a number of subjects - including elections, recent crimes, wars and sporting events. This is one of the latter. As the event is notable in itself, for reasons I've already stated, I see no reason to delete the article now only to recreate it in five months. JdeJ 22:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - i've changed my mind. important and major incident in the qualifying. Maybe name change etc. Jackrm 21:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Afther the match there were supposed to be news for about an hour after, butt they decided to skip it and make a discussion about the nights event. (I am from denmark) --86.52.60.83 22:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It was a major scandal in Denmark. In particular since Danish sports has prided itself of trying to avoid hooliganism, so it is a bleak point in the history of Danish football. Valentinian ^{T / C} 10:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Euro 2008 qualifying. Starfighter Pilot 10:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Major UEFA scandal. It's not that often that a fan in any sport is able to run onto a field and attack a participant, particularly not a game of this importance. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 11:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Changed mind --OZOO (vote saxon) 11:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Major footballing incident (unprecedented in Euro qualifiers?) the result of which will affect multiple nations qualifying hopes (Denmark, Northern Ireland, Spain & Sweden). Ambiguous title though. 192.193.245.14 11:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Unprecedented incident that bring interesting consequences. Merger doesn't seem to be a realistic option as the parent article alreay is quite extensive. Bondkaka 13:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the infobox looks like it was a terror attack --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I can't improve on any of the rationales I've seen, so I won't try. — Dale Arnett 15:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Now that I've thought of it, another reason that I don't think anyone has mentioned for this being such a big deal is because the Denmark national team's traveling fanbase has until now been world-renowned for its friendliness and aversion to hooliganism. — Dale Arnett 22:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A very big scandal, because people often say it can't happen when Nordic countries play each other because of the "good" relations between Nordic countries. / Johan1982 22.21 7 June 2007 (CEST)

• Keep as per all the above reasons. It holds a lot of information and I see absolutely no reason why it should be lost. Especially from today when speculation can soon stop as UEFA will announce their verdict (probably a Danish 3-0 defeat). It should be mentioned in the parent article, but with a main article tag linking to this page (as it is, indeed, highly unlikely that anyone will find it on its own). It could be renamed, of course, but I honestly can't think to what.Lilac Soul 05:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Is this really the best title for this article? Robotforaday 15:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment No. --Bagande 19:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - This is a HUGE news story here in Denmark and should be given its own page as it is a big issue for both Danish and Swedish football and is a bit too big and complex to be a small sction on the main qualifiers page. It is not just a football game with a couple of red cards and scuffles, it forced the game to be abandoned and could have huge repurcussions for Denmark. --Liverpoolstarlette 14:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This has made the television and print news across Europe from what I can see, certainly as far away as Britain and Ireland. Although I am from neither Denmark or Sweden, I would think that such a story would cause a national scandal if it happened in my native country. But I agree that perhaps the title could be altered? --Candlewicke Consortiums Limited 15:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep, we have the Pacers-Pistons brawl (although that was much, much, sicker) and even the not-so-sick Knicks-Nuggets brawl. Wait for a year and re-nominate if this will become irrelevant by that time. --Howard the Duck 16:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• KeepWith the strict verdict from UEFA, today, I see this as an important article. Hjorten 16:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Sorry, totally irrelevant data. A fan goes nuts in minute 89 of a soccer match. The UEFA decides that the match will be counted as 3:0 for Sweden. So where's the news? Events like that are not unusual. Do we have an article about Turkey - Switzerland at the WC qualifying? The note The abandoned match between Denmark and Sweden was a 3-0 win awarded to Sweden, after UEFA's hearing on 8 June 2007. at 2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying#Group G is all what is worthy to note. --213.155.224.232 18:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry, but that's nonsense. 'Event like that are not unusual'? It's the first time ever it has happened in the history of UEFA, and it was a major sport news across Europe. JdeJ 01:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment It might be totally irrelevant to you (the anonymous user 213.155.224.232), but that does not mean it is totally irrelevant as evidenced by the majority of votes being to keep the article. Also, "Events like that are not unusual." - sorry but that is completely untrue. It is not a common occurende for a football match to be abandoned because the referee was attacked and for the game to be awarded 3-0 to one team even though the score was at the time a 3-3 draw. This was very unusual, and also as has been said, a huge event in Danish football history especially bearing in mind their normally peaceful fans (Roligans) and a huge footballing event around Europe. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 01:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 no sources ever materialized W.marsh 17:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Air Prishtina

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

As pointed out on the talk page and confirmed by the company's website (in German), this is not an airline, but a travel agency. It does not operate aircraft, it charters them. No apparent notability under WP:CORP and no sources, either. Sandstein 19:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete in accordance with nomination. The company operates no aircraft, holds no licences. All flights are subcontracted out to XL Airways and Edelweiss Air and operated under their codes, aircraft, etc. It is basically a booking service only. --Russavia 03:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a new airline, just starting up in a place that isn't even its own country yet. It certainly has aircraft (see http://www.airplanephotos.de/Photogallery/A-319_321/0211_2.jpg). It operates them under other airline's Air Operating Certficates and codes until it gets its own. This is a new airline and should have a page like any other new or proposed airline. Harry was a white dog with black spots 08:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• According to this discussion, the pictured airbus HB-IJZ was painted with the "Air Prishtina" livery for a few months in 2004, but the charter deal was apparently cancelled and the airbus now flies under the colours of another company. Sandstein 08:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is for political reasons. The Serbian authorities will not allow Air Pristina to operate under its own AOC, and they are the aviation authorities in Kosovo at the moment. Until that changes, Air Pristina is forced to operate as it does. Rather than deleting the article, it should be expanded to reflect these political realities.

Well, yes, but it's still not an airline, it's a charter company. The article suggests otherwise. At any rate, per WP:CORP, we would need substantial coverage in independent reliabel sources for notability. The article has no sources at all, which is also a WP:V problem. Sandstein 11:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It may be a new 'company' but an airline does not make it. Not even a start-up airline. It is what is commonly known as a paper airline, in that it operates no aircraft (even if they are painted in its livery), they have no crews, they have no AOC, they are not recognised by the ICAO/IATA in that they have no codes of their own. They are no different from Kosova Airlines (that was another paper airline which was operated by Hamburg International). I would stand by my delete stance, although it could be mentioned on Edelweiss Air and XL Airways (German) website that operations are undertaken to Pristina under the Air Prishtina name on behalf of the tour operator. --Russavia 13:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The question is, would they be operating as a normal airline without the political interference from Belgrade? The answer is clearly "yes", as they have tried to operate under their own banner in the past. Therefore they deserve a page with an explanation of why they are not able to operate normally. Serbian politics should not be a factor as to whether they have a page or not. Harry was a white dog with black spots 13:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Serbian politics, no. Notability, yes. I see no independent reliable sources that mention this company, and WP:CORP (and WP:V) require them. Sandstein 14:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if that were true, they clearly existed in the past, given the photos of planes in their livery. Therefore they deserve a page for historical reasons if nothing else, despite the fact that they do continue to operate as best they can given the political climate, and will emerge as a "proper" airline again when they are allowed to do so. It is all about Serbian politics. Harry was a white dog with black spots 15:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you are able the read german. This is the presentation of Air Prishtina (directly from the website): <copyright violation removed, please use a link>. And here is the "Timetable" (directly from the website): <copyright violation removed, please use a link>. So delete this page!HAJ 13:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.14.178.73 (talk • contribs)

Yes, I can read German. I also know a bit about the history of this airline and the political climate it operates under. The fact is, they did try to operate as an airline (evidence in the photo above). For that reason alone, they deserve an entry as a historical airline. The fact that they are being forced to operate using partner airlines for now because of political interference is also noteworthy. By all means, rewrite the page to reflect the current reality, but don't delete it, and don't vandalise other pages using multiple IP addresses. Harry was a white dog with black spots 12:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• weak keep: I won't make a judgement if this is technically an airline (the specifics need to be discussed in the article of course), but it seems to pass our notability threshold, already precisely because of the political ramifications. At best merge into Economy of Kosovo as a fair attempt to operate a "Kosovo Airline" in spite of the unsettled international status of the region. dab (𒁳) 11:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is an airline! If you translate the German verion of the wesite it will tell you that they have a fleet of 4 aircrafts and they have destinations! So that means that it is an airline that opperates in kosovo wich is a province in Serbia wich also mean that it is an airline in Serbia and NOT a charter company!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Euro.Serb (talk • contribs).

Where on the website does it say that they own 4 aircraft? Sandstein 13:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If it is an 'airline' of Serbia, then surely they have an air operators certificate issued by the Serbian authorities. Some evidence of this certificate needs to be presented to establish the assertion that it is an airline, and not merely a travel agency using a name to pass itself off as an airline. --Russavia 23:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This has been addressed. They set up as an airline, bought and painted planes to operate, but were then refused an AOC for political reasons. Rather than give up, they have continued operating using partner airlines until the situation in Kosovo changes, and Kosovans have self-determination to issue their own AOCs. Exposing these political machinations is a good enough reason to give Air Prishtina an entry as far as I am concerned. There have been lots of cases of Ailines using other companies AOCs to start up. Easyjet did it for example. Harry was a white dog with black spots 11:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The website says: Düsseldorf, Cologne, Munich and Stuttgart with XL Airways Germany and Zurich and Geneva with Edelweiss Air. The schedule consists of EDW (Edelweiss Air) and GXL (Star XL German Airlines) and some Germanwings and Air-Berlin flights! There is no information about a fleet! Air Prishtina is like Kosova Airlines, simply a tour operator who acts a bit like an airline to combine the several charter flights to an from Pristina! HAJ 15:23, 6 June 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.14.178.73 (talk • contribs)

Then I take it you mean to suggest to delete the article, not to keep it? Sandstein 14:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: This opinion now changed to "delete" by an anonymous editor. Sandstein 21:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've had I nice talk with one of Air Prishtina's employees. He makes very clear that Air Prishtina is certainly not an airline. Air Prishtine is a kind of tour operators, and it's aim is to combine the charter flights to and from Pristina on one single booking platform. He makes also clear that Air Prishtina has no plane, no licenses and that only XL Airways Germany, Edelweiss Air, Hello, Air-Berlin and Germanwings operate to Pristina and that they use the Air Prishtina booking platform! So, that was an information directly from Air Prishtina, that means: Delete the article! HAJ 21:11, 7 June 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.14.178.73 (talk • contribs)

Meaningless post by an anonymous serial page vandal. Please provide the name and contact details of the person you spoke to so that we can get independent confirmation. Please stop vandalising other pages until the matter is settled here. Harry was a white dog with black spots 12:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The question is, who is a vandal. I only correct wrong information, because Wikipedia is a worldwide Encyclopedia and the people should read correct information. You are the one who is a vandal, not me!!! Call the Air Prishtina headquarter, than you will see who is right. I am working in the tourism and air travel business, and Air Prishtina is well known here, so I know what I am talking about HAJ 19:46, 9 June 2007

It is vandalism because you are removing a link to a page you think shouldn't exist before that decision has been made, and doing so using a variety of anonymous IP addresses. If there is a consensus to remove the article, then reference to it can be removed from other pages. To remove it before then is vandalism. Harry was a white dog with black spots 20:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ashlea Evans

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

This is a procedural nom, since the original one was malformed. The original nomination was "Non noteable US reality star." I have no opinion, and abstain.Haemo 19:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per suggestions made during the third nomination. JulesH 20:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Game show contestants are not inherently notable. No assertion of notability. Resolute 23:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-winner, with no notable achievements since the show. Her achievements both on or off the show fall a long way short of the usual standards of wikipedia. The "keep" in the last AfD debate was because someone mistook the length of time since the AfD before, but didn't have the nerve to change his vote, which appeared to have influence others. A dearth of biographical detail, mostly from show PR, so not entirely reliable nor independent. No improvement in content of this stub since the last debate. This is a sorry article which may encourage defenders of undefendable pedestrian biographies to cite as reason to keep other similar bios, so it's about time someone pulled the plug on this one. Ohconfucius 09:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Prior AfD's on this sort of thing have come to the conclusion that appearance on a reality TV show on its own is not adequate for WP:Bio. Had this person won the show or done something notable since then there might be a case for keeping the article, but since niether is the case I hold that this person is not notable. A1octopus 18:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I could even see a case being made if the person was one of the final few contestants, but the first one out? No. Closenplay 03:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 21:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malti SuperStar

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

A simple search engine search results in only 1 completely matching result, and that is a forum topic. Hence it's not covered by reliable sources and does not meet WP:N, let alone really happened. Had it happened there should be an easy to reach newspaper article or something about it, but there is not. --Kylohk 18:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a hoax unless proof of this show existing is given before the end of this Afd. A1octopus 20:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no salting unless they are recreated again. Sr13 02:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Push Up on Me

Push Up on Me (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

All songs for Rihanna's newest album have been given articles which is completely unnessary. Aside from the first (current) single and already-confirmed second single, there is no reason whatsoever to have an article for each album track, especially as these pages have almost zero information. - eo 18:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't Stop the Music (Rihanna song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Breakin' Dishes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hate That I Love You (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Say It (Rihanna song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Sell Me Candy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Lemme Get That (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Rehab (Rihanna song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Question Existing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Good Girl Gone Bad (song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Comment - after nominating these, I've discovered that most of them were already deleted per AfD previously. Can we speedy delete and perhaps put a temporary block on their re-creation? - eo 18:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply - yes, there is a CSD criterion. I'll do so. --Haemo 18:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all - either speculation about being a possible single, or zero contexual information. Not all songs are notable. Encouraging salting "Hate That I Love You", which has been speedied and re-created several times. --Haemo 18:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect all to the album article until such time as the track becomes indivdually notable. Otto4711 22:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete all none are notable, and some have been recreated, as I nominated two of them for deletion: Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Hate That I Love You and Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Sell Me Candy. I encourage salting them all as well (though "Hate That I Love You" has already been salted). Acalamari 02:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Make fart noises ~ Infrangible 02:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Will the fart noises make the articles go away? - eo 11:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Nomination says it all, really. No need for an article on each song. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 15:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by means of uninanimous vote. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Society for Creative Anachronism

Society for Creative Anachronism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Currently fails WP:V and WP:N. Seems to be mostly original research and all provided sources are from the organization itself. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not reasons to keep an article that fails core policies. The Parsnip! 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Long-standing organization with lots and lots of news coverage. JavaTenor 18:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

COI disclosure: this user has never participated in an SCA event and thinks they're a little silly. :) JavaTenor 19:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Clearly notable international organization with widespread coverage, as JavaTenor points out. The article could stand to cite some relevant third-party sources; but deletion is unwarranted. Deor 18:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Why isn't any of the news coverage in the article? It needs to be included to satisfy WP:N and WP:V. The Parsnip! 18:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Very popular and notable organization. Could use some cleaning up but very easily qualifies for an article. Dipics 18:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per Deor. (Full COI disclosure: I'm a longtime member) --Finngall ^talk 18:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - extensively notable; AfD is for deletion, not clean-up. --Haemo 18:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. All speedy keep "votes" are based on OR! If sources exist, introduce them. The article fails core policies. As quoted from WP:V "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." See WP:V#Burden_of_evidence The Parsnip! 18:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It's been clearly shown that multiple reliable sources exist, and could be added. Tag it for clean-up, don't delete it on such a basis. --Haemo 19:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • What you quoted says "if an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources", not "if the article cites no RTPS…". Deor 19:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Exactly. If no sources exist, delete the article. If (as is the case here) a large number of sources exist, {{sofixit}}. JavaTenor 19:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Piling on per above. Easily verifiable and highly notable. Tag for cleanup and let's get busy doing same. This is the organization that keeps User:Finngall off the streets for goshsakes... (COI disclosure: sister and longtime friend of SCA members) Katr67 19:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep As above, as above, and as above (and disclosure: also a member). --Avery W. Krouse 19:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and close. A google search (yes, I know....) turns up 275,000+ results. These people have strong presences at various rennaisance faires throughout the world, let alone the US of A, is VERY well known within the reenactment communities (amongst a few others). I smell a WP:POINT, but I don't know what it is. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • COI disclosure: I'm not a member, I just like the costumes. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 21:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MadROM

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

Contested prod. Article appears to make no assertion of notability or of reliable sources discussing this MUD. JavaTenor 18:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No assertions of notability, nor could any sources be found which might qualify this for inclusion. Aside from two edits by User:Dflax@yahoo.com and the original IP editor (both of which have a combined total of less than ten edits), all edits to the page have been automated or procedural clean up edits. As far as I can tell, it also meets the CSD categories for G11 (Blatant Advertising), A7 (Unremarkable web content). Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 15:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• delete. No assertion of notability. - Nabla 13:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide song

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

The subject does not seem to be notable, or infamous for anything, and I could find no sources for it. Of course there will be some songs about suicide just as there will be some songs about grief and we don't have Grief song. Tim Q. Wells 18:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The article text can be boiled down to: A suicide song is a song about suicide. Here's two that pop into mind. - Richfife 18:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Delete - "A suicide song is a song about suicide. Here's two that pop into mind. They should also be deleted." --Haemo 22:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable subject, lack of citations, also strikes me as a touch dic-def'y for a self-explanatory phrase. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 15:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The List of songs about suicide is up for deletion too, and it has the advantages of the list as well as the definitions here. IL-Kuma 01:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 22:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua Gardner

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

An article on an utterly unnotable news story which was only kept because of the pointless Wikipedia navel gazing that happens on here, the same applies to the Essjay asininity. - hahnchen 18:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, the nominator is completely correct here - this guy isn't notable in any way, there are thousands of criminals out there and they're frankly not important enough to have an article. 86.137.121.170 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Wicked-strong delete, hundreds of people misrepresent themselves AND hundreds of sick people molest teens. I say that this be deleted immediately. JONJONBT^{Talk to me!} 18:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Given the previous "keep" result, doing this would probably open up a hurricane of piss. - hahnchen 18:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• keep as essjay does not state which specific criteria this fails. also, hurricane of piss is probably the funniest thing i've heard in a really really long time. Barsportsunlimited 18:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't see any reason to delete this, given the presence of several reliable sources... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A bit light on importance, but the international media coverage indicates notability. --Dhartung | Talk 19:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• keep though possible remove some details. He was 18 at the time of the sex offense, and 22 at the time of the imposture, so he is not a minor. DGG 01:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the subject is a notable part of Wikipedia history and has been covered by multiple non-trivial reliable sources. bbx 09:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep subject of a scandal that recieved heavy media coverage.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and move into a section with Wikipedia related articles (if we have something like that). It's a great example of the abuse of Wikipedia, which can teach a valuable lesson to editors. It is notable in this regard, but may be not outside the context of Wikipedia. I was participating in debates with others though, where the issue of people not double checking for themselves and believing what they read, at Wikipedia and elsewhere was a big part of the discussion. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 20:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TENNIS Magazine's 40 Greatest Players of the TENNIS Era

TENNIS Magazine's 40 Greatest Players of the TENNIS Era (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indescriminate list of things. This information, in and of itself, is not worth its own article on Wikipedia. The Evil Spartan 17:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also might be a copyvio, btw. Tempshill 17:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this is a copyright violation. 86.137.121.170 18:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete A list is not a copyright violation, but a report of what was in the magazine, unless we also use their formatting and other text. But I don't see the point, given that we have articles on all of them; if it is worthwhile, a category would be better DGG 01:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, this most definitely is a copyright violation, as it is merely a repetition of the magazine's intellectual property. The production of the list was based solely on the opinions of the individuals involved in creating the list, it is not a factual list, but a compendium of opinion. Corvus cornix 01:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Copyright violation. ---CWY2190^TC 03:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Whether or not it's a copyvio - which despite a huge number of these types of articles appearing at AfD, no one has come up with a definitive answer for - it's not encyclopedic; one source's opinion on who or what is the "best" of something generally is not encyclopedic unless it's picked up in a bunch of other media, like Time's person of the year. Carlossuarez46 18:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Palmer (climatologist)

Paul Palmer (climatologist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is a bio of a semi-notable living person, and was blanked by the subject - see this edit from IP address 129.215.138.206. Note that that IP address corresponds to hostname elvis.geos.ed.ac.uk and that the subject has an official web page at http://xweb.geos.ed.ac.uk/~ppalmer/

I see that the relevant policy is inconclusive:

"When closing AfDs about semi-notable BLPs, the closing admin should take into account whether the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted. There is currently no consensus as to the weight that should be placed on the subject's wishes, so this is left to the discretion of the closing admin."

but I would suggest deletion. — Alan^✉ 17:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. Doesn't appear to be more notable than the average university professor. - Richfife 19:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Regardless of the subject's apparent opinion, there is no evidence of notability presented in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete it is appropriate to have the record for significant science workers , whether they are over-modest about it or not. He's a university lecturer, which is probably about midway between assistant professor and associate professor, and not necessarily notable . But he's written 32 peer-reviewed papers, and he citation counts for the highest at 72, 66, 62, h index=13. I can understand not keeping the article because of his apparent wishes--or was in just because the article placed him at Leeds and he's actually at Edinborough. I'd make a strong case if it had not appeared that he did not want to be included.DGG 01:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Doesn't help that the person who wrote the article can't spell Edinburgh. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fetish fetish

Is this worthy of a Wikipedia article? Voortle 16:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect back to Fetish as it was before. Wildthing61476 17:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources, stub, unlikely to ever grow into an article. Tempshill 17:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense or redirect back to Fetish. --Finngall ^talk 17:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Lack of any sources, create redirect back to main article. --Nehrams2020 18:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no sources for this phenomenon; no need for redirect, as it's confusing. The Evil Spartan 18:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No redirect. Sounds hoaxy, like the old joke about being charged a "Tax Tax". - Richfife 19:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NFT. Although I have heard that fetish fetish fetish fetish fetish fetish fetish fetish is a grammatically complete sentence.--Dhartung | Talk 20:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Little Caesar's private life is his own business. ~ Infrangible 02:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Whip whip back into obscurity obscurity. Might be worth a redirect to Fetish. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 15:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect; or dab with the movie. John Vandenberg 20:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] effophobia

Effophobia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

More of a discussion than an actual article. Voortle 16:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete neologism (er, protologism: Wiktionary:List_of_protologisms_by_topic#Fear_terms). JJL 17:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tempshill 17:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense and give the author an F in "Elementary Policies and Procedures" --Finngall ^talk 17:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per JJL, WP:OR, WP:NEO, WP:V, and WP:IINFO. I think the author gets an 'F' for violations of those policies and guidelines. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 22:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment By their contributions, the author appears to be a prolific prankster ~ Infrangible 02:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; already listed in Wiktionary.[11]. John Vandenberg 20:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Per Cool Blue (first sentence only). And let's assume good faith and not attack the creator pleeeeease. --Horncomposer 09:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonsense. Sr13 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fart detector

Fart detector (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Sounds like a hoax to me. Voortle 16:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• delete, nonsense article Lurker 16:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fart alarm is your friend. Uncle G 16:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as nonsense. JJL 17:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and disinfect as nonsense. --Finngall ^talk 17:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Tempshill 17:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 21:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael J. Devlin

Michael J. Devlin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Run of the mill kidnapper and pedophile. This one is famous because the producers of CNN, MSNBC and FoxNews thought the story would get good ratings, which it did. However, there are many thousands of pedophiles, and Wikipedia is neither a newspaper nor a registry of perverts. If this article is kept, it will be an endorsement of allowing Wikipedia content to be determined by the journalistic "ethics" (and I use the term loosely) and drive for ratings of people like Nancy Grace, Greta Van Sustern and Geraldo Rivera. Who's company do you want to keep? Thatcher131 16:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Wikipedia's rules on notability are that if a subject is covered by reliable sources, which the three cited by the nominator are, despite any bias they may have, then there is no reason not to have an article on it. While I personally think this is too liberal in the case of crime articles (cf my comments on the recent flood of nominations of British murder articles), the standard I would replace it with is that it should have been covered in depth by sources with national scope, which is clearly the case here. JulesH 16:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would suggest, however, that the article is restructured to be an article about the case, rather than a bio of the suspect. JulesH 16:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete : Notoriety most certainly does not equal notability. Crime is a fickle beast, reports focus on the crime, not the perpetrator or the victim other than to enhance their coverage on the crime. The present train of thought would have every pedophile, murderer and rapist included. The reliability of newspapers to cover such crimes reliably and impartially is also cast into doubt and such POV issues with the sources will obviously impact on our ability to cover the subject neutrally. This chap was clearly not notable before the crime and isn't notable after it. Nick 16:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Suggestion - I agree Wikipedia needs to move away from articles that use news reports as their sole sources. That is something that Wikinews already does and Wikipedia should not overlap as much as it does. Wikipedia needs to concentrate on a dispassionate, short, accurate statements on such matters. Our document on reliable sources needs to make clear that news sources are often NOT reliable, and often distort and misrepresent things. If we present just the news media viewpoint, NPOV is affected. Pointing out contradictory news reports is a possible improvement. Wikipedia coverage of events like the Virginia Tech massacre Hurricane Katrina, the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, and other topical news stories all suffer from recentism. Several years on from the latter two events, more reliable sources are slowly being used, and updates are being added, but when an existing article with an extensive edit history exists, there is an inertia against the extensive rewrites that are eventually needed. In cases like this, I suggest paring down the article to a stub, then watching to see if it improves. Carcharoth 17:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Quoting from Wikipedia:Recentism:

  • "Recentism is the tendency by Wikipedians to edit articles without regard to long-term historical perspective, or to create new articles which inflate the importance and effect of an issue that has received recent media attention. Established articles become skewed towards documenting controversy as it happens, new articles are created on arguably flimsy merits, and the relative emphasis on (more or less) timeless facets of a topic which Wikipedia consensus had previously established is often muddled. Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion—lack of attributability and notability are—but it may make it more difficult to judge whether notability actually exists. What is recent is close, and what is close is hard to gain perspective on. Recentism is thus a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has both positive and negative aspects, as discussed below. Allegations of recentism should prompt consideration of proportion, balance, and due weight. Material may need to be moved, removed, or added. Certain articles may need to be placed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for community consideration; conversely, new articles may need to be created to balance Wikipedia's coverage. Wikipedians are reminded that sometimes in-depth information on current events is more appropriately added to Wikinews."

  • Which seems to me to sum up how this article should be dealt with. Carcharoth 17:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect to an article about the kidnapping. This person doesn't seem particularly notable, though some valid arguments could be made that the kidnapping/event was notable. AniMate 19:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There doesn't seem to currently be such an article, but this article contains much of the information that would be necessary to create one. Hence my suggestion above to rename and restructure it. JulesH 19:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, this is an article about the kidnapping, and not really a bio. As such, it violates WIkipedia is not a newspaper, and also suffers from recentism, as Carcharoth points out. While this is also true of JonBenét Ramsey (a murder case article masquerading as a bio), JonBenét Ramsey has at least survived the test of time, and simply moving the article to a different title (JonBenét Ramsey murder case) would be a meaningless excercise. Here, I think, it is too recent to know whether the Horbeck-Ownby kidnapping and molestation case will survive the test of time, or whether it is a flash in the pan fueled by the ratings-driven 24-hour news channels. Thatcher131 20:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that moving the JonBenet article would be a pointless exercise, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened due to some ridiculous BLP claim. There are many cases in which an event is best presented as a biography such as Stephen Lawrence. An example of a pointless move can be seen here. - hahnchen 21:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Notable case of kidnapping with international coverage (I heard about this in Europe). If you want to move the article, that's fine. - hahnchen 21:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, this is ridiculous. Clearly a notable event, and worthy of an article. The man himself has been covered by the media, and become a notable criminal too. You may not like to hear about it, but we're not here to satisfy everyone's sensibilities, we're here to document human knowledge, and criminal activity is just as much a part of that as, say, the unpleasant bits of human physiology. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - it's time for wikipedia to stop being a newspaper. Fighting for Justice 23:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, This is absurd. More people know about this case than most other Wikipedia articles. John celona 23:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • More people know about the also-ran contestants on any reality show than most other Wikipedia articles, it doesn't make them notable or other other articles not notable, however. Carlossuarez46 18:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a notable and noted case; thus, by extension, Devlin is also both notable and noted. (JosephASpadaro 06:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
• Delete WP does not stand for WikiPoliceblotter. Carlossuarez46 18:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Rename and rewrite to cover the kidnapping event, specifically focusing on the four year search for Shawn Hornbeck (Ownby, as a kidnapping, is pretty unnotable). Calwatch 04:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. To describe this person as "run of the mill" is subjective and irrelevant. As unfortunate as it may be, this predator is notable and warrants, not deserves, coverage by our project. We can do so in a neutral fashion given the abundance of reliable third party sources available. RFerreira 06:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but potentially rename; so many sources to make this notable. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Cultural weight is a valid reason to document the incident. Tfine80 21:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 21:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smallville Season 7

Smallville Season 7 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP is not a crystal ball. Basically a summary of the end of season six, and total speculation on the next season. No bias against recreation in the Fall when the season actually starts, but for now this is total crystalballery. TexasAndroid 16:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - According to the main article Smallville (TV series), a seventh season has been officially announced, so information on that announcement should be put here and the article kept as a placeholder for the series which is presumably now in pre-production at the least. However the speculation and fanboi comments in the article should be removed. Ben W Bell talk 17:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as per Ben. Dalejenkins 18:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete until more concrete facts are found on season 7. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep -- Mostly per Ben W Bell (talk · contribs), but this article really needs some expansion and addition of reputable sourced citations. Smee 09:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - pretty much the only concrete fact known about season seven at the moment is that it will happen; we don't even know when that will be. The only other factual part of the article is the brief recap of the end of the previous season, which is unnecessary. The rest of the article is a mix of speculation and "statements" lacking any citation. Should be deleted until more concrete information is available, at which point it can be recreated as a proper article with proper factual content. --Tailkinker 19:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 21:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Universal Image Format

Universal Image Format (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Neither of this page's supposed subjects is notable or seems likely to establish notability in the near future. Jamesmusik 16:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep- This just survived an AfD less than a week ago. Can we give it a chance?(Changing vote to Delete after later explanations, and due to the fact that the first mention is proprietary, and the second explanation listed on the article is for a format that never saw the light of day -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 18:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)) -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 16:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment It has had the same problems ever since it was first deleted nearly a year ago. If no one has come forth with something establishing notability since then, I don't know how long we're supposed to wait. Jamesmusik 17:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The first delete appears to have been a speedy G11 as advertising, right? -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 17:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The MagicISO part of the article still has no references other than adverts by the creator, so that still applies. The other file format is clearly non-notable and that has not been challenged on either the talk page or the previous AfD. Jamesmusik 18:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Neither file format is notable. The previous AfD was not allowed to complete — it was speedy closed in under 48 hours with a reason claiming that the AfD was a "content dispute" — incorrectly as far as I can tell, as lack of notability is not a content dispute. -- intgr ^#%@! 17:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  At the time of the first nomination, the discussion on the talk page was on whether the article should have been about the proprietary filesystem format or the IETF standard; as a result, a nomination based on the notability of the second subject was actually a content dispute (on whether the article should have been more on the first or the second subject). That's why I closed the first AfD as a content dispute. I have not closed this one because this time notability of both subjects is questioned. Tizio 13:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: Ok, thanks for the explanation. -- intgr ^#%@! 18:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as per nom. Useless article. Dalejenkins 18:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – My vote on the first Afd was to keep and rework to be about the file format, providing that verifiable sources could be found. Well, they haven't been, and they don't look likely to appear any time soon. I agree that neither subject is notable. —GrimRevenant 11:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I fully expect Uifan to recreate the page fairly quickly via one IP address or another. Does anyone think it be pre-emptively salted (if deleted, of course), or should we worry about that when it happens? —GrimRevenant 05:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'd say RPP if it happens. No sense in stuffing beans, right? -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 05:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It already happened, over and over again — the only reason the page remained about the IETF standard for so long is that it was protected, see logs, history. -- intgr ^#%@! 07:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case I'll defer to you on that recommendation. You seem to know more about the history of this subject and those closely involved. Delete and salt, since the challenge is to the subject's (im)possible future of notability. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 20:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge to Internet fax and replace with a dab page with history intact. Problems with spamy additions should be dealt with by preventative measures; not removing information. It is notable as it made it through the RFC process, and RFC 3250 uses the same mimetype. John Vandenberg 20:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

UIF did not make it through the RFC process - it was abandoned fairly early on in the draft stages. 76.21.33.66 05:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of artists who have covered Nirvana songs

List of artists who have covered Nirvana songs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - it is not notable simply that one artist sang another artist's song. If any of these are notable recorded covers, then they can be noted in an article for the song and/or in the discography of the cover artist. Otto4711 15:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - soon it'll be List of musicians who covered covers of Nirvana's songs. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 16:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --CPAScott 16:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, WP:ILIKEIT. Tempshill 17:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, change to a category?. As per nom. Dalejenkins 18:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If the songs themselves are notable and the covering artists are also notable then there should certainly be a note on the song's (or containing album's) article indicating who has covered it. But a whole article dedicated just to this is simply a loose collection of information. A1octopus 10:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 22:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was tagged for G7, non admin closure. Whsitchy 04:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jackie Bushman

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

author deleted prod because he BELIEVES that the guy played number 1 singles at Auburn. He doesn't state that in his article nor does he provide sources. It still lacks notability. Postcard Cathy 15:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As the deletor of the prod, I'll abstain for now, but... ever consider tagging with a sources needed tag? Whsitchy 16:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Add-on comment [12] says here he went to the NCAA tourny. Whsitchy 16:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, it's nonsense with no context. Tempshill 17:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I know The article came off of AfC, and I wasn't really sure about making it, I'll bring this up at the AfC project page. Whsitchy 18:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Tagged as G7. I can't find a way to save the page right now, sadly enough. Whsitchy 04:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taylor Garron

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

DRV overturned the prior AfD, in light of Runcorn-related sockpuppetry. This person is a non-notable actress, with only insignificant roles to her credit. Delete. Xoloz 15:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete There is some sort of notability there, however it's not enough to meet WP:BIO. Coming in 6th on a show and being part of an ensemble cast on a little know show isn't enough to justify keeping the article. Wildthing61476 16:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Tempshill 18:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per my arguments on the first AfD. She fails WP:BIO: she had a non-notable role in a large cast for her first show, and she was a contestant on the second show (and she didn't even come close to winning). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs whose title contains one of the twelve months

List of songs whose title contains one of the twelve months (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - another indiscriminate collection of loosely-associated topics. The songs have nothing in common beyond the coincidence of having the name of a month in the title. Otto4711 15:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Good heavens, I'm not sure I'm ever seen a more random intersection of criteria for a list. Next week, we might find List of songs written in Flint, Michigan on April 5, 1923, between 7:00 AM and 7:15 AM. Excessive granularity, no possible encyclopedic value. Xoloz 15:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. By the way, who really needs it? Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 15:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, for the same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about sleep. Yawn. I'm just afraid that there's more to come - have you seen List of songs about the future? Just a suggestion: Maybe Music Wikia is the right place for these kinds of list. Wikipedia isn't. --B. Wolterding 16:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Worse is a List of songs about eating disorders. Tim Q. Wells 20:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete just a list. JJL 17:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tim Q. Wells 20:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No offense to whoever created this page, just nobody truly cares about songs having a month in their title. JONJONBT^{Talk to me!} 20:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Whsitchy 21:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the precedent with all the other List of songs whose title contains some arbitrary element. Fails WP:NOT. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --JayJasper 21:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 22:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This list is less than 2 weeks old, it seems like as soon as an old indiscriminate song-title-list is deleted, someone creates a new one. Next week, List of songs whose title contains a day of the week. Masaruemoto

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bishi (musician)

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

doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO GlassFET 15:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, does not meet WP:MUSIC. Tempshill 18:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, without a notable label, charted hit, etc.. Incidentally, I think her music is quite interesting! Hopefully she will meet the notability requirements someday. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Sounds like she may well meet notability in the future; not yet, I'm afraid. Closenplay 03:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (still) blatant advertising. Bad blatant advertising. Sandstein 19:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Projected image digital

Projected image digital (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company.Originally speedied as spam but most advertising references removed. Still non-notable though. Dipics 14:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Navou 17:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yarankash

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

No references or sources - most of the google hits are Wiki mirrors. Biography mostly contains his arrest information and execution. Ozgod 14:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet requirements for N in WP:BIO. Few hits on google and has no real impact on the course of history. Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 14:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable, per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the governor who he killed would disagree with Plm209. Tempshill 18:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• keep the "non notable" votes above seem to be more like WP: Idontlikeit, and cite no specific wikipedia policy that the article violates. This man appears to be important to history, and has sources to back it up. I see no reason to delete this at all. Barsportsunlimited 19:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If he, as a European, had in 2007 assassinated the mayor of Aleppo, (or the governor of Syria--I'm not sure which is closer), would he get an article? Probably he would. Then it is appropriate here, as notability is ot time-dependent. For one think, even if one believes in the thorough discredited 100 year rule, he cerainly passes) and is in the standard histories in a significant way. DGG 01:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Not really a vote, but there are two sources given in the article. He could easily pass with a brief mention in the Zengi article (and Zengi is significant, although it may not be immediately obvious to most people), which is the way things were originally; then someone came along and wrote a little stub about him, and I expanded it. I don't know if the article can get much longer than it is now, but he is mentioned in primary and secondary crusade sources, so he is not totally insignficant. Adam Bishop 02:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The article has two references, including an edition of a primary source and a standard work on the crusades by Runciman. Why is the nominator claiming that there are "no references or sources"? Pharamond 05:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• He killed a major political leader and you're saying that he doesn't meet notability? Keep. DS 19:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, more important and reliably sourced that pokemon moves. John Vandenberg 20:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Zornoza

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

Article fails to assert importance or notability. No major works, awards or coverage cited in article. Fails to meet the requirements for WP:Notability Ozgod 14:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Borderline speedy, as it makes no real assertion to notability. In fact the only thing that might be interpreted as notable is associate editor bit, but it's to a redlinked online publisher that likely would fail notability, itself. Arkyan • ^(talk) 14:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as per nom and Arkyan. Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 14:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable, per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Template:Not correct Delete No assertion of notability, no meeting WP:BIO (first point — primary criterion). The Sunshine Man 15:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable. Tempshill 18:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 04:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian Court of Administrative Appeals

Armenian Court of Administrative Appeals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article's title appears to be about an organization while the article itself appears to be about a person. In addition, the image caption supposedly shows the person working inside a building but the image merely shows the building; there's no proof that that person is inside the building. Anthony Rupert 13:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom.--James, La gloria è a dio 13:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep a very simple edit stops it being about a person. The image caption does not refer to a person, simply to the building. Article certainly needs expansion, it is marked as a stub, and has now been catted too, which will attract interested editors. DuncanHill 14:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless the existence of this entity can be confirmed. I tried a Google search, and came up with exactly 1 hit, to a Wikipedia page. I am willing to accept the possibility that the court has a different official name and that's why I am not finding any information at all, but unless someone can demonstrate its existence by the end of this AfD I cannot support keeping this article. Arkyan • ^(talk) 14:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment According the the Armenian Government website here [13] the highest court in Armenia is the Court of Cassation. Suspect this article, and the individual linked to it (who has no google hits), of being hoaxes. DuncanHill 14:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Potential hoax; the article itself is very weak at that anyhow. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think this may be a hoax. Slobodan Borisovic Iwanief is not an Armenian name Lurker 16:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as Hoax. As others note the alleged justice's name isn't Armenian, no verifiable references to the alleged institution, article appears to be written as a (pretty thin) spoof on Armenia. Bigdaddy1981 06:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per DuncanHill. Tempshill 18:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• keep I think the initial afd incorrect. This article should be kept until someone with knowledge can say if it is or isn't a hoax. The article might be refferring to the building's name or reputation, rather than current application. DDB 20:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC) changed mind DDB 06:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  Uh, that's not really the way Verifiability works. Unless there's a source for the existence of this, the article ought to be deleted. I haven't had any more luck finding verification than Arkyan has. If someone finds a source before the end of the AfD period, great, we'll keep the article. If someone finds a source after the end of the AfD period, great, we can create a new article based on the source. But no source, no article. In the meanwhile, it would be great to have Court of Cassation (Armenia) not be a redlink-- Jonel | Speak 21:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment So we know this sebbs guy, the article creator, doesn't exist? I'd support an afd if it was for an unverifiable article, however, the afd was for the apparent confusion regarding the article's purpose. If in fact this is known to be a hoax, and not presupposed by individuals who have no idea, then it should be speedy deleted .. right? DDB 06:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Oops, I just followed your verifiability link. I'll leave my high horse and change that to ""delete"" apologies for being slow DDB 06:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Armenia is a nation and I am sure it must have courts, probably including a court of appeal. The article is thus credible; whether it is right is a differnet question, on which I cannot judge. Rather too much of it is about the cheif justice, who has his own article (also credible, though somewhat bare). In dealing with a foreign country, you should not expect to find English language websites for everything you want. Don't delete it, just apply a couple more tags, in strengthen doubts about it. Peterkingiron 23:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Comment - On further consideration, I now wonder whether this is a hoax, in which case it should be deleted. The biographical detail on the alleged chief justice is very thin on detail as to where he worked while in USA, which ought to be more verifiable. Peterkingiron 23:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Vote changed to delete The more I look the more I am convinced this is a Hoax. I can find nothing on Google about the alleged Chief Justice except derived from WP. Furthermore, 'Lord' is an unlikely title in an ex-Soviet country. Peterkingiron 10:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 15:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dogfood pop group

Dogfood pop group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Pop group that does not appear to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Though the group's members claim close involvement with various events that themselves may indeed be notable, there is nothing much to verify this (no mention beyond a namecheck on the sites given), and this does not necessarily confer notability on the group itself. ~Matticus ^T_C 13:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete ridiculous. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails to meet Wp:MUSIC.--James, La gloria è a dio 13:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete wow...thats all...wow Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 14:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Can't be as bas as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleepy Princess (1958 film) this. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 15:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Template:Not correct Speedy delete per WP:BAND, tagged with {{db-band}}. The Sunshine Man 15:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, WP:V and WP:OR are the key issues here and it's clear that the articles don't meet either. --Coredesat 06:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cirque du Freak: Bloody Brawl and Cirque du Freak (anime)

• Cirque du Freak: Bloody Brawl (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Cirque du Freak (anime) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Cirque du Freak: Dawn of a Prince (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• View AfD

Cirque du Freak: Bloody Brawl was originally nominated for speedy deletion - with the following reason: google search reveals that the only mentions of the game at all are on Wikipedia. All edits made by a single user, blatantly false hoax article - which was changed to WP:PROD. Another user noted that the articles have been confirmed to be false (or an unverifiable rumor at best) here. Still, the author removed the deletion notice with no explanation. Delete, candidates for speedy deletion (as hoax/vandalism). - Mike Rosoft 12:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, should be speedy. Reasons per nom. --Javit 12:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

*Speedy delete, this AfD is a waste of time. --Ashenai 12:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction: Delete the game, keep or make a separate AfD for the anime. --Ashenai 13:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 12:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Forthcoming is still speculative. Anime is still not notable as nonexistent. Delete for now. --Evb-wiki 14:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Hold up here; the anime is forthcoming [14], the manga exists [15], but the Bloody Brawl video game seems to be only speculation. So argue notability perhaps for the anime page, but speedy delete is only warranted for the game. Tarc 13:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for the anime, delete the game as future speculation. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the anime for now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Comment - Strong delete per nom. Also, for those saying keep the anime, the IMDB page is not for an anime adaptation. It is for a live-action adaptation for which there already is a verified wiki page, Cirque du Freak (film), so yes, the anime movie is a hoax. Also, I asked the author himself, and he confirmed that they are both hoaxes. -AtionSong 15:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom and AtionSong above. Deor 16:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both per AtionSong. The author of these articles, Manplush (talk · contribs), has a bit of a history creating hoax pages; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SBGT for an example. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd also suggest nominating The Cirque du Freak, an article about the supposed first episode of this anime, into this discussion as well. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Seconded. -AtionSong 23:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment To the closing admin: please also consider Cirque du Freak: Dawn of a Prince, another hoax article created by User:Manplush into the deletion. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxes from Wikipedia with extreme prejudice. --John 22:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 believe the keep arguments are clearly stronger here, as Wikipedia is not paper, and we have precedent saying that this level of political achievement is reasonable. It's no surprise this is still a stub, but policy says that is okay. If this was an article about someone contemporary, that might be one thing, but the internet is not exactly bursting at the seams with information about Scotland's parliament in the 18th century, so this information would be difficult to replace. That said, the article is pretty short, and a merge may be attempted, following the usual WP:BRD process. Mangojuice^talk 17:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Arbuthnot (politician)

Alexander Arbuthnot (politician) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article has existed for over a year and hasn't expanded very much. A shire commisioner for the Parliament of Scotland was an appointment given to lower ranks of the gentry and peerage. I have looked high and low for anything on this person that doesn't come from the Arbuthnot family book and I can't find anything (I initially thought I had but the Commissioner Arbuthnot/t or Arbuthnot/t, Commissioner all referred to other people). Delete and summarize at Viscount of Arbuthnott if necessary. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 09:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and summarise per nom. Looks like another example of the encyclopædia being confused with a genealogical resource. – Kieran T ^(talk) 12:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unless someone unearths some further information , which may prove notability, as it is I see none. Giano 12:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of every name in someone's genealogy, when multiple reliable independent sources with substantial coverage of them can be found, as needed to write an encyclopedic article. Fails WP:A, WP:BIO. Edison 13:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable, per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep, because notability asserted per WP:BIO as a member of a national Parliament. Needs more sources, though, so I have tagged it with {{moresources}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • True, but it's a "secondary criterion"... to quote regarding politicians: "Note 5: This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. Biographers and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless." — so we're partially back to wanting to see other writing about him, and also the question is raised as to how much of a "major political office" he held in the parliament (meaning no offence to the Scots Parliament of course!) – Kieran T ^(talk) 00:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's already been there for a year and that's all everyone's managed to come up with. I've looked extensively myself and there is nothing there. It is entirely pointless to insist on having separate biographies for people when they are clearly so non notable that they are only mentioned in Burke's peerage and a family book. The information can easily be added to his father's page or the Viscount of Arbuthnott page. I should also point out the Arbuthnot family association only considers 13 Arbuthnots as actually "famous" and this Arbuthnot is not on the list [16] (amazingly I think the list was created by KittyBrewster). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Gustav, have you checked only online, or in the libraries? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Huge numbers of older books (which are likely the only place he would be mentioned) are now indexed online at Google Books and Amazon- I've searched for all the phrases I can think of but none of them refer to him. Are there any specific books you think might mention him? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• keep If someone is willing to work on it, let them. I'm unaware of time restrictions on wiki .. can someone point me to where notable figure get deleted for not being attended to in a set time? DDB 20:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem with that argument is it can be made indefinitely - no one can rule out the possibility that something might be found however unlikely that is but I don't think that's a good reason to not redirect the article at the moment. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep as a member of the national legislature, which has so far always been accepted at AfD, and so it should, because such people will be in histories, even if kb is too negligent to look beyond the confines of her family's genealogy books. The rule is Verifiable, not verified. The commissioners were, according to the Parliament of Scotland article , "the third estate of burgh commissioners (representatives chosen by the royal burghs)" -- borough MPs in the UK, not what it might sound like as a minor election official. I think this disposes of the argument that it was not a significant political office.

Can't expect to find the same sourcing as in the 20th century, which is why we have the secondary criterion--it means he is N unless shown otherwise. (unlike the world in general, which goes the other way).DGG 02:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reference found from Google books, which gets more content by the day. Provided the additional information, that he subsequently represent another consitituency. DGG 02:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I find it interesting that the reference you found says he represented Bervie up to 1707, even when he died in 1705. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Please note User:Kittybrewster has confirmed that the Alexander who represented Bervie was a different Alexander Arbuthnot. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: It still does not assert notability, however. You can cite the fact that hes married, when he died, etc., but if it doesn't assert notability, then its moot. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep if a WP:RS for his parliamentary service is found, otherwise delete being an MP in Scotland seems to satisfy WP:N, however there's no RS for it cited. Carlossuarez46 18:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this article about the equivalent of a Member of Parliament. The references added have made it a valid stub. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- Kittybrewster (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As the person who wrote this and for reasons iterated above, I naturally !vote keep. - Kittybrewster (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and summarise per nom - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 07:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless there are sources to tell more of his political involvement-Doc^g 07:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girls Sport Victoria (GSV) Sports Champions below. MER-C 12:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Girls Sport Victoria (GSV) Carnival Champions

Girls_Sport_Victoria_(GSV)_Carnival_Champions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 21:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mazaradi FOX

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

non notable. Entirely unsourced. Original research. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO.⇒ KingTee ^{Denny Crane.} 04:29, 04 June 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Only sources are myspace and "Department of Correctional Services"! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable, per nom. This guy looks like a winner. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment May "New York State,Department of Correctional Services" never be a source cited in my biography. ~ Infrangible 02:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable, probably created by some G-Unit fan-boy. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 20:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep One of his works has been reviewed by a third party site. Link. Also, if he had been incarcerated for drug dealing, there is a chance that he may have appeared in a newspaper somewhere.--Kylohk 19:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for now There's no doubt this guy is affiliated with notable people and he has been mentioned in sources such as Prefix mag and SOHH, but so far I don't think that makes the cut. It wouldn't be surprising if he becomes more notable in the future, perhaps after releasing an album that makes the Billboard charts, which in that case would probably warrant an article. And although the article cites little sources, KingTee's comment that the page has original research is just false. Spellcast 17:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - KingTee has actually been indefinitely blocked, if you look at his signature, the link to his talk page leads to Swatjester's talk page, and the whole nomination, he copied from the AfD for Nu Jerzey Devil. Notice how he didn't bother to change anything but the link to his user page. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 17:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

He also copied most of his user page from Geniac, and vandalized my user page, and also was suspected of using sock puppets to edit war on The Black Wall Street Records (which was later semi-protected). --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 17:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe I didn't realise that. Anyway, the troll account was indefinitely blocked. Nevertheless, I think this nomination should continue as normal. Spellcast 17:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was an obvious redirect, so I boldly did. Non-admin closure. Charlie 14:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kinetopsia

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

The user most likely heard this term while watching House, as I did. However the correct term is Akinetopsia, therefore this article is pretty useless. - Imoeng 12:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and redirect, please add a redirect: WP:R
  • please - Imoeng 13:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect Edison 13:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 04:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas C Hewitt

Thomas C Hewitt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

per WP:BIO - not notable. Contested prod. Javit 12:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also WP:SPAM (for more info, see . . . ) and probably WP:AUTO/WP:COI (authored by User:juneandtom). --Evb-wiki 13:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete vanity nonsense. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Could find nothing (other than this Wikipedia article) in Google or Proquest. Sounds like he hangs around with noted musicians and works in the trade, but we need multiple reliable and independent sources to be cited in a bio article, not just the subjects own autobiographical account. Perhaps get a press agent and get some articles written in magazines which cover his type of music, then come back. Edison 13:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable, per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough for me. Stop trying to ruin Wikipedia by deleting everything. If you don't like an article then don't view it but don't stop others who want it. Xanucia 23:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I will only bother to point the above user in the direction of WP:NPA. Please read WP policies and guidelines on what should be kept and deleted. --Javit 23:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I checked Google web, news and books and the only results were false positives, as well as three online British newspapers without finding him (with of course the burden on the creator to provide sources present). Forget notability—for the moment the content is unverified, with failed searches implying it is unverifiable.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alanna Shelast

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

Recreated after prod. Original prod was "reality TV contestant and apparently struggling model. 63 unique Ghits, mostly wiki mirrors and CNTM related hits. Despite having come second, seems to have gone underground after the show". Same concerns exist: this losing contestant on a reality television show is not notable. She wasn't notable on the show, and hasn't done anything since the show to make herself notable among the other struggling models in a very saturated and competitive field. Mikeblas 12:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete by nominator assertions --Javit 12:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 13:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete sounds like it was written by her mother. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:V, WP:BIO. It's not a promising sign when a model has zero images on Google Image.  RGTraynor  15:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable, per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: I got halfway through the article and thought it was nonsense. JONJONBT^{Talk to me!} 18:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Game show contestants are not inherently notable. No other assertion of notability. Resolute 23:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. John Vandenberg 20:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 04:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rotard

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

Google search turns up one slang usage of this term (= "devotee of the Wankel rotary engine") but nothing that matches the sense given here. Most, if not all, hits for rotardation appear to be typos for retardation. This seems to be a hoax or joke article. Deor 12:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Note. May be a disguised attack page as well. See the article history for the image of "R. Overton" added to, then quickly removed from, the page by User: Cute blond. Deor 14:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unreferenced OR. Looks like something made up at school one day. -- Mikeblas 12:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's a joke... Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: What nonsense Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and all of the above. --Evb-wiki 15:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete clearly a joke Capmango 15:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources. John Vandenberg 20:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Koresh's Angels

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

Non-notable band, article fails to establish notability, provide any sources, and google returns 5 hits, of which 3 are from Wikipedia.[17] Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 11:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - fails all criteria in WP:MUSIC. Appears to have been written by someone in or close to the band as references are made to family plans, etc. Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 11:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as an unremarkable band. Tagged. MER-C 11:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete --Javit 12:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete do I really have to explain this? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete This is why we have db tags, people. Closenplay 13:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 04:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hyderabadi Martial Arts

Hyderabadi Martial Arts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I think the opening sentence in the History section says it all: "The history of hyderabadi martial arts is unknown to any one." I say let's have it stay that way and not introduce OR into Wikipedia. No sources are provided, and I see no possibility that this article will be redeemed anytime soon. Should sources crop up, it can always be recreated, preferably without appealing to mysterious and unnamed "masters". Ashenai 10:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NN --Javit 12:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Another joke. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:NN, WP:V, WP:NFT and WP:BULLSHIT. I'd say the reason this article's history is "unknown to any one" is because it doesn't exist. It doesn't surprise me that the creator tried to link the External Links section to himself, and this article is his sole Wikipedia activity.  RGTraynor  15:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 15:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per RGTraynor.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Suplex onto a Tulwar If the history isn't known and the art itself isn't discussed, this doesn't have any merit whatsoever. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 15:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 04:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sentient puddle

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

This is just a large Douglas Adams quote preceded by a simple summary of it. 'Sentient puddle' was a phrase used by Douglas Adams ten years ago, which doesn't seem to have entered any sort of wider usage since (the only sources given are from people directly quoting Adams and attributing the phrase to him) - it fails WP:NEO. The Douglas Adams article already has a section dedicated to the quote, covering the exact the same ground as the introductory paragraph, and the full quotation is already in Wikiquote. Delete. McGeddon 09:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I don't even know if it's notable enough to be in Wikiquote. - Myanw 10:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The section in his main article is just fine; if the extended information in this article were to be merged into that article, it would appear to carry undue weight in comparison to the rest of the article. --Charlene 11:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There actually isn't any extended information, apart from the analogy being quoted in full - the introductory paragraph is virtually identical to the section in the Adams article. --McGeddon 11:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. I'd disagree with the esteemed editor before and say this would be valid for WikiQuote, as well as perhaps a discussion of religion itself or an article on those who dispute the humanist principles (if that's the name of it), but it's not notable or substantial enough for its own article. Interesting to read, yes, but leaving its mention in the Adams article (or in religious discussion themes) would work better. IL-Kuma 23:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Although this is a rather amusing analogy, it really has no real notability and has achieved no notoriety in public discourse. Also, echo everything McGeddon said about this info being found elsewhere.--DoctorWorm 07:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 21:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vehicles in PlanetSide

Vehicles in PlanetSide (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced game guide stuffed full of fair use images. Ample precedent exists for deletion, see Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles. MER-C 08:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete although the pictures look great.:) Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki. It's certainly useful information, just not information that is currently acceptable on Wikipedia (as per WP:NOT). I'm not active in any PS wiki, but otherwise I'd do it myself. Ourai ^тʃ_с 13:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• I moved it to a gaming Wiki The article can be found here --Cs california 07:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Plenty of other sites where you can do stuff like that. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Do NOT Delete This is an important reference section for thousands of current and potential Planetside subscribers. No other like it exists on the Web. The content and context certainly DOES fit Wikipedia's scope and purpose. Another similar section is needed: Weapons in PlanetSide. --Mark Rizo 00:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The information may certainly be valuable, but not necessarily here on Wikipedia. There are other sites out there (even some wikis, such as this one) that certainly can use this information. But Wikipedia is not for reference sections like these. Ourai ^тʃ_с 05:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Precisely. Just because it's useful doesn't mean that it belongs on Wikipedia. --Scottie_theNerd 06:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 15:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete - should only be kept if individual vehicles have references in popular culture or non-trivial articles in magazines, etc per WP:V and WP:N. I'm sure it could be an important reference for gamers, however Wikipedia is not a game guide (as stated above, WP:NOT). Marasmusine 17:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Information has not been published by any third party sources and could only be sourced to game guides, making it basically a game guide itself. No opposition to transwiki. Wickethewok 19:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Notice - A similar page has existed before. I had created the page PlanetSide Tanks and it was deleted. Next people added info about the PlanetSide vehicles to the main PlanetSide page. Until the info was split and moved to Vehicles in PlanetSide. I predict that this cycle of add-split-delete will repeat for as long as the game PlanetSide exists. Fvdham 13:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, it's like a weapons list, except with vehicles. WP is not a game guide. Axem Titanium 15:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ignoring WP:USEFUL arguments. utcursch | talk 14:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big Brother (UK) ratings

Big Brother (UK) ratings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Pointless, incomplete article that should be merged with Big Brother UK. No/few sources and not very noteable. Dalejenkins 08:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO #9. It's just a statistics dump. MER-C 08:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge why the need for a seperate article? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C. Wikipedia is not the Nielsen company. --Charlene 11:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No need for a seperate article. Jackrm 12:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Incomplete because it's comparing the 2006 and 2007 seasons and the 2007 season has only just started. All UK viewing figures come from the same source (BARB) and are certainly reliable. This is exactly the kind of thing that people visit Wikipedia for. Xanucia 23:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into season articles. --musicpvm 01:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Should be kept because it contains information which is very useful for many people, and it warrants a new page. The table structure allows people to compare ratings in a much easier manner. 13:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is not a paper encloypedia, useful to have all this information in one place & too much to be merged elsewhere. Kelso21 14:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Does any other TV show have this kind of thing-no! This is useless. Who's gonna come on Wikipedia to find out how many people watched some crummy Brit Reality Show. 80.41.34.146
• Delete Superficial opinions concerning the show aside, this is not what Wikipedia is for. Relevant aspects should be integrated in context in prose. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep.Many people are interested in the Big Brother show ratings due to its huge media coverage in the UK. Thus, this page is acceptable, and has many sutable sources to support the information. 87.194.48.235
• Keep. Many people have a great interest in the ratings of BB, especially considering how ratings shot up surrounding the controversial CBB. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 15:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 07:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is pretty mixed on whether nobility is includable simply for being nobility from the debate here. That said, Viscount of Arbuthnott is not up for deletion. I see no remotely sensible reason presented why we should avoid having a redirect in place. And the keep comments seem to be defending the appropriateness of the material being on Wikipedia, not the appropriateness of a separate page in this instance. Merging is sensible. However, let me remind everyone that merging does not necessarily require a big debate, and this one was certainly a waste of time. Don't forget to be BOLD when appropriate. Mangojuice^talk 17:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Arbuthnot, 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott

John Arbuthnot, 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

To all those people that think that having a separate article for each peer of England is a good idea- please note that there have been 16 of these not particularly notable people. That's just for this title of the thousands of other titles out there. Yes, hereditary peers had the right to sit in the House of Lords, but the question we should ask is did they actually do anything NOTABLE if and when they ever sat in there. Many did not. This person is not notable in their own right so Delete and summarize this person at Viscount of Arbuthnott. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 08:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. He got married twice and had children. That's the extent of his accomplishments according to the article! Clarityfiend 08:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • NOTE It turns out this person is peer of Scotland so they didn't even have an automatic right to sit in the House of Lords (16 Scottish peers were selected each parliament until 1963 when all Scottish peers were allowed to sit). I would and will though still apply the same argument to English peers if they are non notable. This is not a peerage directory (and even Burke's Peerage doesn't have separate articles for each title holder!). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment:He had a right to sit in parliament under the arrangements of the day for the UK parliament whereby those Scottish peers who expressed a desire to take up a seat went in a ballot to choose representative Peers for Scotland. They were elected by their Peers, not "selected". David Lauder 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I have waited for quite some time before posting this but actually there is no proof that he could have sat in the House of Lords and secondly, and more importantly, even if he could have the fact is that he didnt sit in the House of Lords and therefore Fails the politician criteria pf the notability policy. Unless you can come up with another reason that this person passes WP:N then it is not looking good for the Viscount.--Vintagekits 21:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)