Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< March 14 March 16 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Note, this result was overturned at deletion review. GRBerry 23:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latitude and wealth

Latitude and wealth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This seems to be a POV fork (see Wikipedia:Content forking) of Latitude. It also seems to be Original research. The presence of sources does not discount this interpretation - the sources given are for things like the malarial belt and connecting global warming with disease. This article takes the unacceptable (for Wikipedia) step to bring these ideas together into an article connecting latitude to wealth, without sourcing this particular idea to any outside source. POV fork+OR= Delete. (oh, prodded and de-prodded) Mak (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Too much OR and too many exceptions to be helpful. So if I move to Northern Canada, I'll be a billionaire? Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as highly questionable original research. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete original bullshit.--Docg 00:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. One gets the feeling that the argument is mostly pointing out an odd coincidence, and is indeed OR. --Dennisthe2 00:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and reference This is the basic argument of the book Guns, Germs, and Steel. The article just needs better referencing. The book is listed in the reference section, the article just needs in line references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Try Henry Thomas Buckle. Diamond notably distinguishes between the temperate zone in Eurasia and in the Americas. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks, it's in there now. Novickas 18:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unacceptably poorly written, and under re-referenced to point of OR by synthesis. Willing to believe that an encyclopedic article on the topic can be written, but doubt this will become it anytime soon (please let me know on my talk page if a significant rewrite happens before deletion). Pete.Hurd 00:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Please look at the newest references, especially the paper "The Equatorial Grand Canyon", which is included in Springerlink [1] and JSTOR [2]. Novickas 00:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Hopefully the existence of research done at Harvard in 2001 [3] will suffice to prove that the thesis is not original. Novickas 01:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Your second reference considers latitude as an independent variable, but finds instead that the major causation is "social infrastructure. This will not do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete agreed that it is just an extension of what we already have. No need to keep it. Alex43223 T | C | E 00:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete OR. futurebird 02:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Deleteoriginal research. CattleGirl talk | sign! 07:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Al-Bargit 14:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Care to discuss why you !voted that way? Remember, this isn't merely a vote, but a discussion. Thanks! --Dennisthe2 18:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Well referenced article. SparklingWiggle 20:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
A whole bunch of references doesn't necessarily equal a well-referenced article. Mak (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As it stand this is OR. Although there are some sources listed, they don't talk about "Latitude and wealth" directly. JJJamal 22:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete an WP:OR essay.-- danntm T C 22:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - There may be a lot of references, but it's still original research. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 22:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. This is usually called the North-South divide when studying international relations. —Ocatecir Talk 03:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Source for interesting domestic study in GB: [4]. —Ocatecir Talk 03:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Which divides between the traditional economic regions of England, not by latitude: South Wales is among the poorest areas, and is almost due west of the wealthy Home Counties. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge into Latitude, but way shortened and condensed. This would make a good English Class Paper, but not an encyclopedia article. Kopf1988 04:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - decent referenced essay, but even high-class essays still fall foul of WP:NOR: this one is basically OR synthesis. Moreschi Request a recording? 10:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Will mention some of the studies in North-South divide. It would be good to have some place where people can look at a responsible discussion, if they come upon the wacko theories. Novickas 13:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Geography and wealth. This is an important topic in development econ, but latitude is the wrong proxy. The article currently smacks of OR, but using the proper sources it won't look that much different to outright discard what is there now. ~ trialsanderrors 21:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Copy into Trialsanderrors' userspace before deletion Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Trialsanderrors, I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that this article is currently close to being a good article, or are you saying that what's there now should be discarded and something should be started from scratch? Mak (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I think it's good enough. I don't see any substantial claims that are not covered by the pertinent literature. (Mind you I'm not a development economist, all my knowledge of the subject is from academic contact with colleagues who are, so I at best have a broad understanding of the major ideas in the field). It's decently sourced, and the link I provided should fill the gaps. If the hangup is the word "latitude", as I said latitude is one of the proxies used, "climate" and "North-south" are others, but from my understanding "geography" is the preferred term. But that's something that can be solved with a page move request. Oh, and I don't want it in my user space. ~ trialsanderrors 23:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - OR. Sounds like it's been stripped from a magazine somewhere. Besides, the article isn't entirely true - Greenland & Iceland; these countries are no more wealthy then the next. Sure they may read more books than anyone else (a fact I heard somewhere), but are by no means as wealthy as the article suggests. And what about Dubai & Saudi Arabia? They are just some of rich nations surrounding the equator. And how do we measure wealth? Iraq would definitely be up there just by its oil reserves! If a person like me can debunk most of what the article states, & I have no PHD etc, then it doesn't deserve to be on this site... Spawn Man 09:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lhotse Merriam

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

Non-notable It seems like the only notable thing she has really done is marry Tony Hawk. All the other things are trivial. Simply being the wife of someone famous does not confer notability. I have a strong suspicion that the creator of the article, Lhotsem, may be the subject herself, violating WP:COI.—Ocatecir Talk 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. The nom is right - being somebody's spouse makes you somebody's spouse, not necessarily notable. --Dennisthe2 00:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete interesting about the suspect, but no, the article doesn't belong. Alex43223 T | C | E 01:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete She has done a lot of things that, when looked at cumulatively, appear to confer some minor notability, but no effort has been made to add sources to establish the notability per WP:BIO. I'd be willing to reconsider if someone adds some articles as source that feature her. Leebo T/C 14:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - any chance of doing a userfy for this article, or is it too much on WP:AUTO for that? --Dennisthe2 18:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, mainly for COI, given her borderline notability. Sad. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Spouses of celebrities are non-notable unless they themselves meet WP:BIO —SparklingWiggleGet a job! 20:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge because one should always try to preserve information. Add to the Tony Hawk article, but only if references can be found. Kopf1988 04:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series) - allusions to other series

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series) - allusions to other series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Extreme case of original research. Consists of observations that some editors believe is a reference to to something else in another Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles series. Unreferenced and unverifiable, and mostly subjective. Saikokira 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Right away. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even quicker than the above. There should be a speedy category for this sort of article. Shame WP:BOLLOCKS doesn't apply to CSD. EliminatorJR Talk 00:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I hate "references", "in popular culture" pages, because they are nearly always full of unverifiable OR that is unattributable. This is no exception. --Haemo 00:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I hate them too, pal. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Yes, OR. Alex43223 T | C | E 01:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Resolute 04:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. A list of concepts in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon which previously appeared in other TMNT comic books, cartoons, or movies is not worth including in a general encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 06:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not an informative article. Kind of obscure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Padawan3000 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete A lot of work obviously went into this article, but really, it's unnecessary. I feel bad AFD'ing an article that's this large and has been around 13 months, but, it's a totally useless article. Delete. J'onn J'onzz 15:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per nom. — Whedonette (ping) 16:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:OR —SparklingWiggleGet a job! 20:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as trivial material about fiction.-- danntm T C 22:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - An indiscriminate list, and a lot of original research. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 22:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. A list that compares something it itself? No, really, of course there's gonna be similarities between different incarnations of the same series. Sheesh.--UsaSatsui 00:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • <blink>Strong</blink> delete. The epitome of what's wrong with nearly all "pop culture references" lists, WP:OR and WP:NOT#IINFO by the boatload. Krimpet 01:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Aww, come on now, who disabled the blink tag? Krimpet 01:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure, but I thank them. Blinking text stopped being cool about 5 seconds after the internet went active. --UsaSatsui 01:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Nuh-uh! Blinking text lives forever dudes... ;) -- Spawn Man
  • Keep. Just because it's not useful to you doesn't mean it's not interesting and informative. We're not a big boy encyclopedia, this is to give as much information created by users as possible. This accomplishes it. - pokemaniacbill
  • Delete - This article confuses me! What the heck is it about? It simply makes no sense & I'm surprised that an admin hasn't closed this discussion already. C'mon, there's only one keep & that's from a person who refers to Wikipedia as a "Big boy encyclopedia" - need I say more? Delete outright, flame & salt & then stomp on the little itty pieces & cast them into the ocean. Go turtles! Yay! Spawn Man 09:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of references in Dead Like Me

List of references in Dead Like Me (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is the very definition of Indiscriminate Information. A list of "references" in a TV series... to just about anything! A reference to "spaghetti", a reference to "pyramid schemes", "origami", " a mole", "ballroom dancing", "Hill Street Blues" "kite flying", "Richard Nixon", etc. I could give additional reasons for deletion, but the list speaks for itself. Saikokira 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Funny, though! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as complete WP:BOLLOCKS. Two in a row! EliminatorJR Talk 00:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete lol WP:BULLOCKS. Yes, it is. Alex43223 T | C | E 01:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Umm, wow. That is a lot of words to say nothing more than "stuff happened". Resolute 04:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I recall that this list started as a small section of the main show article and has obviously ballooned. It's not WP:BOLLOCKS as these are legit references conatined within the show. WP:BOLLOCKS is for utter nonsense articles. But there is no real reason for this to have a separate article. 23skidoo 05:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, I think it fits quite nicely into WP:BOLLOCKS. As that page says, nonsense articles are complete bollocks, not just ordinary bollocks :) EliminatorJR Talk 17:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above. Daniel5127 | Talk 06:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as indiscriminate information. --Metropolitan90 06:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - also trim, notable show, WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 09:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge all the good content, and get rid of the rest. - Peregrine Fisher 09:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete — Whedonette (ping) 16:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - good, insightful material that would be quite a valuable resource on, oh, I dunno, a fan page. On an encyclopedia, however, it's crufty - not just trivia, but utterly trivial. Sample entries include: "George references Father Christmas, The Easter Bunny and The Great Pumpkin from Peanuts.", "Above George's clock in the scene just before the graveling turns her TV off is a poster of the virtual band Gorillaz", and of course, the utterly unforgettable "After Mason is duped into believing there is a giant dust cloud causing havoc in China, Rube muses that a trip to the Orient would have been nice. Betty says that she has been posted to Bali four times (three volcanos, one typhoon).". Wikipedia may not be paper, but it's also not an indiscriminate collection of trivia. --Action Jackson IV 16:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Highly indiscriminant. Wickethewok 21:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - Lists like this could go on forever, without actually saying anything interesting. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 22:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment When I started compiling this list, it was fun finding the in-jokes and more obscure cultural references, but then it grew out of control. Oh well. I've saved a copy for my own personal amusement. --Christopherlin 00:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of occurrences of game consoles in entertainment media

List of occurrences of game consoles in entertainment media (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original research, unreferenced and unverifiable. And indiscriminate information - ANY instance of ANY game console appearing in ANY "entertainment media". Apparently compiled by people watching these movies and TV series and adding any consoles they believe they spotted to this article. Saikokira 00:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Completely unverifiable. meshach 01:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Entirely indiscriminate. Has a secondary source ever published anything about game consoles appearing in tv shows, etc? If not, this is just trivia. --- RockMFR 04:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. What is with the "List of appearances of X in popular media" articles running around on Wikipedia? Particularly when X is some mundane, everyday object like a gaming console? There was one for boots that got deleted recently. These things baffle me. Anyway, violation of WP:NOT#INFO and I think that's all that needs to be said. Arkyan 16:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete: messy, no clear parody section, overly mundane. TRKtv (daaaaah!) 20:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Original research, can't meet WP:ATT. Wickethewok 21:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - Another list that could grow forever. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 22:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Is there a wikitrivia that this could be put on?? Kopf1988 04:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Too broad, does not discriminate against any inclusions, which could eventually cause this list to explode. --Nehrams2020 04:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enough! kingboyk 17:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Pocket

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

Hoax. The name, Thomas Albert Pocket, of this eminent gentleman doesn't show up in various databases, and no record of the references seems to exist in WorldCat. Spacepotato 00:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Quite amusing, but qualifies for Speedy Delete as complete nonsense. We don't need an AfD for this, so tagged as such. EliminatorJR Talk 00:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. It's not a speedy. CSD G1 is for unintelligible material, not false material. Spacepotato 00:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Not at all. Nonsense is nonsense, however intelligible it is. I've restored the speedy tags, but if you revert them again I'm not going to try a third time. This, however, is a waste of an AfD. EliminatorJR Talk 00:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. OK, I'm reverting. Feel free to read the definition of CSD G1 and patent nonsense. Spacepotato 00:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment WP:IAR and plenty of precedent on AfD, but fair enough, go with it. I think hoaxes should at least be plausible :) Odd thing is, WP:HOAX defines hoaxes as vandalism... EliminatorJR Talk 00:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
For the purpose, I'd suggest keeping it here. The sole proponent seems to think he's valid, so WP:SNOW doesn't work here, but if it stays here and comes up again, we can just G4 it. =^^= --Dennisthe2 01:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is no reason to delete the valid page of an inventor. Until you have substantive evidence that he never existed, you have no grounds for deletion. Angosc989 00:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC) — angosc989 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • On the contrary, there are many grounds for deletion. A google search ("Sir Thomas Pocket") turns up nothing, another ("Thomas Pocket") turns up something about pocket watches on its first result, and yet another ("+Thomas Pocket" +inventor) turns up nothing relevant to anyone named Thomas Pocket, let alone a member of the OBE. Further, the books don't seem to exist in any library. This tells me that there are no reliable sources, and his existence cannot be verified. Finally, to make the statement that you require evidence that he didn't exist to delete is a straw man argument. Until you can provide evidence he existed, then no, I for one will not change my vote (below). --Dennisthe2 00:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It doesn't work that way. You shoulder the burden of proof, not the community. Unless you can prove the subject exists, and that he meets WP:ATT, the article should be deleted. Resolute 04:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a hoax. The books in the references didn't exist, as near as I can tell. --Dennisthe2 00:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Patent hoax. Nardman1 00:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Per pocket, this word is a corruption of the Old French word for pouch, not named after some mythical inventor. Nardman1 01:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 03:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. An obvious hoax. It is pretty funny, though. SkipSmith 04:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. Resolute 04:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete obvious hoax ArchStanton 07:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A userfied copy will be provided upon request. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] W4D

W4D (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Clearly violates WP:AUTO CodeWeasel 00:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Userfy and Delete. Going on WP:AUTO here. --Dennisthe2 00:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:AUTO. Alex43223 T | C | E 01:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy, then delete per nom. Bill (who is cool!) 01:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Four-wheel drive? I totally thought you guys were citing a "Notability for automobiles" guideline or something. I was quite the confused until I clicked the link.--SeizureDog 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Dunno about a redirect here, that's a helluva typo - gotta be drunk or something to do that. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 18:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep meets WP:BAND —SparklingWiggleGet a job! 20:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Doesn't seem to meet WP:ATT, no references. I don't know why SparklingWiggle says WP:BAND. Wickethewok 21:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename and Reference (W4D, nickname, is not an appropriate title) otherwise Delete Kopf1988 04:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of Notability and little/no refs. NBeale 14:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University of Wisconsin (disambiguation)

University of Wisconsin (disambiguation) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prior AFD overturned at deletion review, but not strongly enough to avoid this discussion. This is a technical nomination as the deletion review closer, but I will comment. Original deletion rationale was "Page is superfluous as University of Wisconsin is now a redirect to UW-Madison. Per consensus on the talk page, the article can be deleted and the relevant information placed in the specific articles as history of the various universities." Whether there ever was consensus as described in that nom was challenged in the first AFD, and the history is now somewhere in the history of Talk:University of Wisconsin, so I'm not going looking for it, but there certainly wasn't such a consensus at deletion review. GRBerry 00:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete With what's on the page, no need for a dabpage. Could be noted at top of the larger institution's page, but leading to a disambig is too much. Alex43223 T | C | E 01:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment As a resident of the state, and a graduate of one of the associated institutions, I'm painfully aware of the "brand confusion" that the current organization causes. As per the page, I'm torn between this page adding more confusion, or serving as a concise usage note that clarifies for people that these are in fact separate institutions. I think two things are needed -- a better explanation of the relationship to the System on the UW-Madison page, and a clearer explanation on the System page. On the other hand, it's certainly cleaner to have just one dab link at the top of each institution's page. -- Dhartung | Talk 02:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a poster family for dab headers. There are only two values for UW; each should link directly to the other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. At this point I came in and fixed the third bullet point to link to the third article, University of Wisconsin (1956-1971), which would seem to invalidate the previous comments about the length of the dab page. Most people should never see this page, but it will reduce the length of the hatnotes on the listed articles. On the other hand, I completely agree with User:Trialsanderrors that the survival or deletion of this page is a separate matter from where University of Wisconsin should point. I cannot agree with the suggestion in the deletion review that we are dealing with that issue here. Dekimasuよ! 13:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep with the change to identify 3 different University of Wisconsin articles, this is page is needed as a dab. -- Whpq 16:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - Dab pages are cheap. This is the reason we have dab pages, to deal with confusion. I stumble across incorrect uses of the name all the time, even in high-profile contexts. --Orange Mike 16:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There can now be no doubt (if there ever was) that the term University of Wisconsin means different things to different people. There are in fact strong POVs in two different directions, resulting in edit wars and repeated listings at WP:RM, and making an already confusing situation still more tangled to the outsiders who need the term disambiguated. Attempts to delete the page, or to reduce it to a two-way disambig to justify this deletion, seem to either be part of these POV promotions, or to stem from misunderstandings as to the function of a disambig page. Andrewa 16:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Dekimasu and Andrewa. I lived on Washington Street on Madison's Isthmus for a while, and knew the name was used a couple of ways, but I'm still surprised by the way this has become virtually a POV war. Given the third meaning of the term at University of Wisconsin (1956-1971), and the demonstrated variety in users' expectations, this is worth the pennies-a-year cost of a dab page compared to hatnotes. F*ck 'em Bucky! Barno 19:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC) (Later: I would support keeping Dhartung's proposed dab page in preference to the current basic one, but I would prefer keeping either rather than deletion. Barno 13:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC))
    • University of Wisconsin (1956-1971) is a vague stub; it should be merged back into University of Wisconsin System, from which it appears to have come; if it is not, dab headers will still work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: Hmmm? It's neither flagged as a stub, nor does it seem vague, have I missed something? It's short, certainly, with plenty of scope for expansion. The problem with a merge is that it's not obvious which way to merge. Someone who graduated from Green Bay before 1971 graduated from the University of Wisconsin, but they didn't graduate from UW-Madison (obviously), nor from the UW System as it didn't yet exist. Probably we'll have strong opinions on both merge options if we try. Why fix what ain't broke - especially as all possible results seem pre-busted? No change of vote. Andrewa 08:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment My thinking on this is that the 56-71 institution is not fundamentally different from the U of W System, so merge in that direction. What is missing and needed, though, is an article History of the University of Wisconsin that covers all of this. It should all be explained in one place. -- Dhartung | Talk 10:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment: Agree on the need for a History of the University of Wisconsin article, and also a more general one on the history of the State University systems of the USA. I have previously started a general article on these systems, but even the history section of this article remains a very basic stub - it would be a candidate for deletion as a sub-stub if it were a separate article. I have also previously suggested creation of the history article you suggest, but even the inclusion of a history section in the UW-Madison article was resisted, apparently by alumni of the institution. It's been an interesting discussion. Contributors of content to the articles seem a lot thinner on the ground than those to the debate. That's the basic problem IMO. No change of vote. Andrewa 19:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Instead of a dab page, why not write something like University of California? —SparklingWiggleGet a job! 20:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • reply to comment - Because a lot of UW-Madison people, in particular, feel that that would be inaccurate and misleading. They will be found primarily among those supporting the elimination of this dab page, insisting that "everybody knows" that "University of Wisconsin" really means the school in Madison and nothing else that can't be dismissed with a hatnote, and that people looking for the place in Madison might be traumatized by hearing anything to the contrary. (Not that I have a POV on this, of course.) --Orange Mike 22:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC) in a computer lab of a University of Wisconsin not in Madison
      • Iow, because the two factions can't come to an agreement we create a third, worse solution. The beauty of collective decision making... ~ trialsanderrors 02:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm puzzled, Trials. Why do you use such terms as "foul" and "worse solution" for a simple dab page? There's no particular stigma attached to dab pages, and they strike me as useful objects. What makes them (or at least this one) so objectionable in your eyes? --Orange Mike 02:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Quite simply, if 50% of our readers expect to find UW-M when searching for University of Wisconsin and 50% expect the UW System, half of the readers are lead to the right spot no matter which one we pick. If you link to the dab page nobody is led to the right spot. A Pareto-dominated solution. ~ trialsanderrors 02:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Taken to its logical extreme, that argument implies that there should never be dab pages for any situation where there are two or three options, however different; sounds to me like a very abstract and academic objection. --Orange Mike 03:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (I'm assuming you meant UW-Madison up there when you typed "UW-M"?)
              • Read my original comment above. IF there were an unrelated UW a dab page would make sense. ~ trialsanderrors 03:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
                • I firmly believe that any Pareto-type effects are a direct result of the legislature voting to lump everything under one name, not any POV or bad-faith editors. These are bad enough for current/propsective students, but multiplied for us as we need to address the evolution of the term with some accuracy and utility. I believe a two-way hatnote solution only addresses the current name problem, and gives the historical name problem no help, as one has to search for the explanation. I would also throw more than three objects into the dab page, i.e. all the campuses, because while locals can certainly distinguish between UW and UW-M (see, that's Madison and Milwaukee, respectively) and UW-X and UW-Centers with some ease, out-of-staters need a little help. -- Dhartung | Talk 11:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete BUT only because there are three items in the category, which can easily be placed at the top of the largest/most important article as "University of Wisconsin redirects here, for the more specific Madison, or for ... etc". The only problem is figuring out which is best/most important/most looked for. Kopf1988 04:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (as I have not actually !voted before). My arguments above suffice for the reason this is needed between the "at least two" articles we already have, but one must realize there are innumerable institutions associated wtih one or more of the campuses that also bear the name. My proposed revamp of the page to handle the entirety of the disambiguation problem, geographical, categorical and historical, is at User:Dhartung/Sandbox/University_of_Wisconsin_(disambiguation). It's just a first draft and could be prettier or have better wording, but I think it's helpful both to navigate the different things with the name and to get some idea of their relationship to one another. The Site Map concept, call it. Yes, some of this is available by clicking through, and some of it is on templates for the various campuses, but none of it is currently in one place. -- Dhartung | Talk 11:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: While Dhartung's proposal is more lengthy and more detailed than typical disambig pages, it appears much more helpful. Normally Kopf1988 would be correct, but we have already seen in previous discussions that his "The only problem is ..." brings strong arguments from both sides that shouldn't be dismissed. The situation calls for more clarification than WP needs even for generally similar cases like the SUNY system. Dhartung's proposed page puts all the related links in one place that can be used when "found by accident". Putting a hatnote on two of the many articles would help only a fraction of the readers looking for information. Putting all these details into a "history of" article wouldn't be quickly useful to most readers. Barno 13:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If you want a beefy dab page try Saint John or Springfield. Kopf1988 was in fact my inspiration. There are far more than three distinct "things" with the name! That's when I realized that this entire debate wasn't about whether we needed disambiguation -- that much is clear -- but on how many bins we're putting things in. Particularly given there are a number of items that don't fit easily in either, not to mention the things that are often confused with the university (like Concordia, or the Medical College of Wisconsin) or loosely affiliated with it.-- Dhartung | Talk 14:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Good lateral thinking. My three-way attempt was partly motivated by the desire to get a stable long-term solution, and at that it was obviously a miserable failure. There is a grammatical sense in which any University of Wisconsin - XYZ is a sort of University of Wisconsin, and we should remember that not all users (or even editors) of English Wikipedia are native English speakers. This version has a lot going for it IMO. No change of vote. Andrewa 00:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#School_names is very clear. The creation of a dab page was appropriate in this circumstance. However, I would suggest an expansion of the dab page to a true article if this is a significant University system like the University of California. I see this already exists. However there is the historic school and the one in Madison so a dab page is still appropriate. —SparklingWiggleGet a job! 14:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful as a bird's eye level disambiguation. Yamaguchi先生 05:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Dab pages are almost always worthwhile. Having lived in the great State of Wisconsin at one time and worked within the University system there, I can say this is a good one. --204.42.24.228 23:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, expand, and strongly object to using this discussion as grounds to alter the University of Wisconsin redirect (rest of comment removed). Dekimasuよ! 06:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: As you have chosen to put an argument here for the redirect going to UW-Madison, I can't see how you can object to anyone replying to it here if they choose. But agree it would be better to save that discussion for elsewhere. There was, for example, a discussion at WP:RM which was closed prematurely owing to the deletion of the disambig page. No change of vote. Andrewa 00:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • It was discussed as part of the deletion review that brought us here, and is discussed in passing above, which was why I included that comment. I'll remove the reasoning, but we seem to be in agreement that they are separate issues. Dekimasuよ! 05:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. University of Wisconsin means different things to different people, full stop. RFerreira 02:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep With the condition that "University of Wisconsin" continues to redirect to University of Wisconsin-Madison, per User:Dekimasu. – Lordmontu (talk) • (contribs) 21:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but University of Wisconsin System should be moved to University of Wisconsin, to parallel the Univeristy of California articles. Αργυριου (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: The problem with this logic is that the situation with regard to the name University of California is different to that with regard to University of Wisconsin, and both are different to the situation with regard to the name University of Alabama, which (rightly AFAIK) is the name of the article on the "flagship" campus of that state system. See State University systems of the USA. It would be interesting to expand this article, as noted above, and document any overall trends and their historical backgrounds (while trying not to stray into WP:OR). No change of vote. Andrewa 02:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Danny Evans

Only notable as a blogger. Does not meet WP:WEB Alex Bakharev 01:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, also vanity. Bill (who is cool!) 01:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:BIO--Sefringle 04:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Bill, Sefringle. Yep, vanity. Pigmandialogue 19:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete unless a couple more references can be established, maybe a newspaper article about him? I don't know how famous those awards are, but if something else can be added he MAY be notable... maybe. Kopf1988 04:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete no evidence of Notability and little/no refs, and it appears to be self-written which is a no-no! NBeale 14:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deletion nomination withdrawn by nominator, combination of redirect and various see also links have aided WP navigation. Thx. — MrDolomite • Talk 10:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1944 D-Day Operation Overlord

1944 D-Day Operation Overlord (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

added Template:otheruses4 to 1944 D-Day Operation Overlord (videogame) article, this disambig page is not needed for such a narrowly named article or search. — MrDolomite • Talk 01:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Battle of Normandy. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral the only reason I converted to disambig was that I was concerned that a google search such as [5] would send people to the wrong article (i.e. they are more likely to be interested in the battle of Normandy than the videogame). However I can see the argument from both sides. Firmly sitting on the fence. Megapixie 03:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Disambig or Redirect Either keep this a disambig or make it a redirect. Neither one is a significant difference, and I suppose somebody could type that in. Thus I'm satisfied with it being functional. FrozenPurpleCube 04:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This and have the video article moved to this article (and delete the redirect). SYSS Mouse 04:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, there is no real point to deletion if you're going to over the article for the video game to this location. FrozenPurpleCube 05:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 05:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Battle of Normandy, and put italics "For video game, see 1944 D-Day Operation Overlord (game)". In fact, I will do it now. To AFD nominator: next time, go WP:BOLD. Then until 3RR happen, AFD, or even just discuss it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by George Leung (talk • contribs) 07:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Sidenote: Nominator Can you please withdraw this so the redirect can work? thanks George Leung 07:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dragons of Faith

Dragons of Faith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Very little information, nothing useful. Been stubbed for eons, and no one I know on Wikipedia has the info to expand it. It's better to delete it until we can recreate it, and even then, I'm unsure of it's notability. I have a plan to make a List of Dragonlance Sourcebooks, where this could one day be incorporated. DoomsDay349 01:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 03:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Redirect This is a real product of a fairly well established game line from a major company. If need be, merge into a new page List of Dragonlance game products or even the existing List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. The page itself, while minimal content, is still well constructed for a stub. FrozenPurpleCube 04:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleting articles just removes the work and research by those that started the article. What a waste of time. I agree some articles need to grow, but just deleting them does not help. People need someplace to start, and creating stubs, ideas, and other elements let Wikipedians work off of something. When you delete you leave nothing to work with. I view it as highly disruptive to the project. I know it is harder to create than destroy, but I hope you can be a creationist. Good luck to you. 13579create 06:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect and Delete. What work? That single sentence and plugging info into a cut-and-paste template took what, about ninety seconds? If someone actually wants to create a useable article on the subject - to the degree anyone bothers, because the entire series consists of similar stubs at best - more power to them, but since this stub was created, it (and the other related stubs) hasn't been touched in nine months. If there's that little interest, it should be merged into a larger article. RGTraynor 15:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Um, you do know there's no point in redirecting and deleting, don't you? Once you delete a redirect it's gone. No more content. If your concern is with the history of this article being kept, it's really a minor concern, the disk space concerns are below minimal. And I assume you find either the proposed List of Dragonlance game products or List of Dungeons & Dragons modules acceptable for the redirect target.
You assume correctly. RGTraynor 17:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Redirect. Since other modules have their own pages on the D&D page, I'm not sure why these shouldn't. Maybe they could be merged into a single page, as per FrozenPurpleCube. SkipSmith 07:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - A piece of a game module. Big deal. Cruft at best. Merge as above is OK too, but it'd be better off deleted. Also, 13579create needs to read WP:NOT. -Wooty Woot? contribs 08:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Cruft is not a reason to delete, and should be avoided as nothing more than an opinion. It would be much better to explain your problem with the subject of the article than throw around a slang term. FrozenPurpleCube 14:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge/redirect There's no official policy on game module articles as far as I know, but this does seem to be a notable product from a significant publisher. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll address a lot of the comments here in one. My point is, while it is notable, yes, I agree, but there's no information and no one I know on Wikipedia has the knowledge or willingness to expand them. I'm suggesting to delete them for now, and recreate when we have more information in a new list that I'll create in a little while. Right now, though, it's completely useless, and there's no point in keeping an article such as this. A very wise, wise person once said, "The proliferation of mediocrity is never its own excuse." Take that to heart, please. DoomsDay349 20:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Compromise. I realize where this is leaning. Therefore, to compromise. Take the images and put them on the List of Dungeons & Dragons modules, and then redirect the articles there. Is that an acceptable resolution? DoomsDay349 20:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The thing is, there's no reason to delete them simply because "I'll create a better article later" as the contents of the articles, while minimal, are nonetheless valid. So, the worst that happens by leaving them up is a few kilobytes of disk space. Big deal. This discussion alone is probably using up more time and energy on people's part than could possibly be saved by deleting them. And to counter your proverb another wise person once said "Don't fix what ain't broken" . These pages aren't broken. FrozenPurpleCube 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I see your point. I just feel like there's something better than can be done in transition for these articles until I can improve them. I guess I'll just move them to the List of DL sourcebooks I'm gonna make..when I get more DL sourcebooks. DoomsDay349 01:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - per WP:NOT#PAPER and WP:SS. - Peregrine Fisher 01:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I see inclusionism's taking over... Just because Wikipedia is not paper doesn't mean it's necessarily an encyclopedia of garbage: not every scrap of information on the planet, every book, or every game subject deserves to be here just because it exists and it's a well-written stub. There's 16 of these, let's make an article on every one, shall we? According to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules, there are literally hundreds of these modules, no different from each other and none more notable than the rest. What makes this module stand out? If it's the most widely played in the entire history of the game, keep it. Was it widely played at championships or competitions? Keep it. As of now, I see nothing to show any hint of notability. The only thing we can say is that they exist. As does my cat. -Wooty Woot? contribs 04:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep it, though, it has good potential, and isn't unverified... it really exists. Just that apparently none of us are fans that can add any information or sort through sources. WP is not paper, so no reason to delete it, especially considering it still could be notable. Kopf1988 04:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • How did you misinterpret my comment to crystal ball? By could I was refering to the that that it could ALREADY be notable, and just hasn't been verified yet. Kopf1988 04:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is also not wastepaper. One of the goals in AfDs is to delete articles that are not notable. We need to see more than an airy supposition that well, maybe, a subject might be notable. If it is, document it. If you can't document it, delete it. RGTraynor 13:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly, but I haven't really seen any try too hard at documenting it, have you? Kopf1988 04:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why, no, I haven't. That would be one reason I recommend Deletion. If so many people are passionate about saving this article, then one would think at least one or two would feel passionate enough to make it a viable, notable, sourced article. RGTraynor 05:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It has been improved since the AfD started. Not sure what viable means, since it's a pretty good article, but it has sources, the Primary source itself. As far as notable, Wikipedia:Notability is now disputed, and doesn't look like it's goig to make it. - Peregrine Fisher 05:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment' For all the arguments as to notability, the fact is, this was a product of a notable gaming company, and part of an unquestionably notable series. (If you need proof that Dragonlance is notable, just ask yourself if something not notable would have over 100 books involving it. I'm sure somebody could tell you the sales figures and such, but I don't think there's a reason to try). This is, and the other modules which have been nominated, were part of the initial series that introduced Dragonlance to the world. Thus some coverage of it is appropriate, even if it were just to mention its name and a brief description in a discussion of Dragonlance products or the adventure series it was in. I'm willing to say there is a valid question in how best to cover the subject of this article, however, outright deletion, is not the best way. There are other options. FrozenPurpleCube 14:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

PS, Wooty, we can't say your cat exists. You can, but without independent sources on the existence of your cat, we're just taking your word for it.  :) FrozenPurpleCube 14:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see the point in overzealous deletionism, if you don't want to read about this topic don't come here. The only Compromise I would see as acceptable is to Merge and Redirect with other modules in the original DL series (Not a general Dragonlance modules article but specifically the intial series of 14), with a section in the article for each of the modules. This would allow each module to be re-created as it's own article when the combined article got too large, and would also mean that there is then a good summary article for the series refering to each individual article. Merging or putting images into List of Dungeons & Dragons modules is not a good idea as this article is long enough already and does not need to be expanded (That it is why it refers to individual module articles). I think there are better things to spend effort on than a merger and redirect, but if someone realy wants to spend the time and do it properly it would be acceptable, provided no information is lost from existing articles. - Waza 22:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dragons of Light

Dragons of Light (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Very little information, nothing useful. Been stubbed for eons, and no one I know on Wikipedia has the info to expand it. It's better to delete it until we can recreate it, and even then, I'm unsure of it's notability. I have a plan to make a List of Dragonlance Sourcebooks, where this could one day be incorporated. DoomsDay349 01:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 03:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As far as I know, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. We should not "delete" stubs for being very obscure, but keep it there in case someone can help expanding it. There is no problem in having stubs around. -- ReyBrujo 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Redirect This is a real product of a fairly well established game line from a major company. If need be, merge into a new page List of Dragonlance game products or even the existing List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. The page itself, while minimal content, is still well constructed for a stub. FrozenPurpleCube 04:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Redirect. Repeating myself. Since other modules have their own pages on the D&D page, I'm not sure why these shouldn't. Maybe they could be merged into a single page. SkipSmith 07:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect and Delete as per my comments on the Dragons of Faith AfD. RGTraynor 15:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. My point is being missed. This is not a question of notability. It's a question of why we are proliferation mediocre material that serves no reasonable purpose. DoomsDay349 20:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge/redirect There's no official policy on game module articles as far as I know, but this does seem to be a notable product from a significant publisher. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Compromise. I realize where this is leaning. Therefore, to compromise. Take the images and put them on the List of Dungeons & Dragons modules, and then redirect the articles there. Is that an acceptable resolution? DoomsDay349 20:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - per WP:NOT#PAPER and WP:SS. - Peregrine Fisher 01:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or MERGE - merge into Dragonlance until more sources found, or otherwise keep it. Kopf1988 04:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of Notability and little/no refs. NBeale 14:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see the point in overzealous deletionism, if you don't want to read about this topic don't come here. The only Compromise I would see as acceptable is to Merge and Redirect with other modules in the original DL series (Not a general Dragonlance modules article but specifically the intial series of 14), with a section in the article for each of the modules. This would allow each module to be re-created as it's own article when the combined article got too large, and would also mean that there is then a good summary article for the series refering to each individual article. Merging or putting images into List of Dungeons & Dragons modules is not a good idea as this article is long enough already and does not need to be expanded (That it is why it refers to individual module articles). I think there are better things to spend effort on than a merger and redirect, but if someone realy wants to spend the time and do it properly it would be acceptable, provided no information is lost from existing articles. - Waza 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Last I checked, we're not running out of disk space any time soon, and I see the beginnings something useful here. This nomination for deletion is so wrong in so many ways, I'm not even sure where to begin. RFerreira 02:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dragons of Ice

Dragons of Ice (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Very little information, nothing useful. Been stubbed for eons, and no one I know on Wikipedia has the info to expand it. It's better to delete it until we can recreate it, and even then, I'm unsure of it's notability. I have a plan to make a List of Dragonlance Sourcebooks, where this could one day be incorporated. DoomsDay349 01:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Bucketsofg 03:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Redirect Repeating myself, This is a real product of a fairly well established game line from a major company. If need be, merge into a new page List of Dragonlance game products or even the existing List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. The page itself, while minimal content, is still well constructed for a stub. FrozenPurpleCube 04:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Redirect. Also repeating myself. Since other modules have their own pages on the D&D page, I'm not sure why these shouldn't. Maybe they could be merged into a single page. SkipSmith 07:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: I just saw Ravenloft (D&D module) on the WP:GAC page, so there are people that are working on improving DnD module articles. I guess merging them into a Tales of Winter Night article wouldn't be so bad, but I would object to a List of Dragonlance modules merger. In reality, I guess there's really not much to say about something that's only 32 pages long. (I only know this because I own DL2: Dragons of Flame, which this AFD made me go dig up). Repeat this vote for the other AFDs (I'm lazy).--SeizureDog 11:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect and Delete as per my comments on the Dragons of Faith AfD. RGTraynor 15:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. As stated in the other AFDs, my point is not about notability. It's about the fact that I cannot understand why we are proliferating useless material. One day, I will recreate this. When I have the material. Trust me, no one on Wikipedia can fix this. Why are we leaving a stub whose best chance at improvement is years away? DoomsDay349 20:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge/redirect There's no official policy on game module articles as far as I know, but this does seem to be a notable product from a significant publisher. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Compromise. I realize where this is leaning. Therefore, to compromise. Take the images and put them on the List of Dungeons & Dragons modules, and then redirect the articles there. Is that an acceptable resolution? DoomsDay349 20:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - per WP:NOT#PAPER and WP:SS. - Peregrine Fisher 01:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - per User:SeizureDog. It looks like it will get improved over time. Kopf1988 04:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Really? Up until this AfD, it hadn't been touched in nine months. Upon what do you base that belief? RGTraynor 13:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no time limit on wikipedia articles, so the speed at which it is being improved is irrelevant. - Peregrine Fisher 17:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That's not the point. The point is that a claim was made that the article will improve over time. I'm questioning the basis for that claim, being myself unsure how one can tell by a casual glance at an article that it is destined to be improved. My casual glance says that except for the couple paragraphs thrown in specifically in response to this AfD, no one's touched it and there is nothing to suggest that anyone else is likely to do so. RGTraynor 18:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't know why they think it will eventually be improved, but I think it's because that's what happens with wikipedia articles. As far as nine months going by, that doesn't seem like a long time in the scope of what wikipedia is trying to do. There are tons of D&D stubs, and not that many D&D editors. It's going to take years to finish them all, I would imagine. Deleting this will extend that time. - Peregrine Fisher 18:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see the point in overzealous deletionism, if you don't want to read about this topic don't come here. The only Compromise I would see as acceptable is to Merge and Redirect with other modules in the original DL series (Not a general Dragonlance modules article but specifically the intial series of 14), with a section in the article for each of the modules. This would allow each module to be re-created as it's own article when the combined article got too large, and would also mean that there is then a good summary article for the series refering to each individual article. Merging or putting images into List of Dungeons & Dragons modules is not a good idea as this article is long enough already and does not need to be expanded (That it is why it refers to individual module articles). I think there are better things to spend effort on than a merger and redirect, but if someone realy wants to spend the time and do it properly it would be acceptable, provided no information is lost from existing articles. - Waza 22:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mick Karch

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

Contested prod. Non-notable wrestling announcer, fails WP:BIO and WP:A One Night In Hackney303 01:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as NN, fails WP:BIO. Obscure fellow with 171 G-hits [6], how many people pay attention to announcers at indy shows? RGTraynor 15:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of Notability and little/no refs. NBeale 14:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gnangarra 11:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of actors who played Nazis in movies

List of actors who played Nazis in movies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list. There's nothing notable about playing a Nazi character and there's no reason why actors such as Brando and Will Ferrell should be grouped together just because they happened to have portrayed a Nazi at some point in their careers. Saikokira 01:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Can agree with that. A lot of the actors on that page aren't even notable. Delete. Alex43223 T | C | E 03:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This should be at most a category, but even then it might not be NPOV. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NPOV AlfPhotoman 13:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: I'd also like to point out that the title is a tad bit grammatically incorrect, and should be List of actors who have played a Nazi in film, since as it is, you'd have to play as more than one Nazi to qualify.--SeizureDog 14:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - Useless, indiscriminate list. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 22:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful index to information in Wikipedia. Someone who wonders "who was the actor who played the Nazi in that film, I think it was called The Enemy or something like that" can browse this list. Categories don't do that. Fg2 01:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete wtf, this article is awful. J'onn J'onzz 01:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep lists of character roles serve a serious purpose in helping anyone interested in how actors approach those roles. Noroton 02:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This list tells us nothing about how actors approach playing a Nazi. Otto4711 14:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not "very" similar, unless you consider playing a generic Nazi character as significant as playing the President of the United States. This list is many, many times worse than that one. Saikokira 06:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, I consider one type of role about as significant as another for the purpose of lists of actors who play them. I couldn't care less what significance the role plays in a particular actor's career. What's significant is how actors play those roles, and to study that or even have an interest in that would, I think, be the purpose of a reader coming to this article. I think that's a serious purpose well served by a Wikipedia article. I would break up the list at least into categories of "Comedic Nazis", "Menacing Nazis" and "Other". You could probably have a thousand lists of types of characters actors play. Good thing Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia. Too bad this article looks like it's a goner. Noroton 17:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment "Comedic" Nazis. Do you mean "Comic" Nazis? That is going far. Comic Nazis have practically always (I cannot think of an exception just now) been the result of "a play in the play". Bourvil and Louis de Funès in La Grande Vadrouille are supreme examples of this. If you include them, you will have to include Lee Marvin, Charles Bronson, Trini Lopez ... (The Dirty Dozen). "Other Nazis" is even worse. There is nothing exclusively German or exclusively "1933-1945"-ish about Nazism. Who is to stop my POV from including John Wayne for his role in Green Berets? Basically this list is useless (when completed it will contain thousands of names without any connection between them, and as Sam Blacketer said, any prolific actor should have played a Nazi at one time or other) and simply invites POV inclusions (is the historical guy being portrayed really a Nazi - at the time when this is supposed to take place? what constitutes a Nazi in films - surely most people who go to this list will just be looking for that smart American in the German uniform? how convincing has the play acting in "the play in the play" have to be for it to constitute "playing a comic Nazi"?).--Pan Gerwazy
  • Delete - actors can play dozens or hundreds of roles in their careers. There's nothing significant about playing a Nazi. Otto4711 03:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as Otto said "a Nazi" is not a special highight of a career. List of actors who played Adolf Hitler might be comparable to the US President role. This list is more like List of actors who have played a Republican. Also, this list is incomplete and would likely be in the thousands if it were completed. Were the really only two Nazi characters in Schindler's List? None at all in Hogan's Heroes, 'Allo 'Allo! or The Sound of Music? --Scott Davis Talk 07:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Apart from being useless, there are a few other problems. Who is to say that Erwin Rommel and other anti-Hitler conspirators like Stauffenberg and York were nazis? Some of them changed their political opinion. What about Standartenführer Stirlitz? Actually, what the author was thinking of was "List of actors who once played a role which involved wearing a German WWII uniform." Silly. But add the word "black" before "actors" and it becomes less silly, of course. --Pan Gerwazy 15:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Noroton's rationale. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 16:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, because it's an indiscriminate list: any prolific film actor would probably be cast as a Nazi at some point. I wouldn't be opposed to a list of actors who have made a specialism of playing Nazis. Sam Blacketer 17:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, because other lists, such as one of actors who play presidents have been voted as keeps, and also because Nazis are one of the most influential and therefore significant groups of the 20th century, regardless of their wickedness, and therefore readers of Wikipedia, whether historians, or just people interested in films, are really likely to check out such useful and relevant articles as this one. Have a spectacular Spring Break! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of horror TV series

List of horror TV series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Redundant list, this is what categories are for, which is why Category:Horror television series already exists (and makes a much better job of it). Saikokira 01:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of live-action/animated films

List of live-action/animated films (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Redundant list, just duplicates films already listed in Category:Live-action/animated films. List has zero context so is of little encyclopedic value as well. With the existing Live-action/animated film article and Category:Live-action/animated films there is no additional need for this list. Saikokira 01:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete: There's got to be a better way to word that category though.--SeizureDog 14:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Just use the category. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 22:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the category is good for this type of thing. Kopf1988 04:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, as decided before and already done by UsaSatsui. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Mighty Poo

The Great Mighty Poo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN video game character which only appeared in one game. Dismas|(talk) 02:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy deleted by me. A combination of author-requests-deletion, wikipedia-is-not-an-instruction-manual, and the fact that this AfD is certain to result in deletion means that I have to WP:SNOW this. - Richard Cavell 00:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pinewood derby car modifications

Pinewood derby car modifications (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not an instruction manual (and Transwiki to WIkibooks request). I am the author of the page and I realized after starting that it is much better suited to Wikibooks. I started Wikibooks:How To Build a Pinewood Derby Car and imported the page over. At this point I am requesting a delete of the original page as a part of the Transwiki process. Kkmurray 02:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. Although the author is technically correct to bring it to AFD since there seems to be one or two other contributors, the vast bulk of the article seems written by Kkmurray and I think the spirit of the db-author and snow justify a sppedy here. Bucketsofg 02:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. The fact that you actually have the wikibook links means this article is moot. EDIT: Make sure you dump that Link to the Pinewood derby car.George Leung 07:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merged. Majorly (o rly?) 16:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Characters From The Invisible Man

Characters From The Invisible Man (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Just a list of 8 characters from a 2000 Sci-Fi Channel series called The Invisible Man, and this list already exists at the main article. Usually I would just change this to a redirect, but the title is ambiguous, considering the infinitely more well-known H.G. Wells original and many other TV series with the same name, so it would be better just to delete it. Saikokira 02:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge into The Invisible Man. The list article seems to have more content than what's in the main article, so I wouldn't just dispose of the information. But there's certainly no reason it needs to stand on its own in a separate article. Just make the list article a section within the show's main article. Per Saikokira, no redirect. Mwelch 02:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Mwelch. Bucketsofg 02:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge for now into the TV series article. I understand the intention here -- to create an article similar to the one created for character from Heroes for example, but there really isn't enough material in both articles to support two articles. 23skidoo 05:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This is understandable, I shall merge characters into main article now, I think that it is a good idea. Once I have merged, you can delete the page. Thanks, Mrx9898 03:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schmuckdomain

Schmuckdomain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • Non-notable neologism, see one google in English result, and only 24 total in all languages. Delete. Mak (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Schmuckdomains is an official category in Sedo.com and this question has been asked here as well. enderminh 03:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Dicdef - Wikipiedia is not a dictionary And this neologism only seems to exist as a category on Sedo.com. Saikokira 03:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Leuko 04:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - no verification whatsoever (statement: "Often used in the ... business", but no sources. –- kungming·2 (Talk) 07:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - unsourced, WP:ATT is policy, and dictionary definitions are better off at Wiktionary. Moreschi Request a recording? 09:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - PROVE that it is often used in the domain business. Kopf1988 04:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yuser31415 20:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Players

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

Gibberish, NPOV, whatever else you can think of. dsm iv tr 03:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Please check for vandalism before AfD'ing. Before this IP edit, the article was about a TV show and was not gibberish. I have reverted to the non-vandalised version and re-added the AfD notice; I'd call for a speedy close now except that I'm not sure whether this TV show meets WP:N. cab 04:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Nominated in error as stated by cab. Series is notable judging by the impressive cast/guest stars. Players should link directly to Players (disambiguation) as there's no clear primary use of the word, but that's another discussion. Saikokira 05:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. As noted it's a valid article that just happened to be vandalised when the OP noticed it. Ben W Bell talk 08:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Players (1997 TV series) and move Players (disambiguation) to Players. This TV show doesn't seem to be any more notable than the other articles with the name. Otherwise, keep.--SeizureDog 10:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Players (1997 TV series) per SeizureDog cab 23:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and move per Seizuredog. This should not be squatting on such a common term. -- Dhartung | Talk 10:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A userfied copy will be provided upon request to aid in creating a category, if desired. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australian's in music

List of Australian musicians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (52kb, 3 columns wide, and incomplete)
List of Australians in music (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Two lists, the later is a partial version of the former. Neither list has any criteria, they include individuals and bands, some of which may not meet WP:MUSIC. Since there are no inclusion criteria, are problems with WP:LIST; in addition to the issues with potential size as well as category overlap. Delete --Peta 04:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep both, on condition of cleanup and a probable merge - I think we should discount the point on WP:MUSIC - this is NOT a debate to make value judgements on individual bands and whether they are notable - that can be made on an individual article basis with AfDs if that is to be the case. The "List of Australians in music" is a useful article as Australia has a wide and varied music culture, and the musicians involved in it are just as important as the music itself - and it could easily have criteria, Peta, if we did some work on it (which no one is keen to do). It is not easily replaced by a category, either; let's think about the alternatives to deleting this list: the alternative would be an article on Australians in music, not a category: and it would be an article where someone would have to make value judgements on who is and is not able to be included; a list can encompass more people and can be maintained and pruned accordingly. Let's not just go deleting lists because we think they overlap with categories too much (as I think is being done quite rashly at the moment) - let's fix them up first and improve them instead. If that includes a name change, setting down some criteria of who should and should not be in the list (eg (just a suggestion), you could have people who have made it onto various notable music charts in the top 100 or something??), and some major culling, so be it, but let's not waste the good work done by several editors encompassed in this list - it's already a good start and should be improved upon, not consigned to the dustbin simply because a couple of editors think it's superfluous. JRG 12:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete both. JRG's suggestions are reasonable, but I don't think these lists as they stand are necessarily helpful starting points to create properly referenced List of Australian top 40 performers, which would have tables listing group/artist name, single title, album title, and dates or List of ARIA Award nominees with artist, award nominated for, year, and nomination (if it's for a song or album). These lists may need to be moved to user or project space for a while to use as references, but the blue links should eventually end up in (subcategories of) Category:Australian musicians (or related for the non-musicians "in music"), and the red links get filtered for vanity links, but then added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do until an article can be created. --Scott Davis Talk 14:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete both - much better done with a category. - Richard Cavell 23:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Why? Please give a reason. JRG 00:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete both, alpha lists are better served with a hierarchy of categories. Will anyone ever need to see a context free list that contains film composers, producers, sound engineers, opera singers and Kylie Minogue's set designer together? That's what List of Australians in music can grow to. And in List of Australian musicians there's no way to say that some of those redlinks are non-notable high school bands? At least a category only contains verified, notable bands that conform to WP:MUSIC. If any redlinks need creating there are better places to list them. --Steve (Slf67) talk 00:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
If they are not notable, it is not the job of this discussion to decide what is or isn't - we use an AfD. A category can contain non-notable bands too. JRG 00:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep List of Australian musicians - but something needs to be done to make it different to a category, such as adding a genre, instrument, recording information or some other summary information. Without summary information, lists are just bad manual attempts at categories. Delete List of Australians in music - inclusion criteria is too vague (I am guessing being a roadie doesn't cut it but being a recording producer does?) Why is everyone in List of Australian musicians not also in this list? Garrie 01:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep List of Australian musicians as useful list that played an important part in developing articles on musicians. Why do we have this insistence on deleting useful lists? Redirect List of Australians in music to list of Australian musicians. Capitalistroadster 01:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That's what project or user namespaces are for. These lists may be useful for contributors to find a topic to write an article about, but they are not useful to readers of Wikipedia, as there is no validation of quality of the list. --Scott Davis Talk 02:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete because this is what we have categories for. Kopf1988 04:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
No it's not. Lists and categories are different things and they can co-exist. I think editors here need to realise that. That reason is being cited far too much in these Australian list debates and it's just not true. JRG 11:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Lists and categories are different things, and therefore their strengths lie in different areas. Lists such as these that have vague or hugely inclusive criteria are not useful. Lists with well-defined and tractable membership that identify the membership as notable and contain additional information are different to categories that contain alphabetic-sorted lists of people with articles only. This means a number of lists with loose criteria were created in the early days of the project as aides-memoire. These are no longer needed or appropriate as the project has evolved. Many "good" lists have associated categories. So do many "bad" or obsolete lists. Some of these are being cleaned up. You appear to show up at every discussion and claim that if it was cleaned up, the list would be OK. Most of the ones being considered are so far from being a suitable list that it would be better to start afresh with proper references, if they could ever be made suitable. Examples of good Lists of Australians with matching categories include (I have not checked for completeness at either level, or either direction):
List of Australian Test wicket-keepers 
Category:Australian wicket-keepers
Australian national cricket captains 
Category:Australian cricket captains
List of Australian Test cricketers 
Category:Australian Test cricketers
List of Australian government ministers 
Category:Government ministers of Australia
Premiers of South Australia 
Category:Premiers of South Australia
List of cast members of Home and Away 
Category:Home and Away cast members (the category is proposed to be removed as being what lists, not categories are good for)
List of Anglican bishops of Sydney 
Category:Bishops of Sydney
Some of these need more articles written or added to the category to make the category useful. Other lists exist without appropriate matching categories. This is about cleaning up the list detritus. --Scott Davis Talk 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
If it is about cleaning things up, why won't anyone help out? Everyone's so mega-keen to delete anything, yet no one can be bothered to put in the good work and actually do some cleaning up and create some useful Australian lists. Why can't we keep these here so we can actually know what we need to improve on. Wikipedia is not about having every article perfect -it's also a work in progress, and these sort of articles help us to understand where we need to clean things up. I'm really tired of advocating things to be kept, when there is good reason for it, when other people are so zealous and stuck in their ways about deleting anything and everything. JRG 11:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment If you want to-do lists then go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do. Don't put/keep to-do lists in article/main space.Garrie 22:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Most of the lists we're looking at are not getting nominated, so you don't have to advocate in a deletion debate for most of them. Since you sound like you think it's personal, here's some evidence that we are helping too. I haven't bothered to check the others' voting records, but I know I've supported keeping a couple lists that were nominated for deletion recently.
None of us (you included) get to these edit counts without doing something good for the project! Sometimes it's adding content, sometimes cleaning, tidying and formatting, and sometimes it's putting the rubbish out. The deleted lists are like cleaning up and putting out the recycling. I don't want the place full of lists that attract vanity edits. An article about the person can stand in its own right to demonstrate notability. If there is no reliable reference for the list, it is usually better as a category. --Scott Davis Talk 13:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (o rly?) 21:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Unti

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

Non-notable biography, does not appear to meet WP:BIO. All references are self-references, no multiple, independent sources. Leuko 04:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, fails WP:BIO, WP:ATT. 157 G-hits [13] for this fellow, his book has a sales rank of just under 300,000 on Amazon, and I just wound up deleting half the references from the article because they didn't actually pertain to Mr. Unti, but were generic advocacy links for his favored cause. RGTraynor 15:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's incorrect. He is either the subject, author, or a commentator in each of them.

  • Comment: Well ... after having gone through the first several of them, they are either posts from a bulletin board, articles where he is named as an arrested protester, articles about someone else where he is quoted speaking about the article's subject or (in the first case) where he isn't mentioned at all. Those are completely trivial and non-applicable references. RGTraynor 14:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Go ahead and get rid of the entry if you insist-- I am relatively new and perhaps I don't comprehend the criteria well enough. Let me just point out that first you wanted to strike the entry because you claimed the items didn't pertain to Unti. Discovering you were wrong, you now offer another set of reasons based on triviality. He's one of the top officials at the largest animal group in the country. If someone wants to ever start reading about the issues they are going to run into his work. He's an encyclopedist himself if you look at the DAH and encyclopedia entries he authored.Schweizerbueb 12:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In general, I would prefer the sources being left inside the article for everybody's so that everyone can easily check for themselves whether they pertain and if so, whwther in a more than trivial sense. That being said, I also do not see the in-depth coverage of Unti as required by teh notability criteria for persons cited above. As much of his work and publications seem to be either about the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) or related to or performed in in his role as Policy Adviser of the HSUS, I would suggest to (slightly) merge and redirect there. Tikiwont 13:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice to recreate if better sources can be located. I half suspect that the subject could meet WP:BIO, but I am unable to find decent sources online.--Kubigula (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John Reaves (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Human Rights Watch

Criticism of Human Rights Watch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

"Criticism of" article. There seems to be more consensus these days that "Criticism of" articles are a bad idea from an NPOV standpoint. —Ashley Y 05:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge into Human Rights Watch. —Ashley Y 06:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment can you provide a reference to your claim that consensus stands that 'Criticism of' articles are a bad idea? --Ouro (blah blah) 08:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge as utterly unnecessary POV fork. -Wooty Woot? contribs`
  • Keep, merging would cause a gratuitous undue weight to criticism of the organisation. - Francis Tyers · 09:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment not to say that I don't think 'Criticism of X' articles are in general a bad idea. Just with this one it would be impossible to merge. - Francis Tyers · 09:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Surely the undue weight is worse with a separate article? —Ashley Y 07:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't think so. The "Israeli criticism of HRW" is about the same length as the current article. If the whole criticism article could be cut down to say 4 paragraphs, as I tried to do here, then maybe we could merge it back in. But not as it currently stands. Of course the criticism article is larger now and so couldn't focus solely on Israel. - Francis Tyers · 09:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Ashley: please keep in mind that occasionaly, criticism of... is an important part of an issue. Criticism of HRW cannot be concluded from the given facts (unlike, say, an unjust war or some controversial governmental policy which is bound to go both ways), but actually adds to the description of HRW — as an NGO, they step on many feet, and cause reactions which influence their work — one way or another. ★čabrilo★ 00:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep — Perhaps Criticism of... articles are not always good, but in this particular case, criticism that HRW faces is a big part of their daily functioning and, if I may say, identity. NGOs are always under scrutiny from one place or the other and we would miss a big part of the large picture if we didn't get into describing the systematic criticism. ★čabrilo★ 10:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Human Rights Watch. This seems to be a fork magnet DanielT5 15:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep it's been split from Human Rights Watch, which is different than POV forking. Where was this consensus developed? Koweja 22:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You can see Talk:Human Rights Watch and Talk:Criticism of Human Rights Watch. - Francis Tyers · 09:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the question was about the nom. Ashley Y seems to be generously conflating a number of recent nominations into a consensus to delete, but the ones I know of were kept, e.g. Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Wikipedia, Criticism of Mormonism, a couple others. -- Dhartung | Talk 10:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge as per comments above. Appears to be a POV fork. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 22:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I'd agree with delete if all the "Criticism of" articles were deleted. bogdan 09:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. This is a proper subarticle, not a POV fork (although all "Criticism" articles have tricky POV tendencies by nature). -- Dhartung | Talk 10:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this amount of content would sufficiently overwhelm the original Human Rights Watch article, better to keep as subarticle unless information is cut down in size. Joshdboz 19:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Delete !voters seem to be misunderstanding the difference between a valid subarticle and POV fork. RFerreira 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge The Human Rights Watch article is less than 32kb. Therefor there isn't need to sub-article and it can be merged.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. --pIrish 17:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • merge, criticism is a valid topic but need not be treated separately. the israel bit certainly could be edited down - it smells of a defensive rant to me personally. Aaronbrick 18:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article seems reasonably clear and NPOVish. It seems there is enough material for a whole article. --Hobit 03:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but note that the consensus at this discussion explicitly does not include any of the side issues of whether to merge content back into the main article or create redirects (some of which already exist). Those side issues need a separate discussion, and in the case of redirects, potentially RfDs, to get a consensus.Chaser - T 20:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative names for USB flash drive

Alternative names for USB flash drive (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

So many of these names sound made-up, and every single one of them is unsourced. Nerd stick? Sex drive? Geek whistle? I say this page should be deleted on grounds of being unverifiable. TheCoffee 05:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Provides a search landing page but more imprtantly, this page informs reads that name they are using is synonym or brand specific name. Not long ago I was wondering what the difference between "thumb drive" and a USB drive are (no differences). Now I can read the USB drives Wikipedia entry without wondering "how's this different from a Thumb Drive?"
  • Delete No sources. Any VERIFIED names can be mentioned in the USB flash drive article. TJ Spyke 06:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this article was split from USB flash drive since that article was getting crowded. merging back in would be a messa again. Perhaps require all entries to be sourced and remove those unsourced might be a better solution - SimonLyall 07:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • 'Comment. use a table or something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by George Leung (talk • contribs) 07:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
    • I was thinking... if we require all entries to be sourced, and remove the unverifiable ones, what remains would be small enough to put back into the USB flash drive article. TheCoffee 07:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Requiring all entries to be sourced should have been the solution that you applied to USB flash drive when you saw that it was getting crowded. Applause for pushing back against the input of original research over the months, but you should have pushed harder, and in the original article. A general principle to remember: Creating a new article and moving the rubbish into it is not a way to get rid of unverifiable rubbish. Uncle G 11:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per TJ Spyke, and most of these sound like jokes anyway ("snib", "dirty finger", "porn stick", "geek chip"...) Zetawoof(ζ) 07:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Unencyclopedic material. There's really no need to list the many names an USB drive may be known by - just the most common terms and names should suffice. Otherwise, we risk getting a clunky article. –- kungming·2 (Talk) 07:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, most terms on there seem non-notable. Nerd bling? Seems like a list of mostly neologism terms. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - USBCruft? Neologisms? Original research? Something made up in a school one day? Take your pick. -Wooty Woot? contribs 08:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Just make sure that every term on the list redirects to USB flash drive in some way.--SeizureDog 14:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Why? Most of them would not be search terms and questions exist as to their verifiability and breadth of use DanielT5 15:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This would be a very silly sad result.--ZayZayEM 03:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Well someone uses them, even if you don't. It'd still be good practice.--SeizureDog 13:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:N, WP:NEO, WP:ATT, WP:V and I could go on ... DanielT5 15:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge once unsourced & neologisms are removed it'll fit in the main article. Koweja 22:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - merging this with the main page is just a waste of space - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 22:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep USB_Flash_drive#Naming refers to this page. Keep per SimonLyall. This article is not meant to stand alone and it serves a purpose in its context.--ZayZayEM 03:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I removed all OR-sounding or NN-sounding entries. Hopefully what remains are notable (such as the Memory Stick for Sony's brand of flash memory). I suspect the outstandingly notable ones such as "Dirty Finger" can be sourced, but I'm not sure the article should stay anyway. Just being bold. -Wooty Woot? contribs 04:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge but only include the useful/non-neoligism Kopf1988 04:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Hey, this might be my first wiki edit but this article is pretty damn useful, I'm emailing a link to it right now. Yeah fine, ignore me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.202.166.98 (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep - Useful article. Keep it around for a couple of years until usage establishes one or two widely accepted terms. - arleyl 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edgewater Mall

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

substandard assertion of notability-I lived in Mississippi, the whole of the Gulf Coast can be driven across in less than an hour. Mallcruft. Chris 06:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per proposed guideline WP:MALL. Although this mall obviously exists, it's hard to find reliable sources discussing it, as is the case with many other malls. --Metropolitan90 06:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Although the WP:MALL page has been tagged "rejected", it had not been rejected at the time I submitted my initial recommendation. --Metropolitan90 19:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Trim this down per WP:NOT and WP:OR and you get..that it exists. Non-notable mall. -Wooty Woot? contribs 08:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wiki is not a directory of shops in any given shopping mall. Ohconfucius 09:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per proposed guideline WP:MALL, even thoughj someone has just put a "rejected" tag on that proposal. Seems more like a used and useful guideline. Edison 19:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - No independent sources on anything of interest. In any case the list of shops must go; WP is not the Yellow Pages. TerriersFan
  • Delete - Appears to be non-notable, but I may be swayed if some of the claims made (eg re Tulane) can be substantiated. Note that my vote in this instance is not on the basis of the rejected proposal WP:MALL as I believe many malls/shopping centres are indeed notable. Orderinchaos78 10:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I worked at this mall. There was definetly nothing out of the ordinary about it, and yes, the stores have changed over time. The only thing notable I can think of was that it was damaged by Hurricane Katrina. However, aerial photographs only show minimal damage to the building's exterior.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I am going to redirect this to Anna Nicole Smith for now and interested parties can merge the content from here to the main article as they see fit.--Isotope23 13:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death of Anna Nicole Smith

Death of Anna Nicole Smith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Why do we need an article for a persons death?the original page is good enough,not good enough for a separate articleRodrigue 18:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep. This is a top news story in its own right (though I'm getting sick of it already), definitely deserving of a separate article. Realkyhick 19:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Anna Nicole Smith. The event has not enough solid facts to be separate, and would be just as good merged into the article about the person. --Kevin (TALK)(MUSIC) 21:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Anna Nicole Smith. Really not good enough to stand on its own, and I hardly feel Anna Nicole Smith deserves an article just on her death anyway. Buyable 22:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for a month and then Merge with Anna Nicole Smith. It is attracting as much editing action as the main ANS article, and by having it separate from the main ANS article, it is keeping both relatively stable. If the Death article is merged in now, it will unbalance the main article by the sheer length of the Death discussion. In a month (or so), things will have calmed down and more may well be known (the autopsy and the CSI story are yet to come). At that time, a shorter Death section could well be added to the main ANS article. Bellagio99 02:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge contents back into main article, then delete redirect. A redirect would direct editors looking for the 'death' article back to Smith's biography, where they could make the same edits. And there's nothing so incredibly society-altering about Smith's death that would necessitate the event requiring its own editing. Death of Richard Jeni, for example, would feel just as odd. — Whedonette (ping) 03:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: "merge and delete" isn't a valid vote; WP:GFDL requires that revision history be maintained. I think you want merge and redirect. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's a fairly notable article about the death of a celebrity. I disagree with the idea of merging it since there is way too much infomation for the Anna Nicole Smith article. dposse 20:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Any claims that ANS is not important for an encyclopedia are POV. Her death is important, and I think it makes sense to have the facts available on wikipedia, especially in light of pernicious and pervasive rumours. People will turn to Wikipedia for the facts, so it is inappropriate for it to be removed merely because some editors deem ANS "unencyclopedic" and distasteful.--Agnaramasi 20:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Agnaramasi, I don't think anyone is arguing to delete the article, but whether or not to merge the death article into the main Anna Nicole Smith article. (See my comments above). Hmn, Donald Freed has written a play called, The Death of Sokrates. Is this a precedent? Bellagio99 23:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This is easily a notable enough topic to warrant a separate article. Everyking 05:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Do you really think people are going to remember this a month later?it is not worth a seperate article just because it is a current top news story192.30.202.19 16:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    • We have a "notability is permanent" principle, so it doesn't matter if people stop caring a week from now. Everyking 05:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Uh... yes. It's been over a month, and it's still heavily covered in the press. ◄Zahakiel► 18:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge This is real and heavily referenced. I don't see any reason it was proposed for deletion, but it shouldn't have it's own article. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • For one thing, Anna's main article is 42 kilobytes long. Everyking 07:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge:The reason why I proposed it for deletion is because it shouldn't be its own article,but I was only implying that it should be merged with the other article,not for the information itself to be deletedRodrigue 17:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • MergeIts true,wikipedia cannot have articles that are simply about the death of a person,especially just because that person is a famous celebrity192.30.202.18 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Would you be making that same snarky comment if it wasn't an anon? — MichaelLinnear 03:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ahem, are you putting Saddam Hussein, after all the leader of a nation and all that, on the same shelf as a model and actress? --Ouro (blah blah) 08:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete but more realistically merge. Wikipedia shouldn't become a gossip encyclopedia.--Jersey Devil 21:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Is there a good way to distinguish what you call "gossip" from notable information about a different subject, except that it involves a celebrity? Everyking 03:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete:In responce to the above comment,Saddam Hussein does have an article on his death and execution,but there is also an article on the death and funeral of the recently deceased Gerald Ford.One of those people is a former dictator who has been infamous for his crimes against humanity for so many years, and the other is a well known former United States president.I think Its fair that such excetionally well known people whos death will live throught history is more important than someone who is just a well known model and actress whos death will be talked about and remembered until a bigger hollywood story comes along192.30.202.19 13:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • DeleteIt is unfair to have articles pertaining to a persons death,but this one specifically more than the others which are atleast of major worldwide sgnificants192.30.202.28 21:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge. While she was a celebrity, Anna Nicole's death did not contribute anything to American law, to Bahamian law, to drug testing, or anything that isn't really self-contained. If her death had touched off a larger scale change in the status quo, then I would be for keeping it. I feel a decent amount of what's on this article currently can be condensed successfully; let's merge it back into the ANS article until such a time arises when a) the ANS article becomes too large, b) the information regarding her death becomes more relevant to a larger story. Freakazette 23:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Really does not need to be it's own article. Just the final chapter of her life. — MichaelLinnear 03:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete This is not Wiki News. The fact that it is a current event is irrelevant. The creation of a free standing article was premature. Her cause of death has not even been determined, yet. Editors need to be disciplined enough to confine the truly encyclopedic content into the subject's biography. The free-standing article has become a platform for tabloid, non-encyclopedic material. If Anna Nicole was, in fact, murdered and a trial ensues, then a free standing article, akin to the O.J. Simpson murder case would be warranted - not at this juncture. Cleo123 06:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That the cause of death hasn't been determined is irrelevant. That there has been no murder trial is irrelevant. Notability is assigned to whatever people choose to pay attention to. If she was murdered, and there was a trial, but it received little attention and we therefore had few sources to work from, then it would probably be inappropriate to create a separate article. If all she had done was stub her toe, but people chose to pay an enormous amount of attention to that for some reason, then it would be appropriate to create a separate article for that. Everyking 16:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and MergeHer death was of little significants to worldwide society.
  • Secondly,I see we arre pretty much in agreement now as I see that last several comments where for merging,So now can someone please take care of deleting the article64.229.203.92 15:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Procedural note: discussion was not transcluded onto today's AfD log. Fixed page format a bit, adding to log in a moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. Clearly a notable story about a minor celebrity, but should be in the article about that celebrity, not a stand-alone article. SkipSmith 07:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. My concern about merging and redirecting right now is that the Anna Nicole Smith article is already almost 45KB, and I don't think you could add what's on this page to the original ANS article without adding at least another 10KB. Wait until the speculation is over and some of the "possibilities" can be removed, then merge. --Charlene 08:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Look,stop stop being so worried over nothing.So the page will be pretty big,so what?Plenty of pages onm wikipedia I've seen be atleast 90 kilobytes even with several subsections,and those where for major articles.Since there isn't anything very drastic about her death it wint be too much of a hassle merging it with the other.192.30.202.20 14:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment .192.30.202.20 has voted twice in this AFD. dposse 14:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not a vote. It is a discussion. Pablothegreat85 18:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into main article. So it's getting too big? Trim the hell out of it then. If there is any more proof needed of the chronic worship of the Now on Wikipedia, the fact that this fork about a minor celebrity is larger than the Death of Marilyn Monroe, the Death of Martin Luther King and the Death of Elvis Presley. (Gosh! Those latter two articles don't actually exist, because they weren't deemed important enough to fork off.) RGTraynor 15:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If there's an imbalance, the solution is to write more on other subjects, not delete notable information about this subject. Our policy is to split out subarticles to enable content expansion, not to delete information so it can all be packed into a single page. Everyking 16:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • The key phrase there is "notable information." As Arkyan correctly cites below, massive quotation lists and 911 transcripts do not remotely qualify. No doubt there's a 911 transcript from whomever found Elvis dead (for instance), but we don't need to clutter the article with it. Exactly what about Smith's death is notable? The allegations of suicide or foul play are inappropriate pending official reports, so all that is notable is that she (a) died young, (b) had a post-mortem custody controversy and (c) had a post-mortem burial controversy. All of that could have been handled in two or three paragraphs. Wikipedia is not wastepaper. RGTraynor 17:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge back into parent article. I fundamentally agree with RGTraynor in saying that article size alone does not warrant this article, and it's likely a sign that some trimming needs to be done. As an encyclopedia there is no reason to editorialize every minute detail connected to her death. In any case keeping it would justify creating a "Death of" article for every famous person, and that's unecessary duplication. Arkyan 16:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • For every famous person where the death has been covered extensively by the press and where the main article has already gone past the size recommendation, yes. Everyking 16:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • That the subject of her death has been covered extensively and is extremely notable is beyond doubt. I'm certainly not questioning whether the article passes inclusion criteria, just the necessity of a standalone article. Granted this is my own opinion, but I think it could do without the massive quotations, transcripts of 911 calls and other extreme detail that to me feels less like informative content and more like fluff. The section about the paternity dispute of the child is something that was only triggered by her death and really isn't a topic that should be covered under it. My point is that, according to my views of what makes for a good article, enough content can be removed from the article without actually hurting the integrity of the information that it could be safely merged back in to the parent article. Feel free to disagree, and whichever way consensus goes I'm happy to abide by. Arkyan 17:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge anything not duplicated into the main Anna Nicole Smith article. That's where people looking for information on this situation would look first, anyway. 23skidoo 17:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per proposed WP:NOTNEWS. Edison 19:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Rejected proposals aren't really good for bolstering an argument.--UsaSatsui 03:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - the death of Anna Nicole Smith is itself notable, verifiable, and newsworthy. The death of a celebrity might be as notable as the celebrity him/herself. - Richard Cavell 23:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, at least for now. I don't see the issue. There's a lot of info, probably more to come, it's not all gonna fit on the main page, and the event itself is significant enough to warrant inclusion. It also passes WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. Yes, I'm aware that in the larger scheme of things, it's not that important, but if we only included what was "important", Wikipedia would be a lot smaller. I do think that in a couple months, when this all dies down, this should be looked at again...there's no harm in keeping it now and then giving it another AFD at a later date.--UsaSatsui 03:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A New Type of Wikipedia Article?

Folks, I wonder if we have invented a new type of Wikipedia article with the Death of ANS. On the one hand, the story is more than the daily (or even weekly) WikiNews. On the other hand, as things settle down, the article will eventually be condensed and merged into the main ANS. This suggests that our new invention is a time-delimited article, probably of two months, at which point a call for Merger would almost automatically kick in. With this new type of article, there would be no need for every Wikipedia article to be seen as "permanent" -- whatever that means in the world of Wikis and the Internet. Bellagio99 02:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

But then, is there really a reason to not just merge in the first place? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not: notability is permanent. That's a very important principle. Everyking 03:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think we've invented anything new. We have a (rather common) case of editors who seem to feel there's a prize for being the First To Make The Edit conflated both by a lack of judgment as to whether information is timeless or trivial and by the certitude that whatever drum E! Tonight is thumping on any given week Must Be Of Vital Importance. I'm sure many of you have seen that in the fields you follow, recent or immediate news gets as much space in articles as all the previous history of the subject combined. Unfortunately, the only way this syndrome will be corrected is with time. The Wikipedians of five years from now will trim these bloated, superficial articles down. I doubt we'll be allowed to do so. RGTraynor 13:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - it is quite reasonable to have a news story as a separate article while the story remains current. Whenever there is a newsworthy event we get lots of new readers who might stay and start editing. As a separate article it makes it easier to find the information and it stops the main article from being overloaded. When it stops being current then a keep/merge view can be taken. TerriersFan 04:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Anna Nicole Smith. By judicious editing of both this article and the main article, that should be possible. I just submitted an edit which cut the 911 call transcript down to 5 words, and one could even justify cutting it down to zero words. --Metropolitan90 04:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No doubt it's possible, but it's not desirable. People who want to read about this stuff will be disappointed by Wikipedia's deliberately restricted coverage. "Oh, yeah, we used to have more information about that, but then we decided our readers don't really need to know it." I don't think that is remotely the spirit of Wikipedia. Having less information on this does not help anyone at all. Being able to cut things down is not a virtue. Being able to write good intros and summaries is a virtue, but not when it means the exclusion of detail. Everyking 06:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Part of writing an encyclopedia is summarizing and being selective as to what information is included. Even if we were dealing with an undeniably notable subject -- say, George Washington -- we wouldn't expect that every aspect of the subject's life that might be mentioned in a biography would show up in the subject's Wikipedia article. And when people include dialogue transcriptions such as:
        [911 Responder]: Uh, huh.
        [Seminole Police Department Official]: If you guys could please...
        [911 Responder]: Oh, okay.
we can be selective, and we don't need to leave the entire text in the article. --Metropolitan90 07:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        • As long as we are dealing with notable, verifiable information, we should not be selective or unnecessarily summarize. In fact we should guard against that; it's Britannica thinking. We can write about as much as we have sources for; we can continue to split out topics until there is nothing left to say. Everyking 08:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - notability is generally permanent... and her death was very notable. It was on TV for... ever, not that that makes notability, but it has been the subject of a lot of court cases, exposure, etc. We would lose information if we merged, and that is NOT good for Wikipedia considering that we should "whenever possible avoid deleting information" and WP:NOT#Paper. Kopf1988 04:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and heavily edit. This is ridiculous - how is the death of Anna Nicole Smith notable outside of the context of Anna Nicole Smith? It may be long, but that's because Wikipedia is often confused with Wikinews. Editing back to an encyclopaedia article that carefully documents the proper facts will likely result in a length which can be supported by the main article. GassyGuy 05:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - John Lennon, a highly more influential and well known person, who was assassinated, no less, does not have a separate page for his death. Even her COD is still unknown. The Death of Anna Nicole Smith could be heavily shortened and easily merged with the main Smith page. -- MacAddct1984 13:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • MergeIt is true that there alot of other people,for example Elvis,James Brown and Martin Luther King who are far more notable who deserve similar articles about their death, but their not there.So if this article stays, logically we would have to look over many other famous people and give them an article of their death as well. Rodrigue 15:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Sure, let's do that. Wikipedia is not finished. Content about current events tends to be more advanced than historical content, which simply means we need to work to get the historical content to catch up. Everyking 17:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect All content in this article would be better served in the main article. There's no need to "lose information" in a merge as claimed above. But there always good reason to judiciously trim extraneous & trivial information from any article. -- Scientizzle 17:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Per Buyable. Pablothegreat85 18:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Anna Nicole Smith. Nukleoptra 12:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep censorship is unethical 9dbfg 18 March 2007
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect to Williams College. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Williams Record

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

Contested prod, contested merger, and most recently, someone contested even the {{notability}} tag. Fallacious reason cited for removing the notability tag was that it survived an AfD back in October 2005, which in fact ended in a non-consensus keep, pending improvement of the article. One year and a half on, it's still an unsourced stub about a low circulation journal not known outside the university and whose notability appears to hinge exclusively on its age. Ohconfucius 06:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge into Williams College article, perhaps expand?. It is well known among the local community there, but it's not otherwise notable enough to merit its own article. –- kungming·2 (Talk) 07:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's an independent newspaper that receives no college funding. Furthermore, your afd currently links to the old discussion.(fixed for you) I'm cutting and pasting this discussion here to further debate. SERSeanCrane 13:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, I would highly protest a merger with Williams College. It is an independent newspaper seperate of the school and to do so would be inapproriate. If need be, delete the article, but please do not merge.
  • Merge and Redirect. The Williams College article certainly won't be buried by the two sentences of information presented in this stub about a student newspaper relatively insignificant even by those standards. RGTraynor 15:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect seems sufficient. Arkyan 16:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: there are 2 issues I must deal with - Firstly the assertion that we should keep this article or delete all college newspapers is but a variant of "other crap exists", and is not a valid argument to keeping or deleting everything in a given category. There is a pretty big difference between "all college journals are not notable" and "not all college journals are notable". Secondly, while the independence of the journal may give it the right to a separate article, continued existence on wiki is still contingent on editors establishing its notability, and furnishing sufficient references from reliable sources to support same. Right now, the article fails to do it in a pretty big way. I would agree that if it is a truly independent journal, the article should be deleted, otherwise, a merger would still be possible. Ohconfucius 05:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Record is regularly mentioned in other published sources, mainly local papers like the Eagle and Transcript but, occasionally, by larger newspapers like The Boston Globe. Therefore, the Record is notable. David.Kane 13:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you source that, please? A Google search of "Williams Record" on the Boston Globe website turns up exactly one hit. A similar search on the Berkshire Eagle website turns up exactly two hits. That's desperately underwhelming. RGTraynor 18:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • With all respect, the web does not index all data sources (by far), the web tools of the Eagle and Glob[e] do not reach all their content from the covered periods, and web data itself restricts us to the past decade or so (at best). The Record is mentioned in at least a few front-page NYT articles in the 1960s ('Vassar Co-ed...' 1962). A web-based view of the world is both "underwhelming" and inherently prejudicial to the questions here. Most of the comments here are purely subjective, while "Notability is not subjective:"
    • Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc. KenThomas 00:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete in the absence of significant references, and Redirect (despite financial independence) to avoid later confusion/recreation. Notability is extremely limited despite the occasional local newspaper mention. CapeCodEph 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • See below for "non-local mentions."
  • Keep. At least one volume of editorials published in the Record during the 1920s-40s has been published, with commentary linking to political and other issues. This makes deletion inappropriate. Merging with Williams College is entirely inappropriate. KenThomas 00:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • COMMENT. Why is the Berkeley Daily Cal seen as more notable? This presumption of non-notability in this discussion reveals nothing but "the personal prejudices of the editors," which is a prima facie reason for non-action.KenThomas 00:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Great ... so source it. WP:ATT is not a passing fancy, it's the fundamental requirement for inclusion on Wikipedia. You can't just wave it off by claiming that there are no web sources, search engines don't go back that far, etc etc etc. As it happens, the Globe's search engines go back 28 years, but in any event, it's not our job to prove the absence of verification, it's your job to prove that it exists. Presuming we could read those linked sources (which I can't, anyway), are they about the Williams Record in any meaningful way, or are they "trivial sources" per WP:ATT? (And what does the Berkeley Daily Cal have to do with this discussion?) RGTraynor 04:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:ATT however, like everything here, is not a procedural rule, and it is being approached as such here. This is supposed to be an attempt at consensus based on genuine attempt to arrive at a truthful determination, not a no-holds-barred-prove-your-position fight. YOU assert triviality, despite the fact that you can't even read a good part of the, ahem, "record." It's up to YOU to show that your perspective is valid with concrete reasons, not to shove the burden of research and evidence on others.
The historical record is much, much larger than what the Wikipedia readership can easily access-- pure and simple. And that is one good reason for exercising a soft hand with deletion and such discussions, rather than having a procedurally focused 'thought police' (yes that's perjorative!) who scour the Wikipedia-space looking to remove articles that don't fit their particular subjective perspective on what is notable. The 'notability' criterion, to have significance, must be applied objectively. Practically, this means that as contributors and editors, the responsibility lies on each of us to make good faith efforts to determine the "truth of things"-- whether a particular article is 'notable,' etc, based on evidence we can find-- and to consider the limitations of our own subjective perspective.
That said, RGTraynor's particular arguments thus seem in violation of the Wikipedia ethics: to gloss another FAQ, its not up to the community to educate users, its up to users to read the governance FAQs and documentation, educate themselves, act in accordance with the semi-consensus model, and not "grind axes!"
Somewhat OT, the publication requirement has IMHO also reached the limitations of its 'scope' in a case like this; we're asking a higher standard of "volunteer" editors that than the NYT asks of reporters. Yes, I can cite examples; the point is, I don't have to!
Finally, "PS," there's a direct historical connection between the Williams Record and the Daily Cal, and if we delete the Record, we will risk "falling down a slippery slope" where we have to delete the Daily Cal-- which seems to (but may not) meet the 'notability' requirement. In such a case, there are two options (forks): delete both, or revise our sense of 'notability.' I beleive the community will have to do the latter.
Footnote: Note most of the evidently 'independent' references to the Daily Cal in other media are the result of Daily Cal personnel moving to other publications and making those references-- this is also true of the Williams Record (historically). And from my (subjective) POV it is trivial to assert that the Record is more 'notable' than the Daily Cal (argument truncated for now).
Footnote comment: There is currently no Wikipedia article for the Russellville, KY publication 'News-Democrat,' which, from a presentist perspective, is less notable than the Williams Record. The fact that the archives of the ND are only accessible in microfiche in Russellville should not obscure the fact that the ND published early articles from William Jennings Bryant and Robert Penn-Warren; just the opposite. A "stub" should not be deleted simply because of the lack of the Wikipedia community's research or the difficult of "verifiability:" it should be preserved to remind us of the tasks to be accomplished, else we succumb to the perspective limitations our media. (Again, this challenges the scope definitions and limitations of the {POV} policy (as expressed), which is itself a historical construction with it own self-referential "{POV}" problems. In short: the {POV} policy derives from the Wikipedia encounter with physics "kooks" and has scope applicability problems when applied outside that defined context. KenThomas 23:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
"Presuming we could read those linked sources" ... We? Okay...well even if you can't access proquest (most schools have a subscription), these are published works than can be verified. Check with Wikipedia:Reference_desk if you need help confirming. SERSeanCrane 09:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Here are some articles that mention and/or use The Record as a source (accessed via ProQuest):[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
  1. ^ Rabinovitz, Jonathan (2006-11-15). "College Idealism Was Fertile Soil for Fringe Group". The New York Times: A1. New York Times Company. 
  2. ^ Russell, Jenna (2003-11-30). "Meeting Resistance". The Boston Globe: E1. New York Times Company. 
  3. ^ Dorman, Larry (1995-11-12). "College Football (The Amherst-Williams Week)". The New York Times: A33. New York Times Company. 
  4. ^ Moore Jr., Gilbert (1993-02-17). "Campus Journal; A Test of Racism Produces an Uproar". The New York Times: B9. New York Times Company. 
  5. ^ UPI (1982-10-17). "Maid Service Is Ended on Williams Campus". The New York Times: A55. New York Times Company. 
  6. ^ Cooke, Robert (1982-05-23). "Group's Ad Attacks Sex Research Project; Williams Professor Defends Study of Mice". The Boston Globe: 1. New York Times Company. 
  7. ^ Jordan, Robert (1980-11-18). "The Racial-Hate Fires Must Be Extinguished". The Boston Globe: Editorial, pg. 1. New York Times Company. 
  • Great, there are a number of links which we can't access. Are any of them about the Record, as is required, as opposed to so-called "trivial mentions" of it? No one is disputing that the paper exists, but heck, I'm sure I could come up with otherwise non-notable community leaders that have been quoted by local newspapers more than seven times in thirty years. RGTraynor 15:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
First of all, by we you mean you. I'm sure a large number of wiki readers accessing from a decent school can access the articles. Second, a large number of these articles use The Record as a primary source for their article and as such, give it proper attribution. If the argument is that this is "a low circulation journal not known outside the college," these repeated mentions in the New York Times and Boston Globe are evidence to the contrary. SERSeanCrane 23:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Non-notable. References seem sketchy and terse. WP:Local seems the best reference for this:
If enough attributable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article. If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality. If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) can be provided, the subject may not merit mention yet at all.:

So basically, we have some newspapers that may reference it but there isn't enough info to merit a full article. I say merge and start a Publications header in Williams College like in Swarthmore College (where they also mention independent publications of the school so I don't see the objection about merging). Chevinki 04:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • CommentSERSeanCrane implies that it may qualify as a reliable source, and is thus notable. However, one does not follow on from the other. Journalists look to all sorts of places to source their stories, including picking people off pavements for comments, and notability cannot be so inferred. WP:N states that the subject of an article needs to have been "the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject". Ohconfucius 06:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John Reaves (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] California Review

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

Contested redirect. This unsourced article is about an "outspoken and controversial" political journal established in 1982 which I do not believe is worthy of an article per plenty of other non-notable student publications. Many Ghits, but these are principally based on the generic appearances of the word "review". One relevant hit is from when the journal itself picks up a story about Campus censorship of Koala. 3 unique Ghits for "California Review San Diego" Ohconfucius 06:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I get 190 G-hits with a directed search ("California Review" + UCSD). I also note that the Guardian, the real student newspaper at UCSD, doesn't have a Wikipedia article, and don't figure that the alternate weekly student newspaper meets any level of notability. RGTraynor 16:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John Reaves (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cornell Moderator

Cornell Moderator (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
The Cornell Centrist (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prods. Unsourced articles about recently established not notable partisan college journals. Consensus tends to favour deletion or simple merge per WP:ORG. A summary of the most important details has now been incorporated into the Cornell University article. The remaining details may occasionally fail WP:SELF, and would be of less than passing interest to people outside the University. Ohconfucius 07:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - both the Moderator and the Centrist. There is not enough established notability to justify individual articles. The in-article mentions at this time are sufficient. Luke! 23:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hu12 22:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erik Rush

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

Was PRODded "doesn't appear notable, no independent sources". A day later the PROD was replaced with an AfD template with an edit-summary "article has been around for 2 years. deserves debate". I'm just completing the nom here, I abstain. DMacks 05:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep. A Google search actually shows a large number of hits for different essays by this guy, and he appears to get at least a little play in the mainstream media. However, I'm not sure if that's enough for notability. SkipSmith 07:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The guy certainly has a large buzz on the conversative blogosphere, although it seems that 99% of it is in response to his attacks on Barack Obama. Certainly enough for the "cult following" criterion of WP:BIO. RGTraynor 16:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but Jason Leonard. Majorly (o rly?) 16:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Davis

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

Non-notable train driver. -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 07:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. non-notable. A list of people with trains named after them by this rail company is included in British Rail Class 357 under fleet details. Every name on that list has its own entry:
    • Barry Flaxman
    • Arthur Lewis Stride
    • Jason Leonard
    • Tony Amos
    • John Lowing
    • Thomas Whitelegg
    • Robert Harben Whitelegg
    • Ken Bird
    • Kenny Mitchell
    • Henry Pumfrett
    • Derek fowers
    • Dave Davis
    • James Snelling
    • Upminster I.E.C.C

With the exception of Jason Leonard, none of these articles appears to meet the notability criteria. I think we should delete them all. SkipSmith 08:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete all above - non-notable train (driver)s. Fails WP:A. MER-C 11:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep on the Leonard article, as this fellow meets WP:BIO with flying colors as a world-record holding athlete. Delete on the Whitelegg articles as failing WP:ATT, although if those articles are attributed they'd pass. Delete on Flaxman as NN, fails WP:BIO and WP:ATT. Speedy Delete on all the other articles, no assertion of notability. (This is the danger of the blanket deletion approach, the more so when editors don't actually pay attention to the individual particulars.) RGTraynor 16:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all but Leonard article per RGTraynor. Edison 19:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all but Leonard article per RGTraynor. I don't see any evidence that the engine with that nameplate is named for him, it was probably just an available bluelink? -- Dhartung | Talk 10:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Come to that, for all we know, the "Jason Leonard" for whom that engine may be named could readily be a long-term rail employee like the others, and not the rugby player at all. RGTraynor 13:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I checked into it, and it does look like that train is in fact named after the famous rugby player: [[14]]. SkipSmith 20:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - all but Leonard article, speedy delete per CSD A7, unremarkable people. Luke! 23:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verse Studios

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

Previously prodded, prod contested. It's an independent video game company that was founded last year, and it doesn't appear to satisfy notability guidelines, so I'm listing it here. Coredesat 08:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete unsourced, directory entry. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP, WP:NN. Only 99 Google hits [15], and other than their own website and Wikipedia mirrors, the only hits are of a press release they put out announcing a $500K capital raising drive. So ... this is an outfit with no product, no money, and no notability. RGTraynor 16:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Their first product will be launched on April 1st, so the statement that they have "no product" is misleading. They are self funded, and looking for additional seed capital, so the statement that they have "no money" is also incorrect. Would you consider waiting until after April 1st to delete this?

    • Probably not. In any case, your website doesn't say anything about a product launch in April. Indeed it states that the initial product "is currently in an early stage of production". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No; presuming this company succeeds in getting a product out by April 1st or any other date, it still needs to pass WP:CORP, and that means getting significant, reliable third-party sources to talk about it. If that happens in the future, an article may readily be recreated, but Wikipedia's policy is to have articles about notable subjects, not about subjects that hope one day to become notable. RGTraynor 17:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete-while they may well become notable eventually, it is clear that they are not yet notable. No reliable sources, no coverage—no article. Xtifr tälk 23:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Sleepfarmers

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

Delete Contested prod. Band is non-notable, extremely limited exposure. Fails the main criteria and all 11 sub-criteria of WP:BAND and article author has WP:COI issues. The Kinslayer 08:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Kinslayer (talk • contribs) 09:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete per nom. Per allmusic.com, their releases are on cassette on their own label. --Butseriouslyfolks 09:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and play taps over their grave. Fails WP:BAND, WP:ATT, WP:NN. I liked the "Drive-in era film actress, Regina Carrol made several posthumous appearances on the covers of select albums by the Sleepfarmers." Translation: we ripped off stills of her pics and put them on our self-published album covers. Add a possible WP:COI to the till, because just about the sole Wiki activity of the creator is this article, related music articles, creating an article about an obscure she-male porn star, and the Regina Carrol article. RGTraynor 16:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (transwikied). John Reaves (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SugarStars

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

Article for a webcomic. It asserts notability, so it's not a candidate for A7. However, the article still does not satisfy the notability guidelines for web content (website hits aren't on WP:WEB, and it only "nearly" reached the top 10 of a toplist), and the article reads somewhat like an advertisement. There is also some crystal-ballism afoot, and all but one of the sources are the comic itself. Coredesat 08:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, NN as all get out. Beyond that, possible WP:COI, as this article is the sole Wiki activity of its creator. I take this article's assertions of notability with a boulder of salt, let alone a grain ... a directed Google search ("SugarStars" + Shirou, the comic's author) turned up all of 28 hits [16], most of which is this Wiki article and mirrors and from the strip's own website. The traffic rank on Alexa for the umbrella website is a miniscule #434,646. RGTraynor 16:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well no, actually i was just editing the info that other people added onto the article. I didn't create it. the people from the forums of SugarStars did, but whatever the case I have no problem with you guys deleting this if it really is necessary. ~Ranu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lavenderflower (talk • contribs) 22:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment If it's not already there, it might be a good idea to transwiki this to Comixpedia. --Coredesat 08:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Where, as it happens, it doesn't seem to be notable enough to appear either. RGTraynor 14:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Comixpedia doesn't have notability guidelines. --Coredesat 20:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Which would suggest that no one cares. RGTraynor 04:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
well you're a blunt one aren't you.76.97.51.60 14:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I've transwikied the article to Comixpedia myself. --Coredesat 09:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well then if nothing can be done, then nothing will be done. so just delete the article. Lavenderflower 15:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Gray (pastor)

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

A pastor. He ran a church. Er, that's about it. The only external source is a news report about an accusation of child molestation. Appears to exist solely to cast aspersion on fundamental Baptism, which is understandable (I don't think much of the fundies either) but not a good reason to have a substantially unsourced negative article on a living individual. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. 15 minutes of fame on the local news doesn't warrant a Wikipedia article. I find no other claim to notability. — Rebelguys2 talk 09:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of Notability and little/no refs. NBeale 14:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence that he's of substantive and long-term encyclopedic interest. FCYTravis 00:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John Reaves (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dappankuthu

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

OR all the way. Has been tagged for OR since Aug '06. And content is totally unencyclopedic. Sarvagnya 09:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment: This is not OR anymore. RaveenS 12:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Sarvagnya 09:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--ZayZayEM 03:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Nom says OR but that is no longer valid its current state is supported by 3 RS sources and notability is established by ober 1000 google hits. Thanks RaveenS 12:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Vote changed Dappan koothu is an acceptable stub in need of expansion.--ZayZayEM 12:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of Notability and little/no refs. NBeale 14:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment:evidence if notability[17][18] over 1000 google hits under various spellings and also currently the stub has has 3 RS sources. Thanks RaveenS 12:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment : Regarding Notability Google search for டப்பாங்குத்து yields considerable number of results (considering the fact that very few percentage of Tamil Pages are in Unicode  Doctor Bruno  08:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It is a form of dance (like Bharatanatyam Kathak Kathakali Kuchipudi Manipuri Mohiniaattam Odissi Sattriya This is a well known form of dance in Tamil Nadu and is certainly notable. The only problem here is that this kind of dance is being performed as well as patroned by the masses. Most of the Wikipedians belong to the elite class of Tamil Nadu, and hence may not have heard about this. As per the Guidelines, Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc. Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy.  Doctor Bruno  08:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment See Mohiniaattam That is a form of dance like the subject of this article. That article does not have any references. But that has not been listed as OR or called unencyclopedic. The reason is because Wikipedian editors know about that dance and hence do not ask for a reference. But this form of dance is being practicised by the Illiterate masses. Hence this immediately becomes "unencyclopedic". When references are cited, it will become "non-notable" while Mohiniattam will continue to be both encyclopedic as well as notable..... This is what is called as Systemic Bias My comments are just to highlight the fact that we have not still eliminated the Systemic Bias from Wikipedia, and even though this is considered to be an Encyclopedia, Wikipedia is turning out to be the domain of "few selected people". And this trend is not good for the project and will be detrimental to the Wikipedia in long run  Doctor Bruno  08:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense!! My nom doesnt talk about notability at all, though I have to admit that notability is also an issue. Further, the Mohiniattam doesnt have BS like

while not comfortable with rhythm yet

    take one step in sync with beat
    if front foot is left foot
        point left fist to the sky
        point right fist to the front
        tilt head slightly above horizontal
    else // front foot is right foot
        point left fist to the front
        point right fist to the sky
        tilt head straight down
    endif
    bob torso vertically once by flexing knees, in sync with beat
 end while
 while not (tired or bored)
    dance
 end while
in the article. Instead of ranting away based on imagined biases, I'd appreciate it if you could improve the article(Dappankuthu or whatever) and save it from deletion. Sarvagnya 23:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - The article, in it's current stage, is just ridiculous. Non-notable subject without any valid references, and full of original research. Certainly unencyclopedic. - KNM Talk 00:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The current state is revised to a stub with 3 RS sources with over 1000 google hits. Please take a look. Thanks RaveenS 12:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Clean up is no reason for deletion. Closing admin, even if this is deleted please assure so that this article can be recreated because it is a notable dance form although not elitist hence internet based research papers are not many but commited anthropologists have studiesd it. Need to find proper RS citationsRaveenS 16:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • CommentLahiru, my dear friend look at the nom ? it says it is WP:OR, it is not OR there are over 1000 hits for this title or some version of this title. Even the nominator has change it to WP:V now in his arguments. Can you substantiate your vote that this is a original research ? RaveenS 13:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Writing an article in Wikipedia requires that notability be established for the subject using reliable and verifiable sources. Claiming that the sources establish notability when they dont, is in a way, OR. Sarvagnya 16:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with you there there is no relaible source that deals with this subject matter at this point listed in this stubRaveenS 16:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable. Current title has just 26 unique Google hits, more than half of which are blogs / forums. WP:N requires the topic to be the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from reliable / independent sources. All I see here is glancing mentions in three separate articles, one time per article. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 16:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Very good point but besides that how did you find this article? It is not Sri Lanka related article so is it a case of following my edits WP:Stalk. If I am mistaken please accept my apologiesRaveenS 16:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm lost as to how I or anyone else found this as anything to do with the AFD. In any case, if you suspect you are been stalked, at Wikipedia we have various policies to help you with that. I suggest you file a report at WP:AN/I immediately, to prevent possible stalking escalating further. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 17:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. When I created this article back in 2005, there weren't many references online for this cultural practice. Now that there are, I hardly think it qualifies as WP:V or WP:OR. I have deleted the Steps section since I myself felt that was more like a how-to than a neutral description. As a former frequent editor of the article, I feel this cultural practice is notable enough to be documented. However, I do see recurring problems with the article in that it tends to become more of a how-to, written for a narrow audience comprised of people who have lived in Chennai at some point. I'll keep it more neutral when I edit. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 18:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • immediate Delete Per nom, Per Snowolfd4 Iwazaki 会話。討論 02:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John McDole

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

Unverifiable bio for which db and prod tag have been removed without further explanation. Tikiwont 09:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete , no notability asserted AlfPhotoman 15:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it may be a case of 'doing it for the lulz' Cloveoil 01:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As a nominator under proposed deletion, my position is perhaps not surprising. This bio is not notable (1) and by a direct consequence is not verifiable (2) and should therefore be deleted. Wolphii 03:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete no evidence of Notability and little/no refs. Looks like a hoax. NBeale 14:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. Tyrenius 01:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistani cricket team in India in 1979-80

Pakistani cricket team in India in 1979-80 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Worst.Article.Ever. Seriously, could it be any more uninformative? I don't mind stubs, but hate empty stubs that just serve to fill up a red link. Consider this a blanket nomination for any other article created by User:BlackJack that simply restates the title. I'm not up to searching for all of them, so could someone give me a hand in listing them? Also, I am against a merge/redirect, as the article is too specific, and having bluelinks would confuse people into thinking these articles exist, who would probably give up finding the real articles after their first clicks are redirects. SeizureDog 09:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete I also suggest mass nominating most of the articles in Template:International cricket tours of India. Other than a few exceptions, all of them consist of 1 sentence each (re-stating the title, The (country A) toured India in (year b)). TJ Spyke 09:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - CSD:A1 and tagged as such. Most of the 1 liners are a rephrasing of the title and external links only, and are therefore A1s, and should be speedied rather than going through a time-intensive AfD. TerriersFan 01:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect speedy deleted (housekeeping). kingboyk 17:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Election results, Comptroller General

Election results, Comptroller General (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There is no Comptroller General position in the State of New York, of which this page currently redirects. I believe this page exists due to a typo by myself from previous edits of the New York State comptroller results, as I used the Attorney General results page as a template T0llenz 15:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - this should be listed on RfD, not here. Arkyan 16:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kate Lagan

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

Non Notable local councillor - I wanted to update to include notability but was unable to find anything of note Weggie 19:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, non notable local councillor, if she had got elected to the MLA I would have voted to keep but she didnt.--Vintagekits 11:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, MLAs are automatically notable, but local councillors aren't. Warofdreams talk 17:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Vintagekits. Would have been notable if elected, but she wasn't elected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noreen McClelland

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

Local Councillor who has not achieved election to a national legislature amd nothing else of substance for wiki purposes Weggie 19:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, non notable local councillor, if she had got elected to the MLA I would have voted to keep but she didnt. If she was chair of the SDLP and still only a councillor I would have voted keep. She is a member of a number of committee's however none are of real significance. Also there are no sources.--Vintagekits 11:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Vintagekits, none of her achievements quite pushes her over the line into "notability", and the article reads more like a CV than an encyclopedia piece. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pandiya Kula Kshatriya Mara Nadar

Pandiya Kula Kshatriya Mara Nadar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is basically nonsense and OR. I went through the article a couple of times and couldnt find much that could be salvaged from this article. If there indeed is anything that can be salvaged, it ought to be merged with the already existing articles for Pandyas, Naickers etc.,. This article is patent nonsense and ought to be deleted. Sarvagnya 17:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Happy Tree Friends kills and List of Happy Tree Friends deaths

A list of which character is killed how often and in which episode. Trivia, not encyclopedic. >Radiant< 10:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Fanboy minutiae trivia rubbish must be cut out like the cancer it is!--Drat (Talk) 12:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete: Christ, anyone had a look at main article? Listcruft to the max.--SeizureDog 14:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, that would be before I deleted all of the listcruft. It's better now, but help me watch for reverts.--SeizureDog 14:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wow, you guys seem really mad about this article. Well anyway, I say delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.40.78.152 (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is the definition of listcruft. It's not notable or encyclopedic. Leebo T/C 14:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete pretty much the definition of listcruft. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete though I'm almost tempted to say Keep somewhere as the best example of listcruft so far EliminatorJR Talk 01:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, IINFO to the extreme. Krimpet 02:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Participants in World War I (Timeline-191)

Participants in World War I (Timeline-191) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article confused the hell out of me when I found it wit the random article function; I thought it was just misnamed at first. In any case, there doesn't seem to be enough information for it be have its own list, and can quite easily be worked into prose of the main article(s). SeizureDog 10:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The list doesn't look necessary with the coverage of the alternate WWI at Timeline-191. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete an interesting take on history, but probably excessive coverage for fiction. The picture is available in other articles anyway. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - (nomination withdrawn). Yuser31415 20:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maria Swan

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

Not notable. Keep she apparently has had independant and reliable media coverage not mentioned in the article. Epbr123 11:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. For someone who has this much coverage, as well as some references in the article, a more detailed rationale than "not notable" would be in order. Internet presence for a model might well be bloated, but the subject does appear to have garnered enough interest around her to pass WP:BIO guidelines. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Unreliable sources. Epbr123 14:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep She appears to have had enough coverage to meet the notability guidelines. Leebo T/C 14:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete None of the cited sources qualifies as a quality independent reliable source. Her "coverage" amounts to little more than a couple blog entries. The Zimbio article is clearly a mirror of the Wikipedia article. The claim that she is a top Czech model is unsourced, and needs sourcing to establish notabililty. --Beaker342 16:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing on Google News Archive for maria.swan+model. The sources provided in article and AFD so far are none of them reliable. Fails WP:BIO from what I see. -- Dhartung | Talk 10:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of Notability and little/no refs. NBeale 14:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Multiple magazine cover appearances: [19], [20], and [21], and an appearance on the German Oliver Geissen Show. Clearly passes WP:BIO: "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." This is a celebrity, not a vanity page. Using WP:N to delete such pages is an abuse of the term "notability." A celebrity, even if one particular editor has not heard of her, is by definition notable. It is Wikipedia's goal to provide unbiased, sourced articles on just such subjects. Dekkappai 18:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Those sources should be incorporated into the article somehow. Epbr123 18:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Dekkappai's comments. --David Hain 19:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dekkappai. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep She was featured again on the cover of this month's Loaded magazine in the UK. Her notability was further increased by her appearence in 3d on a dvd of the same issue :) TheExtruder 23:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Current coverage meets and exceeds WP:BIO standards. RFerreira 02:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g7 per author request below. NawlinWiki 04:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of RahXephon staff

List of RahXephon staff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Listcruft and Fancruft. --Sterdehn 11:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete: I swear we need something like a WikiCredits or something. Our film, TV show, video game, etc. articles are odd for missing staff lists, which are quite notable and encyclopedic.--SeizureDog 14:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Surely not fancruft - that seems rather uncivil to me. I'm not too fond of the level of detail though.... The sound engineer even? --GunnarRene 22:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is not IMDB. -- Whpq 16:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No delete - this staff list is take from the Anime News Network. It is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I feel staff lists are necessary for this article. They are important and essential to the RahXephon article. --Sjones23 20:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or possibly merge with the cast list. It's not an indiscriminate collection of information, but rather a pertinent list of (*gasp*) out of universe information on the series. --tjstrf talk 21:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete with a bit of merge. Clearly the most important people (creator, voice artists, producers, etc) should be listed in the main article. But storyboarders and PR people don't need to be included. Wikipedia doesn't need to be a mirror of IMDB. Wickethewok 21:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as a bad faith nomination (this article has only recently been created) and as other users have cited, staff lists are most certainly quite notable, encyclopedic and also essential in further expanding the process involved in its production and development. It should be noted that Sterdehn's only edits (which are three) were in setting up this AfD; therefore, I highly suspect Sterdehn to be a sockpuppet used by someone who does not want to have this AfD tied to their real account. ···巌流? · Talk to Ganryuu 21:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - sockpuppet or not, the fact remains that the article is just a huge list of credits which is way more detail than needed for an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq 21:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - I am fully aware of that and I strongly disagree with Whpq's recent comments. --Sjones23 21:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm.... all right. I will help fix up this article and use the cleanup with Ganryuu. I also strongly disagree with that article being in the AfD. We should use the scriptwriters, storyboards and episode directors for the list of episodes, per User:GunnarRene's ideas in the talk page. --Sjones23 22:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. (I'm too closely involved in this to render a decision.) On the one hand, we do have tons of articles on actors and acresses, and they typically have a list of works, as they should; start-class articles also commonly feature some kind of staff/cast list. On the other hand, our other featured articles on meda works only list the most significant cast and staff. Will this thing ever evolve beyond a list of staff? And what then happens with all those start-class articles on works that mainly consist of staff and cast/character lists? Does the information somehow stop being unencyclopedic when the article grows? The avenues for keeping I see now are
    • Either become innovative with this list and make it a featured staff list in some way.
    • Making this article the "Production of RahXephon" article, necessitating more prose content.
I'm afraid I'm too busy right now to improve this all on my own, so I propose moving it into somebody's user space if it's deleted. --GunnarRene 22:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, that is a perfect idea and a good idea, GunnarRene. I'll do it. --Sjones23 23:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't edit RahXephon much, so I don't feel right voting, but I have to agree with the delete, per above, as well as per other comments I've made about staff lists in the past. Also, if it was copied from AnimeNewsNetwork, would it be so hard to just link to ANN and let people look there or Google for staff lists if they really cared about exactly who drew that Background Character number 24 in episode 9, or whatever? Nique talk 00:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I strongly disagree against your comments, Nique and I am terribly sorry, but staff lists are necessary as per Ganryuu's statements. Sjones23 01:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Staff lists are boring, not aesthetic, and offer no real useful information. It's a list, and it's extremely crufty for a list at that. Nique talk 01:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I know that, Nique, and I, unfortunately, will be really heartbroken if this is deleted. It will not be so hard to find. I am strictly opposed to that. --Sjones23 20:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. If someone wants to find out who the color coordination assistant for this particular Japanese cartoon series was, they can consult IMDB. Krimpet 02:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wiki is not a directory of TV credits of all and sundry who have participated in making any given film or product. The more important staff members may warrant a mention in the RahXephon article, but the rest are of absolutely no encyclopaedic interest whatsoever, paper or otherwise. Ohconfucius 06:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am really suffering mental breakdown on this deletion right now. I am fully aware of the guidelines. I will keep GunnarRene's advice earlier. We should make sure that it contains commentary or additional context, as what TKD pointed out to me on my talk page. My ears are unfortunately burning right now and I am upset. I don't believe it should be deleted. Listing every single staff member is not necessarily needed, that is what the imdb and ANN are for. I will consult IMDB as soon as possible. I will put the really important staff members per Ohconfucius' idea. --Sjones23 20:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
All the 'really important' staff members can easily be fit into the appropriate sections of the main article, making this article superfluous. If this article were trimmed to the bare essentials of the list, it would be a stub. Also, this page isn't for commenting about how terribly upset you are and how your ears are burning in your furious sadness, it's for discussion about why the article should or should not be deleted. Nique talk 20:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that idea, Nique. Thanks for the comment. I will remove them and add them to the appropriate sections for good. --Sjones23 20:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: I deleted the main staff members and placed them in the appropiate sections for good as per Nique's request. --Sjones23 20:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I also removed the impotant staff members from the movie and I will move them as per Nique's request as well as deleted the entire article for good. Everyone, Thanks for all the help we can get. --Sjones23 20:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment — this might qualify under CSD guidelines as a creator request. — Deckiller 21:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Well written and agreed. I moved the really important staff members for both the TV series and movie back to the main article for the greater good of the editors. I personally agree with all of the comments. --Sjones23 21:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment to CSD for creator request you have to put up a tag (("db-userreq")) because blanking the page doesn't delete the page. Darthgriz98 18:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, DarthGriz. I put the "db-userreq" tag and all of the page has been deleted for good. Sjones23 22:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: According to my talk page, listing full staff lists, without additional context or a commentary, probably constitutes trivia as what User:TKD said. That info is one of the reason why I removed the full staff list from the article and put the really important and really essential staff members in the appropriate section of the article. I agree with Wickethewok that the main staff members are in the main article. I put the CSD tag in there since I deleted the entire article for good. Thanks for everyone's help. Sjones23 02:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John Reaves (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romanica

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

Another Interlingua derivative created by a single person and with an insufficient claim to notability, other perhaps from being mentioned in other Wikimedia projects, a self-fulfilling prophecy. An earlier deletion discussion resulted in the article being turned into a redirect to Interlingua, but this was undone later. I say this article should be deleted outright to prevent this from occurring again. -- Dissident (Talk) 11:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Doesn't seem to be verifiable or meet WP:ATT. Wickethewok 21:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Restore Redirect. Outright deletion will not prevent article recreation, and actually affect Wikipedia content.--ZayZayEM 03:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Respect the original decision to redirect and keep the article's history. If the redirect is reversed again, this could mean there is a need for the article. Non-notability isn't a reason to delete. See this section and this one. Unverifiable and unsourced are two different things, and the second one doesn't call for deletion. Cal 01:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. WP:SNOW kingboyk 17:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Womadhism

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

Delete Contested prod. patently absurd nonsense. Author claims it's legitimate becuase he is trying to spread the word, which wikipedia is not for. Unsourced, unverfiable, non-notable. The Kinslayer 11:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • please do not delete page. this is not a random meaningless inside joke. this is a belief system i am offering to others to consider. its potential is not yet fully known. there is no reason for this page to be deleted. it has value and should not be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottydont23 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Oh, please delete this nonsense immediately! Completely agree with the above comments. Robinson weijman 11:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - preposterous nonsense, and doesn't stand a chance of being retained, along with all the other WP:NFT "religions" that have been through AfD. ~Matticus TC 11:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I second deletion under WP:SNOW. I couldn't figure a speedy category, so I prodded the article. Scottydont (the articles creator) contested the prod with the same reason he's given above, so I've moved to AfD per procedure, and to shut him up explain the foolishness of his article by showing him just what everyone thinks of bullshit silliness like this round here. The Kinslayer 11:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Careful of WP:BITE there - I suspect this is just a misguided young user trying Wikipedia out, and even if there was a malicious/disruptive intent WP:CIVIL still holds. ~Matticus TC 11:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - self-created religion - Skysmith 12:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is absurd, sense-free pseudoreligious rubbish.--Anthony.bradbury 12:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The main issue with this article is that it tends to promote Womadhism as opposed to describing it. However, this could be easily fixed with a few simple edits. In any case, the general perception that a philosophy is utter rubbush does not preclude it from classification. Wikipedia is not intended for debate as to the validity of beliefs. It is an open access encyclopedia. --Albatross thief— Albatross thief (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Last time I checked, even philosophies were requried to be attributable to sources, and Wikipedia was not for made-up things. Has this changed since I last checked or something Albatross? The Kinslayer 13:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Philosophies are derived from human thought, not research. The idea that a philophy can be traced to a single point source is quite absurd. However, you are right in that this article should be sourced to the text from which it was derived. -Albatross thief— Albatross thief (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Absurd or not, WP:ATT is not an optional extra. If you disgaree with it, take it up on the talk page there. And given this 'philosophy' started 3 days ago, I severly doubt any sources exist out side the mind of the article creator. 0Ghits for a start with the -wikipedia parameter. The Kinslayer 13:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
And look how an unregistered editor changed the date of the "religion"'s creation to 11th March 2005 after this discussion has started. I guess it's the time to close it. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion as vanity/nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 13:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I know we're supposed to WP:AGF, but you can't help looking at Albatosses contributions and wondering... The Kinslayer 13:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:SOAPBOX amongst other problems. -- Whpq 16:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we have a definite case for getting this deleted under WP:SNOW. What do you lot think? The Kinslayer 16:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indian rehabilitation center

Indian rehabilitation center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete No sources, no notability, not written as an encyclopedic article. It is, as it states, a copy-and-paste of a website. Frankly I'm surprised it was not deleted the day it was created. Robinson weijman 11:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • If I could find the web site, I'd speedily delete it right now. However, I cannot find any web site, apart from this article and various mirrors. Indeed, I can find no evidence whatsoever that such a centre exists, let alone sources that document it (even unreliable ones). The domain name given is not the domain name of such a centre. This article is unverifiable. Even if it were verifiable, it would be grossly non-neutral. It is a mis-use of Wikipedia as a soapbox and to attack several hundred million people. With its appropriation of a completely unrelated organization's domain name, it has all of the appearance of hoax vandalism. Delete. Uncle G 15:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - no sources anywhere. -- Whpq 16:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • speedy delete no context, apparent hoax, attack page, blatant vandalism, take your pick. Wintermut3 22:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete WP:NPA, WP:COI, WP:OR, WP:HOAX... and some other violations... --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 01:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle G. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 23:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Angr 09:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Brown Quote

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

Made up, unsourceable neologism and something someone made up at work someday. This was deleted through prod a year ago, but contested at vfu so it's here. - Bobet 11:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, anecdotal I know, but I've worked in and around IT call centers for years, and I've never heard this term. A search on Google returns plenty of returns for the phrase, but none seem to be related to this. Lankiveil 13:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete. Doesn't appear notable. YechielMan 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lucretia's Daggers

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

Vanity article on band with small claim to notability. Vanity articles on members deleted. Praise is random review quotes (one from myspace!). Sources were requested and were practically thrown at the article, with no effort to properly cite. Contains loads of original research about themes. Drat (Talk) 12:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn band, about 600 ghits most of which are random myspace comments and the like. I would like to state my admiration for these guy's names though, "Lucretia X. Machina", "Futurist Tarquinius". Rock! Lankiveil 13:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete crap article about a local boston band. Although the article includes everything but the kitchen sink, most of the references in the article are irrelevant, and all the reviews listed appear to be from Boston or New England publications. 111 unique Ghits stripped of all the unusable youtube stuff, most are directory or events listings, or hits from commercial sites. Ohconfucius 06:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as highly non-notable, but definitely deserves an honourable mention for the most completely irrelevant references ever seen on a WP article ChrisTheDude 08:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Kirk

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

Fails WP:PROFTEST - NYC JD (interrogatories) 12:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? Please specify why it fails this test. Robinson weijman 12:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think he does pass it, particularly #5, where he basically coined a lot of the terms used in the field today. Article is otherwise well sourced and written. No problems with it here. Lankiveil 13:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Keep. Of course he passes WP:PROFTEST. He only needs to pass one of the criteria listed. He will almost certainly satisfy 1 and 2, but this may be subjective. However, there is no doubt that he satisfies others.

6. The person has received a notable award or honor". He is an emeritus professor.

3. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. Consider this information from Nottingham University website [22]:

Publications include: Journal articles:

  • Barry Stroud on Subjectivism and Physicalism in Philosophical Books (2006)
  • Nonreductive Physicalism and Strict Implication in Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 79 (4), December 2001, pp. 545-553.
  • Why There Couldn't Be Zombies, in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society supp. vol. 73, 1999, pp. 1-16.
  • Consciousness, Information, and External Relations, in Communication and Cognition 30, 1998, pp. 249-271.
  • How Physicalists Can Avoid Reductionism', in Synthese , 1996.
  • Strict Implication, Supervenience and Physicalism, in Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 1996.
  • Why Ultra-externalism goes too far, in Analysis 56, 1996, pp. 73-9.
  • Physicalism Lives, in Ratio 9, 1996, pp. 85-9.
  • La Coscienza Animale, in Iride 17, 1996, 62-81.

Books:

  • Relativism and Reality, Routledge, 1999.

Book chapters:

  • Quine's Thesis of the Indeterminacy of Translation, in The Cambridge Companion to Quine, ed. by Roger Gibson (2006)
  • Radical Interpretation, in The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences, ed. Robert A. Wilson and Frank C. Keil, Cambridge, Mass.; London, England: the MIT Press, 1999, pp. 696-697.
  • Wie ist Bewusstsein Moeglich? , in Bewusstsein: Beitraege aus der Gegenwartsphilosophie , ed. Thomas Metzinger, Schoeningh. Also appeared as How is Consciousness Possible? in Conscious Experience (same editor and publisher).
  • Four entries in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy , ed. T. Honderich, 1995.
  • Entries: Block; Mechanism, Posit, Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.

Reviews and Other Writing

  • Review of The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. Edward Craig), in Mind 11, April 2002, pp. 386-88.
  • Review of The Philosophy of Psychology (eds. G. Botterill and P. Carruthers), in British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (1), March 2001, pp. 159-162.
  • Review of Mind Out of Matter by G. Mulhauser, Philosophical Books 41, 2000, pp. 194-6.
  • Review of The Paradox of Self-Consciousness by J. L. Bermudez, Philosophical Quarterly 50, 2000, pp. 277-280.
  • Review of Wittgenstein and Quine, ed. Robert L. Arrington and Hans-Johann Glock, Philosophical Quarterly 49, 1999, pp. 277-79.
  • Review of Blackwell's Companion to the Philosophy of Language, ed. Bob Hale and Crispin Wright, Philosophical Quarterly 49, 1999, pp. 405-409.
  • Review of Philosophy of Language by A. Miller, Philosophical Books 40, 1999, pp. 205-207.
  • Review of The Last Word by T. Nagel, History and Philosophy of Logic 18, 1998
  • Review of From Stimulus to Science by W. V. Quine; and On Quine: New Essays, eds. P. Leonardi and M. Santambrogio, Philosophical Quarterly 47, 1997, pp. 519-23.
  • Review of Physicalism: the Philosophical Foundations by J. Poland, in Philosophical Review 105, 1996, pp. 92-94.
  • Review of Problems in Philosophy: the Limits of Inquiry , C. McGinn, in Philosophical Quarterly 46, 1996, pp. 117-19.
  • Review of Making it Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment by R. Brandom, in Philosophical Quarterly 46, 1996, pp. 238-241.
  • Review of The Conscious Mind: in search of a fundamental theory by D. J. Chalmers, in Journal of Consciousness Studies 3, 1996, pp. 522-523.

Case closed I think. Emeraude 13:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

'Commment I don't know about his publications, but emeritus is neither a notable award or honor. You should probably strike that pending some real achievement. FrozenPurpleCube 14:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Actually at many universities there are two status, emiritus or retired, the first is an honor with benefits, the latter is not. I know of many professors that never had the benefits of emeritus status, and a few that do. --Buridan 16:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, that may be so, but it doesn't change the fact that simply being emeritus is not especially notable. I don't even know that the university he teaches at makes this minimal distinction. FrozenPurpleCube 17:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Certainly even if it represents a special status it is not proof of notability; there must be thousands of emeritus professors in the UK alone at this moment. -- Dhartung | Talk 10:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 14:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, fails WP:ATT. Well, yes, there are a lot of publication credits there, but do we have any sense that his collective body of work is deemed significant in the field, as WP:PROFTEST requires? With a directed Google search to weed out similarly named professors of economics and art, there are only 624 hits, and even there a lot of them are for other people; I don't get a sense here that he's all that much of a pioneer as all of that. My mind could change with some genuine attribution. RGTraynor 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Further ... he doesn't seem to be significant enough to be listed either in the Nottingham University article under important academics or in the much larger List of University of Nottingham people. As far as his own reputation goes, his rather startling NU bio claims that his 1974 work on zombies was in error. RGTraynor 17:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep—known for his work on zombies on zombies, and other work on physicalism. Changing one's mind is a privilege of the notable and non-notable alike. Spacepotato 22:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Except that it's tough to claim (in the lack of any evidence, come to that) that the man's work on "zombies" makes him notable at the same time he admits he screwed it up to the point that he wrote a book refuting his own prior work. RGTraynor 13:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry, but you have no secondary sources in the article that back up your claims that he meets WP:PROFTEST. The first criterion is that they are a significant expert. Where is that backed up? In the article you prove that he published and was reviewed by other academics in academic journals. So has every other full professor in the world. The second criterion is that they are regarded as important - I don't see that backed up in any source in the article. So on down the list. You need independent, secondary sources stating how and why he is notable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mus Musculus (talk • contribs) 23:08, 15 March 2007
  • Weak delete per RGTraynor. I see some work in a philosophical niche; I don't see significance. Accomplishment != notability. -- Dhartung | Talk 10:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment For the benfit of contributors from the US who may not be aware, in the UK the title 'professor' is far more important than an American professor which seems to be synonymous with any university teacher (we would call that a lecturer). A UK professor is usually equivalent to head of a university department (see Professor#Most other English-speaking countries) So, being a professor is notable, and the award of emeritus, granted by fellows, is more so. Emeraude 13:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh, we're aware of it. Nothing in WP:PROFTEST accords automatic notability to department chairs, either; it just isn't notable in of itself. Really, the issue at stake here is simple: is he widely regarded as a significant expert in his field? If so, it should be easy to provide sources backing that up. If sources attesting to his notability don't exist, then it seems he isn't all that widely regarded after all. RGTraynor 14:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Unable to access journals portal at the moment, but here are three sources that cite Kirk available openly on the Internet:
      • BAILEY, Andrew Zombies, Epiphenomenalism, and Physicalist Theories of Consciousness in Canadian Journal of Philosophy. here
      • CHALMERS, David J Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness in Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3):200-19, 1995. here
      • CHALMERS, David J Consciousness and its Place in Nature published in S. Stich & F., Warfield, eds, Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Mind. Blackwell, 2003. here Emeraude 15:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment probably a borderline case but I want to note that being an emeritus professor or having written a bunch of reviews (!) is clearly not sufficient. The key question, which supporters have failed to address, is whether there exist sufficient third-party coverage of his work to built an article in line with WP:ATT. I'm not saying that's not possible but this should be the issue. Pascal.Tesson 15:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Jstor shows that Kirk has written a number of journal articles, not just reviews. He has also written a few books, and it is a priori extremely unlikely that somebody publishing books with publishers such as Clarendon Press and Routledge, as Robert Kirk has done, will not be reviewed in the leading journals. Jstor also finds some reviews:
    • Kirk's Raw feeling: a philosophical account of the essence of consciousness, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), was reviewed by Earl Conee in Mind, New Series, Vol. 104, No. 415 (Jul., 1995), pp. 645-650, by Joseph Levine in The Philosophical Review Vol. 105, No. 1 (Jan., 1996), pp. 94-97, by Michael Tye in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 57, No. 4 (Dec., 1997), pp. 968-971, by Lynn Stephens in The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 184 (Jul., 1996), pp. 417-421.
    • Kirk's Relativism and reality: a contemporary introduction (London: Routledge, 1999), was reviewed by John Greco in The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 201 (Oct., 2000), pp. 552-553, and by Gerald Doppelt in The Philosophical Review, Vol. 111, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), pp. 142-147.
Now, this is just what I find in five minutes of searching. There is possibly more, but I am not interested enough to spend more time on this. Pharamond 15:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Re Pascal.Tesson's question, I think there is in fact sufficient discussion of Kirk's work in the literature. As well as the references already cited in the article, and those quoted by Pharamond, I find the following after a quick search:
  • Physicalism and strict implication, Jürgen Schröder, Synthese 151, #3 (August 2006) (discussion of Kirk's "minimal physicalism")
  • The prospects for Kirk's non-reductive physicalism, A. Melnyk, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76, #2 (June 1998)
  • Mind and Body, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82, #2 (June 1, 2004) (review of Kirk's book)
etc.
Spacepotato 03:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep clearly passes the Prof Test... plenty of peer reviewed publications.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John McKissick

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

This was tagged with prod, but I'm not so sure it fits that definition. 500 career games and being in the hall of fame seem to imply notability, if sources can be found. No opinion yet on retaining. Lankiveil 12:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Having the most wins of any football coach is sufficiently significant enough to merit retention in Wikipedia. I worry that the nomination for deletion was motivated by someone loyal to a school which plays agains Mr. McKissick's teams.

Some confirming sources that confirm the information in the article, i.e. 500+ wins and hall of fame, are

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.253.25.115 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. With sources added to article, passes WP:ATT. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 23:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, now that multiple sources have been provided. Lankiveil 11:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep, notable and sourced. Herostratus 16:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (o rly?) 21:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pablo Cortés

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

Suspected hoax (see description page of Image:Pablo cortes.jpg); no relevant Google hits for "Pablo Cortés" buccaneer, "Pablo Cortés" corsair, or "Pablo Cortés" pirate. Delete. Originally nominated for speedy deletion, but the article has been around for some time. Could also somebody have a look at the references listed in the article? - Mike Rosoft 13:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Note - I've removed the speedy deletion tag as an invalid speedy deletion reason. – riana_dzasta 13:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Hoaxes may be speedily deleted as patent nonsense and/or vandalism if they are evident, but this doesn't seem to be the case for this article. - Mike Rosoft
  • Delete. From all that I can tell, this appears to be a hoax. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 00:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The image is a copyright violation, and the image page states that it was photoshopped as a hoax. Additionally, while three of the references exist, several others do not. This article seems too much like a hoax, and there are no online references to the subject. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 04:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The picture is a hoax, however the remainder of the content is legitimate. I can vouch for the original sources posted in my original writeup, in particular, the book 'Slavery', in which Cortés is given a brief description during the chapter regarding Spain's history of slavery.Effergyaburning 10:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • User has no contributions but to Pablo Cortés and related pages. ("Related pages" means its talk page, and this page.) - Mike Rosoft 11:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I have seen no other areas for improvement. I read a mention of Pablo Cortés, yet could not find sources on Wikipedia or any other internet sites, hence the posting of the article, to put the information on the internet.Effergyaburning 12:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
        • The references given in the article don't seem to check out; some of them don't even exist. Without any evidence to the contrary (and "I have read something" doesn't constitute evidence), I have no option but to assume that the article is a hoax. - Mike Rosoft 14:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hu12 01:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jason pankey

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

Not notable - no releases, virtually nothing on Google. andy 13:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Russeasby 22:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The creator's ID (byeknap) is just "pankey B" backwards suggesting a link with the article subject which causes this to fail WP:COI. This article could probably have received a Speedy Delete. Suriel1981 13:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. ArchStanton 13:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page has been blanked as a courtesy.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hu12 02:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Roffman

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

Notability (unimportant), Tone (reads like a resume), Lack of Citations BostonFilmGuy 13:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hu12 02:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of visual novels

List of visual novels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Since it no longer has any redlinks, this list is redundant with Category:Visual novels. Also, trying to create a list of every visual novel would be really, really, damn hard, though I might attempt it someday.... SeizureDog 13:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete It's not a maintainable list, and as indicated above, is adequately covered by the applicable category. Leebo T/C 14:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, and please SeizureDog, for your sake, do not attempt it. _dk 21:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • lol, yeah, you're probably right. I still have hopes of completing List of manga someday though...--SeizureDog 04:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Vaccaro

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

On the surface, this looks like a legit article, until you realize that this is a 20-year old who's only claim to fame is writing in the local press about his High School sports teams, and a soon-to-be-published book about, yes, his High School football team. This appears to be a vanity bio, given the history of who's edited it, so I have WP:COI concerns as well as notability concerns. It might be a candidate for userfying, but until this "journalist" is published a bit more widely, the ariticle doesn't seem to meet our notability standards. Akradecki 14:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The book has nothing to do with my own high school football team. I didn't play high school football. It's an objective book about the Dynasties of Long Island high school football and the first of its kind. The bio on wiki fits the criteria and is better than half of the bios that are not credible at all. Who are you to say that what I've done is not credible, at 20, I'm more successful than most of the people that age. CRV338 15 March 2007
    • Comment - you may wish to review Wikipedia:Notability (books) and Wikipedia:Notability (people), especially the section on the notability standards for journalists. If your book gets published, and highly reviewed, then you might be an appropriate subject for an article, but let someone else write it. For example, I myself have published a book, and it even has multiple non-trivial reviews. But, you won't find my writing about it or myself, as that would be inappropriate. I have mentioned it on my user page, which is exactly where you should be mentioning yours, hence my suggestion in the nom to userfy. Akradecki 15:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You may also wish to read wikipedias conflict of interest guidelines. By your own self admittance you have a conflict of interest in this situation. Also, please remain WP:CIVIL, and try to keep comments related to the article in question, not other people. Thank you. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity article. Cloveoil 14:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and so marked on article itself. Autobiographical article fails to assert notability (Wikipedia standards of notability) of its subject. — Whedonette (ping) 16:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Author asserts notability however does not cite it or provide proper citation. Listed as the writer of a book and an author for several magazines is an assertion of notability. The question is, is this assertion valid? That can be handled in this afd. I however feel that the assertions are not valid and not cited and therefore should be deleted. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment An admin's rejected speedy on this one. — Whedonette (ping) 15:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable. --Tom 14:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rene Quinton

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

snake oil advertising and non-verifiable ZayZayEM 14:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Came here via Deep Sea News. This page is very suss and likely just blatant advertising for snake oil type hackery. Rene Quinton might be a real figure of notability, which is why I'm giving this the benefit of a VFD not a a speedy.--ZayZayEM 14:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - snake oil promotion--ZayZayEM 14:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unsourced, unreferenced and lacking citations since creation AlfPhotoman 14:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete To quote [23] I emailed a research librarian, adept if finding everything and anything, to find more information about Quinton, without using the net. Here is what he writes back... "He's not listed in the Biography and Genealogy Master Index, which indexes the standard biographical sources. Quinton published a couple of books, Maximes sur la guerre which has been translated into English as Soldier's testament: selected maxims of Rene Quinton [he is supposed to have died from war wound], L'eau de mer, milieu organique: constance du milieu originel, comme milieu vital des cellules a travers la serie animale and L'eau de mer en injections isotoniques sous-cutanees en pavillon des debiles de la maternite; the last two apparently have not been translated. None is particularly common. There's also what appears to be a biographpy, Rene Quinton: origines marines de la vie, lois de constance originelles. I found one article, Loi generale de constance originelle du milieu vital des cellules in Revue des idees, 1904." Nice bit of research proving him non-notable. Adam Cuerden talk 17:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert E. McElwaine

Notability, verifiability, etc. There is no evidence of any of that in this article, individual (if it is even him) also fails WP:BIO. Crossmr 14:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete reluctantly, fails WP:BIO, WP:ATT, etc. There have been blurbs in defunct dot-com era magazines like Yahoo! Internet Life, I know, but those aren't in the back of my closet anymore. Leave this one for cranks.net and perhaps ED, should someone wish to adopt it. -- Dhartung | Talk 10:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm with Dhartung. It's a sad day, the veritable end of an era, when Robert "UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED" McElwaine is banished from the pages of Wikipedia. The other wiki, or Uncyclopedia, should take this and run with it. When was the United States born? NOVEMBER 15, 1777, of course. This is essentially unattributable. On the assumption that Mr McElwaine is alive and well, we definitely can't have an article on him without something better than usenet posts to hang it off. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hu12 02:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caustic Window untitled album

Caustic Window untitled album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An unreleased record (from a guy who reportedly has hundreds of unreleased tracks); only source provided is the user-submitted discogs.com. kingboyk 15:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The article itself tells us that only 4 people have copies of this album. That claim is itself unverifiable from reliable sources (i.e. not submissions by an unindentifiable pseudonymous person to a self-submission web site), but if it were true, the rest of the article would be unverifiable as a consequence. Delete. Uncle G 15:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sourced. Recury 16:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep i added additional sources from respected Aphex Twin websites. The album has been confirmed to be in existence by Rephlex Records owner Grant Wilson-Claridge as well as on past Rephlex product mailing lists. --AlexOvShaolin 23:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep if is sourced well. Powelldinho 18:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hu12 02:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Bustos

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

This is non-notable autobiography and a plug for the author's company. There's an assertion of notability but fundamentally this is spam andy 15:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - spam article entirely written/edited by subject. --J2thawiki 19:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. YechielMan 17:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kafziel Talk 12:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aquinas College Salter Point Campus

Aquinas College Salter Point Campus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Largely duplicates Aquinas College, Perth and does not appear to serve any purpose. I can't locate similar campus articles for any other notable schools. DanielT5 15:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. There is nothing here that the host article doesn't provide. Orderinchaos78 15:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos78 15:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Must we be forever deleting Aquinascruft?! Hesperian 23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --Peta 00:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is just crazy. When will it ever end? ~!—Moondyne
  • Delete -- SatuSuro 05:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not that I have anything against Aquinas (bloddy micks) Dan arndt 07:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep probarbly the most beautiful school grounds in Australia, if not the world. How is it not notable if it has a dozen references, and i could find more, ~10 of which are from external sources. SMBarnZy 08:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure every school claims they have the most beautiful grounds, and Aquinas College (which is in Salter Point) is notable, this AfD is about the above article which is just a copy paste of part of the original article for no real reason DanielT5 09:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
But according to WP:N - "notable if it has been the subject of published material and is independent of the subject, reliable, and most importantly, attributable" - this article has ~ten inderpendant sources stated in reference section. 07:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, "the subject of published material". It has to be published material whose subject is Aquinas College Salter Point Campus. The subject of the westcourt website is Christian Brothers' Schools and Ministries (incidentally that site does not appear to support the assertion that you've referenced with it). The subject of the City of South Perth Municipal Heritage Inventory is the heritage places of the City of South Perth. The subject of Peninsular City is the social history of South Perth. The subject of the Mount Henry Peninsula Management Plan is the Mount Henry Peninsula. The fact that these sources mention Aquinas College Salter Point Campus does not confer notability upon it. And that's why Aquinas College is notable, and Aquinas College Salter Point Campus is not. Hesperian 10:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - a campus is a campus is a campus. -- Longhair\talk 11:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think Hesperian just hit the nail right on the head - and noticed something that i have overlooked. I agree with what he has said. Possibly we can close the discussion now? and delete? SMBarnZy 11:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Majorly (o rly?) 21:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeannie Whatley

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

Given the existence of a "list of Studio 60 characters" article already, Wikipedia need not have an article covering every secondary, minor character on the show, especially when the bulk of the article essentially synopsizes episodes. — Whedonette (ping) 16:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (o rly?) 21:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dylan Killington

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

Given the existence of a "list of Studio 60 characters" article already, Wikipedia need not have an article covering every secondary, minor character on the show, especially when the bulk of the article essentially synopsizes episodes. — Whedonette (ping) 16:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep, notable character in a notable television series, addendum: nominator gives no deletion rationale. Matthew
  • 'Keep per Matthew. - Peregrine Fisher 17:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect (or smerge) into List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip characters. NOT#IINFO refers, written in an {{inuniverse}} style, and little that's not trivia or fan exegesis beyond the what's in the the list. When someone wants to write an article that meets WP:ATT and WP:WAF, then it can be split out again. Until then, a list is the best place to handle the minor characters. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List_of_Studio_60_on_the_Sunset_Strip_characters#Supporting_roles.--Wizardman 16:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Samantha Li

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

Given the existence of a "list of Studio 60 characters" article already, Wikipedia need not maintain one-line articles in order to cover every secondary, minor character on the show. — Whedonette (ping) 16:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. No article content.--ZayZayEM 03:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. A reader searching WP may remember the character's name but not the show. --DeLarge 10:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (o rly?) 21:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lucy Kenwright

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

Given the existence of a "list of Studio 60 characters" article already, Wikipedia need not have an article covering every secondary, minor character on the show, especially when the bulk of the article essentially synopsizes episodes. — Whedonette (ping) 16:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect. Majorly (o rly?) 21:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darius Hawthorne

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

Given the existence of a "list of Studio 60 characters" article already, Wikipedia need not have an article covering every secondary, minor character on the show, especially when the bulk of the article essentially synopsizes episodes. — Whedonette (ping) 16:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep, notable character in a notable television series, addendum: nominator gives no deletion rationale. Matthew
  • Redirect or smerge per previous rationales. Nothing here that can't be done better in the list (and indeed most of it already is in the list and the material which is not probably shouldn't be included). NOT#IINFO, ATT and WAF refer. When someone wants to write about the character in a way which meets the relevant policies and guidelines, and which is too big to fit in the list, that's the time to split it out into a separate article. The nominator can redirect or merge the material even if the AFD results in a keep decision, and probably should. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. A reader searching WP may remember the character's name but not the show. --DeLarge 10:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Redirect to List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip characters. The decision to redirect to the list of characters and not the show itself is due to the fact that she is a character. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martha O'Dell

Martha O'Dell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Given the existence of a "list of Studio 60 characters" article already, Wikipedia need not have an article covering every secondary, minor character on the show. — Whedonette (ping) 16:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was move. Majorly (o rly?) 21:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RVLiving magazine

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

This is a defunct publication, that was, in-fact, a publication by an RV dealer, for the benefit of that dealer. Since the publication is gone, was a small publication, and was, very much a vanity publication. I think this article fails to meet Wiki standards for being useful and/or informative. N7bsn 16:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Move to an article on Lazy Days (RV dealer) or some such titled article, as I can accept that the largest RV dealer in the United States might have an article. This content could fit into that. FrozenPurpleCube 17:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Not a bad thought, that could work. Ralph N7bsn 15:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. I'd only go with a move/redirect if there was a target article to point to. --DeLarge 10:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Due to the web video soliciting votes, those with few or no other edits outside this topic, have been stricken.Hu12 03:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fred the Monkey

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Fred the Monkey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A previous incarnation of this article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred the Monkey.com for failing WP:WEB; I still do not see any assertion of meeting the criteria of WP:WEB in the article. The afd-related animation [24] is still hilarious, however. Tizio 16:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete under db-repost guideline. — Whedonette (ping) 16:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a significantly different article from the one that was deleted last year per the previous AfD; different enough that it isn't really a G4. AfD is the right place for this.--Isotope23 16:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep- very funny animation linked to above which also said it has won several awards. Doesn't that make it notable? --J2thawiki 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Hi, I'm the articles original creator. The article that was deleted was not nearly as expansive as this one. This one, if I do say so myself is amazing. yes, it is about an internet cartoon, but this internet cartoon is quite popular, and the page is not just a small piece on it: it is full coverage. So no, this article should not be deleted. It is not written like an advertisement, has a lot of information, and is just such a large coverage of the topic. No, again, it should stay. As for the guidelines, well, the article is not written like an advertisement, rather, like an encyclopedia. The site is well enough known I believe, and that is that. Please post here if you disagree.--Scabloo 23:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Kudos to the animation. It really is hilarious. But at this risk of getting "totally added" to the sign . . . the fact remains that unless someone can spell out what these awards are, so we can evaluate their importance, I'm afraid I just don't see how any of the criteria listed in WP:WEB are met. Mwelch 00:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As has been noted, the article is much more expansive than the one that was deleted last time. Also, I don't see how it's not notable. It won some awards and has a decent sized user base. The forums over on the site have over 650 members. Astoc 03:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC) — Astoc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment. Once again, I ask: exactly what are these awards that it has won? Heck, I can actually truthfully claim that I'm an award-winning playwright. Am I notable now? (The award was best parody of The Importance of Being Earnest in my high school English class in 12th grade.) If these awards that the web site has won are legit, then by all means share and that will certainly influence my opinion, and probably others' too. But as long as no one is willing to name them, that seems pretty suspicious to me. And if the awards are not legit, then what criterion of WP:WEB does this site meet? Mwelch 19:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Comment' - Even so, it is obviously fairly popular. The forum has 669 members, 223708 posts and 4740 topics. It is obviously active, so we know that it isnt like the commic isn't well known. --Scabloo 21:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Absolutely not noteworthy and - in disagreement to all the above comments - no, not funny. Robinson weijman 13:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Comment' - What does it matter if what the article is about is funny or not. Just because you do not find somethe humorous does not mean that it shouldn't be part of Wikipedia.
    • Answer: - Not sure if I should reply to an unsigned comment but, intending to be polite, here goes. I mentioned that I found it not humourous merely because so many had found it funny - it was simply to balance those comments. I agree, it is not a reason to delete the article. But that it is not noteworthy is. Robinson weijman 12:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Commentand why exactly is it non note worthy?--Scabloo 13:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Answer: I'm not aware (correct me if I'm wrong) of it appearing in any publications outside Wikipedia. I assume that if it did this page would contain links to it. I think the question should be, "Why *IS* it note worthy? Robinson weijman 14:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment - Because it is fairly popular, and it *has* gotten some daily awards on newgrounds. The creator also says he won an award at a local college.--Scabloo 19:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment Then I suggest you add the awards to the article. Though winning an award at a local college does not make it noteworthy, I think. You've created the article - have you also created the Fred The Monkey video as well? Robinson weijman 12:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Answer': No, I did not.--Scabloo 20:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Admittedly, it does fail to comply with WP:WEB, but to be fair the site has a large following, the last poll alone received over 2600 responses, taking into account those who vote twice and those who abstained from voting it is still a pretty large following for a flash animation site, though not exactly ready to go head to head with the 500 pound Gorilla (homestarrunner). It has many dedicated, passionate, even a small cult following based on the premise of a new letter mentioned in cartoon, check out the forum and see fo yourself http://www.cubetoons.com/forum/index.php?board=19.0. As for the awards, of course they are not legitimate (besides the JKRISAWESOME Foundation) if you did not understand that immediately, I pity your lack of a sense of humour. Letting the little up and coming website have its wikipedia page, what harm is there in that? --74.102.186.183— 74.102.186.183 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment. There would probably be no harm in having a Wikipedia article about my niece's pet hamster, either. That doesn't mean there should be one. But the important thing is that at least we're acknowledging that the only real arguments anyone is presenting for keeping are WP:ILIKEIT, WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:NOHARM. For the reasons put forth in their essay sections, I can't say I find any of those arguments particularly compelling such that they'd justify making this an exception to WP:WEB. But that's just my opinion, of course. Mwelch 22:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well, one episode was came in second for Daily Favourite on Newgrounds, while another came in the Daily Fifth. Does that count? Doubtful there is anything more though, except maybe for other episodes.SecondFifth --Scabloo 23:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can't imagine that's anywhere near what WP:WEB has in mind for a "well-known award". But again, it's just my opinion. And of course WP:WEB is a guideline, not a policy, and thus is more apt to be subject to exceptions than are policies. I don't personally feel this site should be given such an exception, so I still say, without hesitation, to delete. And I'd note that of the four who have thus far argued for "keep", one is the article creator and two of the other three are SPA's. But all of that said, others are certainly free to have a differing opinion, and if the article ultimately remains, as much as I'll disagree with that, it's probably not exactly going to make my Top 10 list of "Wikipedia articles with which I have a problem". (If it is deemed notable enough to stay, though, and if I'm featured as a Wikipeida villain in the next animation, then I'm going to try to press a claim of inherited notability and create an article for myself.) ;-) Mwelch 00:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - well, an award is better than none. Also, even though he can't prove i on the internet, the creator of the animation says he won an award at a local college. I know it probably doesn't count (It would be pretty crazy if it did), but i might as well mention it.Anyways - yes, 2 people who voted for Keep are SPAs, but it isnt like they are saying "Fred The Monkey FTW! Keep da Article m@te!" they posted a reply in, in my opinion, an accountable way. Finally, going back to your nieces hamster, in comparison, most likely no one publically knows, or really cares (no offense) about it. Here however, people do know, and care about the article / animation.--Scabloo 00:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Let me be clear that I didn not mean to suggest, even for a moment, that a SPA cannot contribute to the debate in an intelligent manner. I only bring up the point because it does at least call into question one's neutrality on the subject. I absolutely assume that all contributors to the argument are making their contributions honestly and in good faith, SPA or not. But I would argue that if a person hasn't done anything else or much else on Wikipedia besides work on Fred the Monkey, then it's at least possible that their perspective on whether that article should be kept may be a bit biased. Especially if the arguments they cite for keeping it are not supported by any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Mwelch 20:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So it appears a bunch of the keeps are SPAs. I've contributed to Wikipedia quite a bit in the past, just never made an account. All I'm saying is that it'd be a shame if the article was deleted again. So much was put into this one and it's so much better than the one that was deleted before it. Also, as has been noted, the site does have a pretty large following. The forums, while not as large as say IGN, they've still got a decent number of users and a ton of posts. The toons have been on newground.com and have won a few awards over there. So yes, they may not be the most well known awards, but shouldn't the fan base speak for something, too? Astoc 00:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree. Just because someone appears to have only contributed to the Fred the Monkey article doesn't mean that that's all that they have done. I have been an active contributor to Wikipedia for years, but only recently made account. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ninja is the new black (talk • contribs).
  • Keep I believe that this should not be deleated. It has already been deleated once, and I do not believe that when it has so clearly been improved from the previous article featured that it should be deleated again. I am a huge fan of the website, so I may be biased but I do not think that this has anything to do with the fact that I do not believe that it should be removed. It is a well rounded article that should not be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ninja is the new black (talk • contribs).This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep It would be like deleting the Homestarrunner article, which I've never seen up for deletion. They're both animations.— 71.170.49.134 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC).This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment. The nomination for deletion isn't because it's an animation; it's because it's not notable per WP:WEB. Homestar Runner, on the other hand, is notable per WP:WEB, since I can point you to references to Homestar Runner in such non-trivial tech publications as Wired, as well as in mainstream media like The Cincinnati Enquirer and the National Review. If the same could be said for Fred the Monkey, then this wouldn't even be an issue. Mwelch 21:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails to comply with WP:WEB. It's as simple as that. BlackBear 22:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - 74.102.186.183's vote should not count, as IP addresses votes are not allowed to count. BlackBear 22:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Everyone should remember (and I've now added the template at the top to serve as a reminder) that this is not a vote. The decision will be made by the merits of people's arguments, not on the basis of how many "votes" each side has. It is perfectly acceptable for an IP to offer arguments for consideration. In this case, even those voting to keep seem to acknowledge that the site doesn't meet WP:WEB. So that would mean that the question seems to be whether this site is worthy of an exception to that guideline. The arguments in favor of giving it an exception all seem to boil down to WP:ILIKEIT, WP:BIGNUMBER, or WP:NOHARM. Mwelch 22:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment' - Well, does the final desicion come down to you. The reason I ask is because since you still do not think it should be on the site, and it comes down to you, then all of this seems futile.--Scabloo 20:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Answer. Absolutely not. It is an admin decision, and I am not an admin. Beyond how persuasive (or non-persuasive) others find my arguments in this discussion to be, I have absolutely no say whatsoever in the final decision. Mwelch 20:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Oh, ok. Well, i'm going to add the awards to the page. hoefullt that'll help. --Scabloo 23:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I like it. But that's no reason to keep it. It doesn't seem to meet any of the WP:WEB criteria. -- Ben 20:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 plumber/internet celeb has to go. Sorry. kingboyk 22:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Todd Weeks

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

Seemingly non-notable internet gamer. De-proded by aurthor.Hondasaregood 16:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • Delete I'd personally like to see this deleted. I'm on the internet 24/7, and never have heard of this guy, despite the author's claims of him being an internet phenomenon. Downy 16:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There is a wikipedia article on Star Wars kid and other internet celebrities. Todd is as popular as him.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpouel (talk • contribs)
    • I can still find no evidence of his extstence.Hondasaregood 16:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If you can't find evidence of his existence, you really need to open your eyes, just google his name and his website is the first one on the list. I don't see a point in deleting this article since Todd Weeks do exist and he is a true martial artist master. Just because you don't know someone does not mean others don't. Also, if you are on the internet 24/7, you should get some sleep. [www.toddweeksmovies.com]
    • Yes, but that's a DIFFERENT Todd Weeks.Hondasaregood 17:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think the martial arts instructor is notable, either.Hondasaregood 17:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have asked 20 internet gamers and googlers, and none out of 20 have heard of him. δσώпҹ (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • He has only recieved 5971 pageviews on his site. Clearly not a phenomena. δσώпҹ (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Todd Week, the martial artist, IS notable. Please disregard all negative messages.

  • Delete" Clearly, he exists, but why is he notable? I can't find any third party reliable sources. Can anyone arguing keep point to one?Chunky Rice 18:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, still. The article is now about a different Todd Weeks, but it still doesn't have sources that would verify notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Todd Weeks IS a local phenomena here in Quebec, Canada. Do you live in Quebec city? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpouel (talk • contribs)
Comment. No, I don't. Have you read WP:BIO? -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have. Todd Week is an internet celebrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpouel (talk • contribs)

  • Keep Because he is not a celebrity in your area does not mean he not popular in some area of the world.
  • Keep Todd Week is a historical figure in Quebec and Ohio. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danpouel (talk • contribs) 18:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
Comment. You only get to 'vote' once, though you can add to the discussion by providing sources to verify the notability of this person. Just saying 'he's notable' over and over is not an argument that will prevent the deletion of the article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if this gets deleted, Todd Weeks will still be in our hearts! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.134.64.194 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

TODD IS AWESOME!!! KEEP IT! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danpouel (talk • contribs) 18:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

  • Delete - heart-warming show of solidarity aside, I'd put this midway between vanity and a hoax. Right in the neighborhood of, you know, WP:NN. Considering the unhelpful, distracting drama unfolding in this thread, I'd even say Speedy as per WP:SNOW. Don't you kids have some Chuck Norris facts to work on or something? :) --Action Jackson IV 18:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. CSD.7 - No claim to notability. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, this has vanity and non-notability written all over it. ^demon[omg plz] 21:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (o rly?) 23:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baron Barrymore Halpenny (2nd nomination)

Baron Barrymore Halpenny (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Artist/cartoonist of questionable notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Barrymore Halpenny for first nomination. This article is different, so I am not speedy deleting it as a recreation (I've undeleted old revisions so you can compare). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-15 16:57Z

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – AlfPhotoman 18:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Exactly the same problems as last time -- which was, what? Yesterday? -- even if the words have been rearranged. Ah, process for its own sake, where would we be without it? --Calton | Talk 00:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete if the author can bring it up to WP:BIO (notice the criteria for artists) by end of this AfD I might change my mind AlfPhotoman 00:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP It has been edited by the administrator NawlinWiki and cites at least one independent source. It is very different to before and I have complied with all the criteria. You can go and buy the books from Amazon and check it out if you like. Goldburg 13:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC) must have forgot to sign before. My fault!
If anyone has any doubts about the article "Baron's Pen is Peerless" Why not contact the newspaper that printed it? Their archive section will show it to be true!
Their website is: http://www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk/ and information is Evening Telegraph "Baron’s Pen is Peerless" Article Monday, June 15, 1987. They should find it from that. Goldburg 13:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This user has under 100 edits, most of them related to the Halpenny name. Tyrenius 04:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable person, fails WP:BIO on all counts under "creative professionals". Google search on "Baron Barrymore Halpenny" brings up only 25 unique on 65 returns, most of which are Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors, or simple lists. One article from 20 years ago, with no recent hits of note, does NOT establish notability, nor does the fact that an administrator edited an article. TheRealFennShysa 15:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable I'm afraid, per the RFS above & others. BTW, this page had disappeared from my watchlist just recently, for some reason - has it moved? Johnbod 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • PLEASE DELETE!!! Alas I have had to come on here and I must point out that I have come on here only because this debate/discussion is about me, I have no intentions of using my sign in name/ID whatever, for any other purpose. This is a waste of my time, but as they say, necessities must. I would much rather be enjoying a walk in the countryside, which I love. Computers and Internet can waste so much time and are so artificial, that is why I love nature.
I would very much like the article Baron Barrymore Halpenny to be deleted. I never asked to be on this website or listed here and the first I knew about it was from an e-mail to me from Mr. Goldburg. I now find it through Google when checking my Websites. I appreciate Mr. Goldburg’s intentions and maybe he’s right and maybe he’s not, but as I made clear to him in an e-mail (part of which he put on here and I was a little annoyed as the e-mail was to him only), I would much rather people come to my website if they want to know about me or my art.
I’m very angry that on Google, this website called wikipedia appears when “googling” my name and has detrimental and damaging references to me regarding being “not notable”, deleting etc. this for something I had nothing to do with. Before this wiki thing came onto the scene, my name brought a clean list on Google for my websites, making it easy for people to access my material etc.
As it is, I want the article about me deleting as it serves me no purpose being on here and I have explained my reasons. As to being notable? If only you really knew, but I’m not saying here as I know Mr. Goldburg would use it to list me again and that would defeat my object of getting the Article removed.
I encountered from an early age, jealousy and bitterness. People who did not know me had already made up their minds about me. I was brought up not to be jealous and to be open-minded. All coins have two sides and before you open your mouth look at both sides.
So I actually set out to control as much as possible, what’s written about me when I was in my late teens. This is why I don’t do interviews now (if I did do one I would have to have the right to vet it), and why information is funnelled through my websites that I control.
I will have an art agent for my commercial work and galleries that deal with my paintings. And I like it this way.
I have done a few book covers for my father and for other people. I have also done illustrations for books. I love cartoons and use pseudonyms for certain ones. I enjoy my art and you may well have seen my work without knowing it. It is my Art I want you to see, like and enjoy. I want you to know my Art … not me.
I don’t really want to come on here again, so I don’t want to see these annoying references on Google again. So I would very much like an Administrator to REMOVE the Article about me and also all these daft references of deletion etc and stop Google and other search engines picking them up. Thank you!
Baron Barrymore Halpenny - Artist, Illustrator and Cartoonist
  • —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baron Halpenny (talk • contribs). Tyrenius 04:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • YOU HAVE TO KEEP Well I seem to be left a bit alone on this one. But I know that I am right. The problem is that the other editors are too lazy and rely on Google too much. I can understand Baron Barrymore Halpenny’s point and I am deeply sorry for helping to bring about the unwanted statements by editors on the Wikipedia. I never intended this. But with all due respect to Halpenny, and I admire his work very much, he is notable and should be included in the Wikipedia for the Work he has done, if not for his paintings which I know will become more well known, but certainly for his illustrations and book cover designs.
A thought. If we are all going to just use Google and rely only on Google then why do we need the Wikipedia? Encyclopaedias are built up using many sources for reference. If your form of research is just Google, then it just shows how poor and lazy you are for doing proper serious work. If Google disappeared, then so would 95% of the editors on Wikipedia. I think this debate is showing how weak the Wikipedia is in how the editors research. The Wikipedia to be a truly independent Encyclopaedia must stand on its own two feet and focus on hard facts and reality. It maybe on the Internet, but it should not rely on the Internet for its information and certainly not google! Nor should it remove an article that is neutral in content, just because the artist would like it to be. But like I say I can understand that the unwanted statements have probably swayed the artist’s opinion.
To remove this article will show Googles strength and Wikipedia’s weakness.
Goldburg 10:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP? Things seem to have changed since I last stumbled on this area, and from what I can gather we are on a second debate? I was asked by Goldburg to provide a list of books that I know Baron Barrymore Halpenny has worked on, though I note the Ghost Stations have already been listed. He has as well done illustrations in most of his fathers books and others. In Wartime Poems (Paperback) (ISBN 978-0907595694) he has done all the illustrations as well as the book cover. He has done quite a few book covers and not just his fathers books and has a significant body of work that I believe is to the WP:BIO criteria.
Actually if you google the books of Bruce Barrymore Halpenny, you will inadvertently google the work of Baron Barrymore Halpenny as he has most likely done the Artwork and this I feel would be the same for the books he does for other authors. So really his artwork is right across google, just his name isn’t.
I don’t know much about art as it does not interest me, but I can verify the work of Baron in his father’s books, if that helps in this discussion? Anyone can if they just get a copy of the books, esp. Wartime Poems. In this discussion that is as far as I can go. I would just like to say that Goldburg has put a very good case here and is right in a way.
However, if the artist himself does not want to be here and I should say he is doing very well without being on here, would it not be best to close this chapter? Baron Barrymore Halpenny is a talented young man and obviously knows what he is doing. But then as his work does become better known, if not by Goldburg, then certainly someone else will once again list him. I’m unsure whether to remove or maybe wisest to just leave the stub, which at present is pretty neutral?
I’ll leave that to an Administrator. Maybe the administrators should discuss this topic? --James Dunston 10:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This editor has made 18 edits, all of them about the Halpenny family. Tyrenius 04:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the artist wants it deleted, which is refreshing to see as its usuly the otherwy round. as thers not sure on notabilty delete until beter info and stuff. everyone hapy. only artists websits on google, but artist as made clear he trys to keep it that way. does great cartoons! --Zedco 08:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • User's first edit. Tyrenius 09:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (o rly?) 21:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old man car

Old man car (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - nothing links here, arguably original research (the references just go to car reviews). --Vossanova o< 17:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Ol' man car, he jes' keep rollin' along? Actually, a better version of this might be worth keeping (and moving to old person's car). The reviews do suggest that the phrase "old person's car" has some currency; and we know intuitively what they're talking about. But speculating about what qualities make an old man car strikes me as trying to catch a moonbeam in a jar, especially considering it relates to elusive questions of style and image. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree with Smerdis of Tlön. This is perhaps a three-liner for Wikinary, but not for Wikipedia. HagenUK 21:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It might actually be possible to flip this around, and write it not from the standpoint of "which cars are old people cars", but from the standpoint of "which automobile advertising campaigns have been targeted towards young people, or towards old people?", since at least some literature profs study that sort of thing. Otherwise I don't see Wikipedia ever being able to pin down a firm definition of "old man car", or ever using anything but flimsy references that mention "old man" in anything but a offhand and arbitrary way. --Interiot 21:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep after Uncle G's excellent rewrite. Though I still wonder if it might be useful to rename it "Age targeting in automobile advertising" or somesuch, since I'm not sure other editors will resist the urge to use the page to label a given car as definitively "old man's" or not. --Interiot 00:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep now that the article has been greatly revamped and sourced, though it should probably be renamed to "Old man's car" or "Old person's car," which is more grammatically appropriate. Krimpet 01:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - the references are adequate.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to wiktionary or Merge into advertising or automobile related articles. Phrase of historic and cultural interest but not suitable for encyclopaedia as an article in itself. Would suggest other participants that AfDs are not to be treated as mere Delete/Keep debates. Give constructive alternatives when topic is not downright nonsense. (possible ideas are here Alcohol_advertising, Cosmetic_advertising. Missing topic is Automobile advertising.) Shyamal 06:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete non notable steryotype--Sefringle 04:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, though maybe move to a better name. I think it's borderline as a valid WP article, but User:Uncle G's impressive expansion has brought it up to about as good a standard as it could get to. I'll give his hard work the benefit of the doubt. --DeLarge 11:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep stereotype used by numerous auto magazines... see references for proof.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep following Uncle G's improvements (see diff). -- Black Falcon 18:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Effects of the automobile on societies, which appears to be the most thorough WP article on automobiles in society & culture. This replaces my original delete vote, although I'm not withdrawing this Afd as we're having needed discussion. --Vossanova o< 18:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pre Ordained

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

Non-notable bootleg — miketm - Queen WikiProject - 17:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Is it even a bootleg? Looks more like pirate/counterfeit to me (i.e. legally available tracks distributed without licence, as opposed to tracks not available elsewhere). --kingboyk 17:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - let's get rid of this stuff as soon as possible. Potential copyright violation as well. HagenUK 21:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.--Wizardman 16:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mariane Pearl

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

Disputed prod. The wife of a man who died in a notable incident. I don't see her personal notability myself and recommend deletion. kingboyk 17:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment I deleted this from the article, but thought it might have a place here. This isn't my argument. I'm just copying it over.Chunky Rice 18:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
"Mariane Pearl is indeed the widow of a famous person. She is also a journalist in her own right. However, how she had endured, survived, and suceeded following theJsjoholm 23:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC) kidnapping and brutal decaptitation of her husband, ten days before the birth of their only child, does merit her bio being included in Wikipedia.
I do not know personally Mariane Pearl. But, from research I have conducted concerning her life, I can attest that Ms. Pearl is a woman and a journalist, of profound moral and spiritual courage. Her story doesn't only deserve to be told and shared in this forum, it needs to be told.
To delete it would be to delete a valuable part of our contemporary history. "To forget history dooms us to repeat it." We cannot forget this part of history. Gd forbid it should be repeated.
Shlomit Mary Lucich" 63.214.55.226 (talk · contribs) 17:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - touching. However, my grandmother died after a two year struggle with cancer. She had the profund courage to not let it affect her relationship with her grandchildren, nor bring down the family's spirits when she was around. She had outlived two husbands and a child, and had the "spiritual" courage (if that's really what you want to call it) to never become a human being so deeply entrenched in her own pathos that she failed to resonate with those around her. However moving, profound, and "inspirational" (ugh) her story may be, it is not worthy of a Wikipedia article. There is really nothing, outside of the context of her husband's death, that I could say about Mariane Pearl that would be WP:N - and so, since she cannot be divorced (no pun intended) from her husband's claim to fame, it makes little sense to divorce mention of her from the article about her husband. Once stripping away the padding, the article is basically, "Ms. Pearl was born on <date> in <location>. Her parents are <location>. She now lives in <location>, doing <occupation> for a living. Her husband was beheaded by terrorists. She wrote <book> about <aforementioned incident>, which is currently being made into a movie which stars <actress>." - nothing which can't be a subsection of the Daniel Pearl article. At the risk of sounding completely caustic: If one really needs to know her spiritually, morally profound and courageous story, he or she can read the Daniel Pearl article whilst imagining that he or she is Pearl's wife. --Action Jackson IV 19:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep notable enough as author of A Mighty Heart (geez, what a title), a notable book and (upcoming) movie. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep- author of notable book being adapted for film. -- Marielle 16:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, notable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the only way we can delete this is if we a) also delete other articles of similar nature. Why not delete JFKs wifes entry while we're at it? We would never have known about her if it had not been for her husband. B) we don't accredit her for her seperate career which is proficient enough to warrant her an entry as far as I am concerned(not a fan of her work though). c) we forget that she wrote a best selling book about her problems and her situation, a book that is now being made in to a hollywood movie featuring some heavy names in it.
The very notion of deleting this article is in my hmo ridicules. Jsjoholm 23:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Self-evidently notable. -- TedFrank 00:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this biography of a notable individual. — Athænara ✉ 00:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, 385 articles on Google News Archive since 2003, showing that while she may have come to attention because of the death of her husband, she has remained quite notable since then. Her book is going to be a motion picture; she's gonna be played by Angelina Jolie! Don't make snap category judgements. -- Dhartung | Talk 10:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, we don't have an article on Susan Hull, widow of Matty Hull (even though she's been in the news a fair deal). I'd say the content in the article might very well fit in an aftermath section in the Daniel Pearl article. Scoo 16:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep She's got a major feature film about her life coming out. Once the massive publicity wave is shoved down our throats for this Oscar-bait movie and Jolie and Mrs. Pearl are everywhere we look, the article will have much more info on it. Her story is notable enough now but apparently, no one here (myself included) has read the book so no one has yet to add more detailed info on her. But this article is inevitable. A few months from now, we will all know this story. MrBlondNYC 07:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Crown Jewels

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

Basically a box set that includes the bands first eight studio albums. The only article that links to it is 'Queen discography'. — miketm - Queen WikiProject - 18:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - non-notable. Perhaps worth a few lines in the discography section of a main Queen article. HagenUK 21:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even if we are ignoring the fact that albums are generally considered notable if they are official releases from a notable artist, we have reviews here and here. They were the first two google hits for Queen "The Crown Jewels", so there are no doubt others. J Milburn 22:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - it is an official release from a notable band, thus it in itself is notable. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 22:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, lack of links from other articles is a poor criterium for deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, natch. Just tag it with {{Linkless}}, or solve the problem by adding it to {{Queen}}. --DeLarge 11:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I interpret the comments by !voters below the weblinks as reaffirmation of their positions, so the result is unanimously to delete.Chaser - T 20:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All-4-One Has Left the Building

All-4-One Has Left the Building (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Alleges to be an unreleased album, I can't find anything even close to verifiable on this, not even any blogs or music sites. Appears to be a hoax, but I can't tell for certain, so I'm bringing it here. badlydrawnjeff talk 18:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - There is still the issue of notability. The album was not released, so we can't talk about popularity, sales figures, or anything else that would contribute to an encyclopedic discussion of this album. ◄Zahakiel► 19:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If the album can be verified to have been in existence at some point, notability no longer becomes an issue given the artist. If it wasn't something that I could verify, I would have never brought it here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sure you checked, I do the same thing. I think in the case of it being verified, I would still only be in favor of a merge to the group's entry; I don't really think unreleased albums should get separate articles unless there's a strong reason for that, like a controversial reason why it wasn't released. ◄Zahakiel► 20:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Even if we assume this was an album officially considered for release, it's tough to determine where the bar of inclusion lies with unreleased material, as they tend to not get the reviews and coverage that released albums get. Some of them do achieve a sort of legendary status, as in the Beach Boys' Smile album and Guns 'N' Roses' Chinese Democracy. I notice Prince's Camille and Space's Love You More than Football have articles, while Pet Shop Boys' Relentless, for example, does not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed, although it's interesting to note that neither of those two that do have entries cite any sources or make any claims of notability either. The difficulty in establishing these two criteria (verifiability and notability) for the inclusion of unreleased/unpublished material does, I would have to say, make perfect sense. In the case of the AfD here, other bad articles don't justify the presence of this one :) ◄Zahakiel► 21:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - the keyword is "may never be released". Therefore: IF it ever gets released, this article can be resubmitted. HagenUK 21:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The proper term is "keep" not Do Not Delete Ron Ritzman 00:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Xiner[25]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Prasanna Venkatachariar Chaturvedi

Sri Prasanna Venkatachariar Chaturvedi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Minimal online representation, difficult to judge importance. Pigmandialogue 18:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. Semi-procedural, I have no opinion on the noteworthiness of the subject. Pigmandialogue 18:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I just noticed that a speedy delete was removed (without "hangon") from the page earlier. Just sayin'. Pigmandialogue 19:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment -I have restored the db-bio speedy deletion template since it was removed by the page's original creator. I have no opinion myself. ◄Zahakiel► 19:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - looks like a no-brainer to me. Cannot see how it passes WP:Bio. Not surprised that it has been deleted before. HagenUK 21:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (o rly?) 23:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SDL syntax

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

Unencyclopedic. I'm not aware of other, similar articles that simply describe an API. Material like this might be better on Wikibooks and then expanded appropriately. And, of course, the user can just consult the official documentation. - furrykef (Talk at me) 18:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 salt. Daniel Bryant 11:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Funism

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

Appears to be one artist's description of his philosophy of art. While the artist may or may not be notable, the style doesn't need its own article. NawlinWiki 19:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I've perused other contemporary artist's entries, determined that Magnusson most definitely satisfies WP:BIO criteria and added an entry Norm Magnusson. I continue to think that funism deserves its own entry but will fold it into the artist's page if that's the consensus here. Andreammoss 17:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speed delete and salt. This was alreadt deleted twice. Someone keeps recreating it. Freshacconci 19:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete unencyclopedic "manifesto", possibly a copyvio as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete , simple advertisement AlfPhotoman 20:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete/Speedy delete - not surprised that this article has been deleted twice before. Third time luck ;-) HagenUK 21:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    I read the artist's response to this request. While he might qualify for an article, Funism certainly does not (maybe on the artist's page). I stick with Delete/Speedy delete. HagenUK 08:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    Well, I read the dealer's reply as well, and I still stick with my Delete/Speedy delete. HagenUK 18:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy if its a deleted recreation--ZayZayEM 03:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm an art historian doing my thesis on Art Movements Post-Post-Modernism and this is certainly legit. I asked the artist to provide his bio, here are the highlights:

There's only been one book written about me and my art, it's a mini-monograph written by Jim Beasley and it sold out on Amazon.com. (http://artist-info.com/cgi-bin/search/user_search.cgi?action=display_artist&ID=21402)

The book's acquisition by Cranbrook University's Art school was noted online here: http://www.cranbrookart.edu/library/newacq/nwbk1102.htm

I'm listed in the Museum of Modern Art's (MOMA) research library, the DADABASE: http://library.moma.org/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=Norm+Magnusson&Search_Code=GKEY%5E&SL=None&PID=m2-QHBEX3PzsgA2FDSWY7doXJgz7&SEQ=20070316095921&CNT=25&HIST=1

And the Princeton online guide to American Artists http://www.princetonol.com/groups/iad/lessons/middle/america.htm Other stuff:

I get over a thousand hits on Google, largely due to my extensive exhibition history. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22norm+magnusson%22&btnG=Search) Google cites sources such as Artnet and Rhizome; numerous art galleries; museums such as New York's MOMA, The Springfield Museum of Art, The Aldrich Contemporary Art Museum, The Shore Institute of Contemporary Art, The Pember Museum; publications such as The New York Times, The New Yorker, Orion Magazine, The American Museum of Natural History's magazine The Sciences, France's Courier Cauchois and Paris Normandie, Germany's Der Vogel, Christchurch New Zealand's main newspaper The Press, Wildlife Art News, The Week, scads of local press; numerous blogs and online ink such as The Huffington Post; organizations such as The National Coalition Against Censorship and WNYC, The Franklin Furnace and Art in Context; television and documentary appearances both in the U.S. and abroad; and last but not least all the cow parade hits online.

My art is in the permanent collections of museums such as MOMA, The Springfield Art Museum, The Anchorage Museum of History and Art and others; corporate collections such as AmSouth Bank and Simmons U.S.A.; and private collections such as Kenneth Cole, Andy and Kate Spade and Laurence Rockefeller (dec.)

Upcoming exhibitions include "On this site stood," which is this year's Main Street Sculpture Project for The Aldrich Contemporary Art Museum http://www.aldrichart.org/exhibitions/future.php, “Insight/Onsite : Site Specific Sculpture at SunyUlster," and "America's Seven Cardinal Virtues," a solo exhibition of paintings at the Van Brunt Gallery http://www.vanbruntgallery.com/magnusson.html.

I was honored a few years back with a Pollock-Krasner foundation grant in recognition of my work and am currently under consideration for a Guggenheim Fellowship, a NYFA grant, and an Art in the public realm grant.Andreammoss 19:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. So the artist should perhaps have an article if this is all true. But "Funism" does not appear to be notable, nor is the information provided encylcopedic in tone. A wikipedia article should not read as a manifesto and should not be original research. If this is based on your thesis, it may violate the latter and you would need to adopt a more neutral tone of writing. Freshacconci 20:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Art movements are certainly notable.

Comment. I don't think the issue is whether art movements are notable, but whether this one is notable. Freshacconci 20:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment I checked each of the links he sent prior to posting them here. I certainly feel this artist deserves his own page but right now am more interested in the funism entry. Should I create a page on the artist? Should his one of his dealers create this page? Should he? Thank you for your polite discussion, I appreciate it. Andreammoss 21:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Actually, his dealers definitely should not create the page. That would be a conflict of interest. If it's something that interests you, I would suggest you create it. If all the references and links are accurate (and I'm only saying "if" because I haven't looked at any of them myself), then the artist would appear to be notable in his own right. A very brief mention of "funism" could be included. This has happened before when an artist who was notable had an article on his/her art movement merged with the main artist page (see Guity Novin for an example of this). Freshacconci 21:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've shortened the entry by omitting the lengthy full manifesto. The summary remains. Also, I am working on a brief entry for the artist and will post that soon. Andreammoss 07:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep

In 1983 I opened Bridgewater Fine Arts, one of the early galleries in the East Village. Sometime around 1988 a young artist, Norm Magnusson, came to me and explained that he and a number of friends were developing an art movement he described as "Fun-ism." The idea, creating art that was both relevant, and fun. Along the lines of Dada-ism, it poked fun at established orders, while making comment on environmental, social and political issues. My partner and I followed his work for a number of years and upon his return from a hiatus spent living and working in France, we decided he was finally fully developed and ready to show. In 1994, Bridgewater/Lustberg, now in Soho, began a seven year relationship, resulting in five one person exhibitions and inclusion in innumerable group exhibitions, always with an emphasis on "fun" and relevant commentary. Throughout his travels and showing in France, New Zealand, and throughout the United States, the term Fun-ism has been applied and re-asserted in both Museum text, catalogues, reviews and conversation. Not one of the Museums or collectors that have acquired his work, including MOMA, The Springfield Museum, The Anchorage Art Museum, Kate Spade or Laurence Rockefeller, once disputed the validity of his claim and use of the expression that his art was "Fun-ism" itself.

  • Delete Is this a joke?--Sefringle 04:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and salt under WP:CSD#G4. --DeLarge 11:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David rosser

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

Bumping this up from a speedy because notability is asserted. I'm not sure it's verifiable; a web search doesn't seem to turn up anything relevant for a skater by that name. (Please note when searching that there are several other people by that name who might be notable, including an actor and a photographer; this is not, as far as I can tell, any of those people.) If the article is kept, of course, it should be moved to the proper capitalization. Shimeru 19:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Either hoax or nn-vanity. Claims to have won events but doesn't specify which ones, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, no assertion of notability AlfPhotoman 20:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - totally agree with the two previous contributors. HagenUK 21:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G1. Naconkantari 17:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ghost on stenaline

Ghost on stenaline (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unrferenced story. The weird external link merely reinforces my view that this is an hoax. -- RHaworth 19:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete More like patent nonsense rather than an encyclopedia article. GhostPirate 19:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax.Hondasaregood 20:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - Ghosts. Sure. On a ferry. Well, guess stranger things have happened at sea ;-). Agree with the "patent nonsense" assessment from GhostPirate. HagenUK 21:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Appears to be a hoax. --Maelwys 13:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (o rly?) 21:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LDN Wrestling

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

Page was originally tagged speedy delete, with the following comment: "nonsense (see references to "passionate gay affair," etc.); no notability asserted; fancruft; if for some reason it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion (and I think it does), then could somebody please put it up for Articles for Deletion (I can't do so because I don't have an accont and am not going to make one.) Thanks." I am listing this purely as a maintenance task from CSD. ZsinjTalk 19:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • delete There are unreferenced claims to notability which I am not sure are valid. If it was truely the longest running British TV show (which I doubt) it would be notable but it appears to be a local show with a very short life span.Peter Rehse 00:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Send to Cleanup No references, badly written, listcruft, fancruft, POV and a borderline attack page. However, LDN does look borderline notable and appears to be shown on TWCFight! which is a national satellite channel (Sky Ch427 for those in the UK). EliminatorJR Talk 18:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • commentLDN has never ever been shown on TWCFight.---198.138.41.164 05:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • commentSo what else isn't true? Is the whole article a hoax?Peter Rehse 09:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Send to cleanup" would do nothing, the article seems full of claims that aren't verifiable, and notability is questionable. Mangojuicetalk 17:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm tempted to agree with you, however the national TV coverage gives it some notability. On the other hand, perhaps given the state of the article, deleting it might be the better route so it can be created properly from scratch. EliminatorJR Talk 18:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm worried that it's full of false information, and it seems spammy too. We shouldn't keep that kind of article around in the hopes of improvement without knowing someone is working on it. Mangojuicetalk 14:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Daniel Peters

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

unsourced, looks autobiographical, google search just comes up with wiki mirrors ccwaters 19:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - agree with ccwaters. HagenUK 21:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Vanity spam that does not meet WP:BIO. Leuko 21:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bloodless bullfighting

Bloodless bullfighting (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
See also: discussion of article in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 3.

Originally created back in June, this article was created as a self-promotional vanity page by User:Pebs96. It's unreferenced, and any Google hits that I've been able to find are either web pages created by User:Pebs96 or wikimirrors on the topic. The applicable information has been merged into Bullfighting, and when I redirected the source to Bullfighting per the GFDL, I was accused of vandalism. There was a lengthy discussion on the Conflict of INterest noticeboard here, where all of the claims to sources were laid out, and it finally came to light that there were no credible third party sources and that it would be better suited for AfD. As such, I've brought it here. Delete. fethers 20:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. I'm sorry, but although I think this is a notable topic, the sourcing is horribly intermingled with the commercial relationship and original research of the main contributor. Until we have better, coverage as part of Bullfighting is appropriate. There are newspaper refs that can be used [26] as sourcing about the adoption of the Portuguese style in California. Tearlach 13:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's unsalvagable. The topic is addressed at length in Bullfighting#Portuguese. — Athænara ✉ 02:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shun tao hu

Shun tao hu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No case made for notability. Seems to be advertisment for a small cluster of clubs. Peter Rehse 06:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, grasshopper. 76 Google hits, most of which are this article and various Wiki mirrors. RGTraynor 16:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Veinor (talk to me) 20:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - content could be merged into a Kung-Fu page, but not notable enough for its own article. Searched Google as well, and came back without any hit worth mentioning. HagenUK 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's not a martial art system, it's a school. - Richard Cavell 23:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CONLANG

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

A mailing list that doesn't really seem to meet WP:ATT. I can't find any secondary published sources about this mailing list. Most of the Google hits are about constructed languages (which "conlang" is a common abbrev for) or are links to personal websites. As it is, I don't think this meets attribution criteria.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparisons within Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

Comparisons within Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Synthesis of pre-existing material in a novel way is considered original research. — Whedonette (ping) 21:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - appears to be 100% OR and cannot possibly meet WP:ATT --Haemo 00:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, but I think it can be sourced. If it can, you can get a change of opinion out of me. The differences between the incarnations of the Turtles are at least interesting knowledge.--UsaSatsui 01:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. Saikokira 05:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete it. It's useful information, it's accurate information. - pokemaniacbill

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northwestern University School of Law faculty

Wikipedia is not a directory. Notable faculty already listed at Northwestern University School of Law#Notable faculty. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - totally agree ... or, hmmm, maybe I'll publish my departments phone list on Wikipedia as well! ;-) HagenUK
  • Delete per nom. —Ocatecir Talk 00:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Notable faculty may be listed (even redlinked) in the other article which is not overlong. Better, turn some of those redlinks into articles (the ones that pass WP:PROF/WP:BIO). -- Dhartung | Talk 10:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 10:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rojor

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

Clearly a promo-piece for a British singer songwriter. It was uncategorized so I figured I'd just stubify it and find a few sources one might work with. But these sources don't seem to exist. 200 Ghits in English (most completely unrelated to the subject), with only this BBC piece [27] that even remotely qualifies as a reliable source. (In fact I even have my doubts about this one: see this page which says "to get your band on here, email tees@bbc.co.uk") Pascal.Tesson 21:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - I Goggle'd and found the BBC entries as well. They are basically local 'What's on in X' entries and do not establish notability. Maybe in a few years time after they have overtaken the Artic Monkeys in the charts. Now it is a bit too early for Wikipedia. HagenUK 21:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, sources can't establish notability here, per WP:MUSIC. Mangojuicetalk 17:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mangojuicetalk 17:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alvin Goldfarb

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

Article does not assert the notability of the subject. Besides being the current president of a midwestern University, how else is he notable? Is being University president make him inherently notable? Methinks not, but I welcome thoughts. Seinfreak37 21:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. The president of an accredited university is usually notable both as an academic administrator and as a scholar. In this case, Goldfarb passes WP:PROF as the author of several textbooks which have each been through multiple editions. --Eastmain 01:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Looking at WP:PROF, I don't see that being "the author of several textbooks which have been through multiple editions" is one of the criteria. Pan Dan 14:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      • "Widely used textbook" is one of the criteria in numbered item 1 of WP:PROF. Several editions is evidence for the widely used part. —David Eppstein 14:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        • No, it's not a criterion, it's listed as an "example"; and it says "An academic who has published ... a widely used textbook ... is likely to be notable as an author (see WP:BIO)" (my emphasis). I think this is generally wrong; however in this case we don't have to argue about whether it's wrong in general, because it just says "likely" to pass WP:BIO so we just have to check whether in this particular case WP:BIO is satisfied. So the question here is, have his books been the subject of "multiple independent reviews" as suggested by WP:BIO? Pan Dan 15:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        • In case the above sounds like wikilawyering, I just want to add that the question here, as always with authors, is whether there are sources that are about him or about his publications, that are independent of him and of his employers and publishers, so we can use those sources to write a verified NPOV article. Pan Dan 15:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 05:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belmont Station Elementary School

Belmont Station Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article does not meet WP:N. This is a single non-notable elementary school within a large school division. OscarTheCat3 21:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete No signs of notability. Article basically just says the location of the school and names some of the teachers. TJ Spyke 23:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 02:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, although it is a great article for a 2nd grader. --Butseriouslyfolks 02:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom, no assertion of independant notability other than existence. Moreschi Request a recording? 13:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No hint of notability and therefore no way to get reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum 11:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted (WP:SNOW), obvious hoax/joke. GarrettTalk 02:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luigi Kart DS

Luigi Kart DS (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No evidence that Luigi Kart DS is an upcoming game in the Mario Kart series, as claimed. Almost certain hoax, couched in weasel words. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Currently fails Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability (software), and is unlikely to be salvagable. Dancter 22:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dancter 22:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - clear hoax. -Halo 22:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - somehow, I don't believe a word of this unsourced stub.DreamingLady 22:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Total hoax, no such game has been announced (or even rumored from what I can see). TJ Spyke 22:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: I could not locate a reputable rumor to support this. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is a hoax. Closing admin should pay attention to [Image:Luigi Kart DS 2.JPG] as well. - Richard Cavell 23:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Image:Luigi Kart DS.jpg also. Dancter 23:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fake.--Scabloo 23:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ha freaking ha. --UsaSatsui 01:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Obvious hoax by person with a history of not constructive edits. -- Pious7 01:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carter Luck

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

Contested Prod (which, in the interests of full disclosure, I added just under 5 days ago). The subject of the article is a "rising motocross star", who appears from a Google search not to have actually risen far enough as to be notable. Some of the article seems to be a cut-and-paste job from a local newspaper or something along those lines, but the only sources I can find are those indicating the man's existence, although there was a fake link to a Wikiquote page on him at one point. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete unless some sources can be added to back up the claims of awards and recognition and it is rewritten to sound less like an ad "his racing future is bound to be a great one". Also, the whole article is written with words/phrases like "currently" and "will no longer" Those need to be clarified, but are not necessary for me to reverse my decision. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry, but you're 16 and you're a decent MX rider. Come back when you've won something important, and it's a possibility. EliminatorJR Talk 01:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not-yet notable, wait until he is before recreating. --Maelwys 13:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/no consensus Opinion is certainly split. On the one hand, per trialsanderrors, there are claims of importance made, presented neutrally, and attributed. The counterargument to this seems to be failure to meet WP:WEB. There are assertions made here that aren't well-countered that this is more than a mere mailing list, so WP:WEB may not apply. I put "keep" first because I think the keep arguments are the stronger here, but there certainly is not a consensus strong enough to delete this article. Mangojuicetalk 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Natural History of South Asia mailing list

Natural History of South Asia mailing list (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

closure of first AFD as delete was overturned for relisting at deletion review, in significant part due to a rewrite the article reportedly got during the first AFD. Procedural nomination on my part, I have no opinion. Original deletion nomination was "non notable MLs". GRBerry 22:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete: Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. --Ragib 22:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Addendum: The claim of notability isn't backed up. Per WP:WEB, Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.. So, mere mention of the mailing list or inclusion on a list of "things related to India" is not a justification of notability (most of the "references" to the mailing list seem to just mention this trivially). --Ragib 23:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Has ANY academic publications made non-trivial mentions, discussions of this mailing list? Thousands of mailing lists are reported trivially in research papers -- those one-line mentions do not make them notable. The article claims it has been mentioned by academic journals - yet a look into those "references" show no more than a single line mention of the list, most likely under the "links" sections.
  • Several links/references in the article appear to be to fraudelent, pointing to nameless webservers rather than the organizations they are supposed to be. For example, a reference "Department of Entomology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA", points to a server hosted at 144.16.65.194 [28] (which is an Indian organisation), the reference 9 therefore points to this page rather than an actual website of the American Museum of Natural History. The page too seems to be a list of links from an email archive. --Ragib 23:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The "claim" that the Journal "Indian Birds" cite it is also dubious ... my search of the reference (8) shows a single link "NAT-HISTORY INDIA: vivek@ee.princeton.edu" (sic) to the name ... without even a one-liner mention!! --Ragib 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The "claim" that Ecological Society of America has cited it is also dubious ... my search of reference (10) shows two sentences in the news letter:
For those interested in the natural history of the Indian subcontinent (Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and other neighboring countries) there is a subscription electronic bulletin board called, "NATHISTORY-INDIA". This bulletin board contains information about happenings, crises, news events, information requests, etc. It is a must list to be on if you are working on the Indian subcontinent. To subscribe send a request to vivek@EE.Princeton.EDU and he will sign you up.
Such trivial mentions are made to thousands and thousands of mailing lists, but that isn't really a "cited by journal", and hence the claim is dubious. --Ragib 23:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The "claim" that IUCN has cited it (reference 12), is actually a single sentence on page 33 of a paper, without any non-trivial coverage.
  • The "claim" that the "Eaglenest Biodiversity Project" has cited it (reference 11) is actually a single sentence in the acknowledgments section of the report (that too to Mr. Vivek Tiwari, and NOT the mailing list). --Ragib 23:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Under the circumstances of this fake "citations"/"Evidence of notability", I request people who has been misled by this to reconsider their votes and check the claims themselves to decide whether this mailing list is at all as notable as it claims to be. Also, note to closing admin, please consider these fake or misquoted "references" that has affected some users into voting for "keep". Thanks. --Ragib 23:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete While some people on the mailing list may well be individually notable, the list itself clearly is not.--Anthony.bradbury 23:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • RESTORE / DO NOT DELETE / KEEP: This article is about something more then a mailing list, it is often referred to as the "NATURAL HISTORY NETWORK" of India or South Asia, it also serves as WILDERNESS TELEGRAM SYSTEM of sorts, the subject of this article has become an NGO in itself helping its members many of whom are grassroots workers in the fields of Nature & Wildlife Conservation, students, scientists, prominent members of other NGOs, many "News Makers" in these field report directly to the NETWORK, simultaneously or before commercial news channels report on the matter, discoveries, poaching, habitat encroachments, proposed government protected area notifications and the unfortunate de-notifications, illegal wildlife trade observed, wildlife trade seizures, Endangered Tiger & Panther etc. etc. bone and skin seizures, proposed government policy changes affecting the environment before they come into effect, proposed dams which will submerge large chunks of the last remaining pristine forests etc are just a few things reported and debated by this NETWORK many a times bringing corrective action in time. This is a list dealing with issues faced by Indian Naturalists, conservationists, and NGOs who network on it thankfully, including members of related Government institutions, IT CAN ONLY BE COMPARED WITH OTHER LISTS OF THE REGION dealing with similar issues and it stands head and shoulders above the rest, most of the top people in the field in the region are subscribers or know of its reputability. It is a notable achievement in India in its field, please understand that before taking the argument around the world comparing ORANGES with APPLES i.e. with just other sundry mailing lists. Thankyou Atulsnischal 00:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: If searched on the internet in Google Search Engine etc. as "Natural History of South Asia", "NatHistory-India" or "nathistory-india@Princeton.EDU", it has ample amount of hits which also speaks well about this List's notability. Atulsnischal 06:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not really a proof of notability, as even my email address or an alumni mailing list I maintain gets a lot of hits. --Ragib 07:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, again, I myself get 58,000+ hits in google. By this argument, I am more notable than this list!!! The very low number of hits actually goes against the claim of notability ... :) --Ragib 16:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Leading to the logical solution of giving Mr. Ragib his own wikipedia page :) Bakaman 23:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: There really should be better defined policies and guidelines. The current notability criteria should, if interpreted fairly result in no email discussion group and only a few websites as articles. Books about websites are perhaps very few. This is also an example of systemic bias, since there are more Linux enthusiasts around than naturalists and this would ensure that the article on Linux kernel mailing list gets voted as popular and thereby "notable". The earlier deletion debate suggested LinuxChix, FlyLady as notable because the founder/list was mentioned in a couple of magazines, while it has been argued that postings on this list have been cited in newspaper articles, but the list itself has not been the subject of any books/secondary sources. In the absence of a clear policy that takes the personal interpretations out and avoids systemic biases, I vote Keep. Shyamal 01:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • We have clear guidelines that take the personal interpretations out and that avoid systemic biases. You're explicitly choosing to not follow them, for entirely fallacious reasons. If you want to learn the fallacy of "Books about websites are perhaps very few.", please visit a good quality bookshop, where you will find quite a few books that document web sites. Ironically, it is your argument above that exhibits bias and personal interpretation, boiling down as it does to "I doubt that sources exist for mailing lists and web sites, but I personally like this one and want to include it anyway.". I suggest that you actually base your arguments upon finding and citing sources, rather than your personal biases. (It's surprising what is documented. One simply has to pull one's finger out and look.) Sources are good arguments here at Wikipedia. "I like it." is not. Uncle G 02:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Comments nothing much to say and no longer interested in debating this in isolation. The debate has two parts (1) Mailing lists - can they ever be encylopaedia worthy ? If that is so, then we need to re-look at (2) Notability criteria for mailing lists. As it stands from a basic reading - ALL items without exception in Category:Mailing lists should be deleted. Software for running mailing lists should be under something like mailing list software or Social software or such like. Since I appear to be alone on this, I leave this for now to spend my energies on more constructive activities. Shyamal 07:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Just to clarify again, LinuxChix and FlyLady are not just mailing lists, though they started as mailing lists. utcursch | talk 11:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment I sympathize with your views on the notability of Linux Kernel Mailing List and note that you have taken significant interest in protecting it from the AfD and finding "proof" of notability. I am unable to find any mention of a "book with a chapter about the mailing list". An amazon review merely adds a keyword. Many items of the article are merely making use of pointers to the Linux Kernel which is definitely notable. Other trivia such as the information about the logo of Linux being decided is questionable given that wired magazine has serious doubts about the author.[29] The Kernel Traffic newsletter is no longer maintained but that makes a "reliable secondary" source. To you the statement that the list is a "bazaar" makes it notable. If popularity and numbers make it notable, then so be it. But then admins cite the guidelines only when it is in your favour. Why was WP:BIGNUMBER not mentioned in the LKML afd which passed. I understand WP:INN and I am willing to accept that predicting an earthquake using a scientific hypothesis[30], finding a new species of bird[31][32] (Ok, you have said that the list would have been notable if bird species were being regularly discovered and reported on this list - please note that species, especially of birds are rarely discovered the way Linux Kernel patches are announced), being in the front cover of every issue of a journal[33] and being cited in conservation newsletters[34] is not enough notability. Anyway, there are other species discoveries which have been announced on the list. [35][36] and there is a lot of legislation happening through this network. The links on the article seem to have all that is mentioned here, but I understand that finally it is going to be an WP:ILIKEIT - WP:IDONTLIKEIT decision. And someone lower down has exemplified systemic bias by pointing out that this is a narrow subject dealt with in one (unknown I suppose) country. I understand that the new breed of admins are trying to make wikipedia into another Encyclopaedia Brittanica. Remember that all these arguments would have ensured the absence of very useful articles of the kind that set wikipedia apart. I understand that each admin has their own subject of special interest and knowledge, but that doesn't entitle anyone to belittle other topics. Remember also that unlike programmers, there are people in other disciplines who are not spending time blogging, making websites etc. and creating a whole load of google hits. I hope you understand that you are ultimately making a subjective decision. To make it you do need to have some feel for the subject in question. If it is truly objective, which is unlikely, then there should be no selective amnesia about WP:guidelines and policies. Shyamal 01:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Uncle G has already said much of what I'd like to say in response to your accusations of systemic bias, subjective decisions and "selective amnesia". About your arguments for notability of the list, "other species discoveries" were not first announced at the list -- they are merely forwarded announcements ([37] is a forwarded doc that was originally published Magnolia Press; [38] lists all binary attachments, only two of which are announcements of discoveries, and both are forwarded press releases). And I couldn't find any sources for "a lot of legislation happening through this network". As about LKML, if you feel it's non-notable, please nominate it again for AfD. Unlike Windows/Solaris/Mac OS, the Linux kernel development doesn't take place in a company office -- LKML is the place for it. The book I'm talking about is Linux Kernel Development (ISBN 978-0672327209) by Robert Love; the chapter is Chapter 20. In case you find the Wired magazine article questionable, here are the original posts by Alan Cox[39] and Linux Torvalds[40]. And I would like to say for the fourth time, I am not "belittling" the list -- I appreciate the work being done here, but I don't think it deserves an article of its own on Wikipedia. utcursch | talk 05:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge : Since all this is leading to nothing constructive may I suggest here something that is hopefully a win-win situation. The information here can go into the article on history of conservation in India (yet to be created, but already proposed at WP:PAI). The content here can come into a section on the role of the Internet in conservation. I suppose it is finally the information that matters, not the existence of the article in a particular form and hopefully a topic like the history of conservation in India will not be considered a non-encyclopaedic subject by the kind folks here. Atul, I hope this will be ok with you. Shyamal 11:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Following 2 Comments from Shyamal and me are copied by me here from personal communication from our Talk page for record Atulsnischal 18:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Atul, from what I can see the article on nathistory India cannot possibly ever make for encyclopaedic content. However there is a way to incorporate and highlight the role of the group and the ideal place would be to place it within the History of conservation in India article as a section on the contribution of the Internet era. Hope this is fine with you. Cheers. Shyamal 11:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Shyamal, You are welcome to change your Vote :), but it is only one vote, there is no need to panic, you might want to save a work copy of the article though in case it is deleted and hidden again. As for me I believe it is encyclopedic, I will like the article to stay as it is. But you have a very very good point, you can also always do what you propose above, great and a fitting idea in itself. So I suggest NO Delete And Merge, Keep the article as it is, yet have a section on the contribution of the list in other major conservation articles on India and elsewhere. Exactly as you say it should be also mentioned in the Contributions of the Internet Era to the Natural History and the Conservation of the region. As for me I firmly believe it is encyclopedic in itself to have a article on this South Asian Natural History Network. Thanks for your input Atulsnischal 11:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable in academic circles.Bakaman 05:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Please drop a note on my talk page, if you find some references to establish notability in academic circles. I'd change my vote to Keep. utcursch | talk 11:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - an article about a mailing list, are you serious? While the ideas behind it might be great, a mailing list is of less notability than a Usenet newsgroup. Most of the references/links merely refer to the mailing list in directory form, rather than make the mailing list itself the feature of the reference. - fchd 06:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - as per Shyamal --D-Boy 10:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - It is a mailing list about a fairly narrow topic. If it were, for example, the first ducment use of a mailing list, or something like that I would be much more for keeping it. IT however is not but about a narrow topic in a single country. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "2B or not 2B = ?."...I vote: Keep this article
It would be nice if it could pass notability criteria too. According to your definition of notability, I get 75,300 points for Notability. utcursch | talk 11:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to another a new article per Shyamal and Delete per my comments at first AfD and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 9. I appreciate the great work being done at the list, but this is a case of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:COI[41]. Atulsnischal's argument that notability is established by a little above 1000 Google results doesn't go well down with me -- that's pretty less for a mailing list actually. The assertion that it's "something more then a mailing list", "Natural History Network of South Asia", "Wilderness Telegram System" is entirely based on perception of the editor (apparently, the creator of the mailing list mentions himself as "Co-oridinator, South Asian Natural History Network" in endorsement of a book). Shyamal's assumption that the article on LKML and LinuxChix exist because of "systemic bias" or lobbying by Linux users is flawed. LKML is official bazaar for Linux kernel development and the article cites plenty of references (including a book that has a chapter dedicated to it). Again comparing this list to LinuxChix is against WP:INN, but let me point out again that it's not just a mailing list (though it started as one). I don't know much about FlyLady, but LinuxChix is a community with chapters in multiple countries, and it has been the subject of many secondary sources (the article lists plenty of them). If you feel that they are non-notable, feel free to nominate them for deletion. I'd like to emphasize that I respect the work being done at this list. But, it's simply not notable to deserve an article -- none of the references/external links establish notability. utcursch | talk 11:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment As pointed in comments above. If prediction of an earthquake on the list, report of a new species, references to the list on journals and newsletters and newspapers is not enough for notability, fine with me. And if mentions in a Linux book and a few reports of questionable authority can make LKLM notable, then this is just a case of WP:ILIKEIT /WP:IDONTLIKE. And using popularity/google hits as notability will always work when it comes to web or software related material. Finally, I would like to see administrators help in defining or refining policy and not merely use policy citations to win debates. Shyamal 05:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. What is this article? A joke? It doesn't even merit this dragged on discussion. Aditya Kabir 15:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, you haven't given a reason for deletion. Trebor 15:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Is notability asserted? Scientific mail list that produced a number of noteworthy predictions, check. Is assertion documented? Outside sources, check. Is the article written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone? Check. I don't see the policy failure here. ~ trialsanderrors 17:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Where are the "number of noteworthy predictions"? There is only one prediction, which is not confirmed. utcursch | talk 05:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep
  1. Mailing lists of this sort are very important in the academic world generally. All small groups of scholars use them, and they have ben as important means of scientific communication since Usenet days. The size of a particular list is irrelevant--what is necessary is that the list be notable in its own field. Its own field is the study of the subject it covers. What is necessary is that it be a principle method of communication for the specialists in the subject.
  2. This is demonstrated by the use made of it, and the references made to it.
  3. It is time for WP to recognize the conventions of the medium which is the substrate for its own existence. The people who work find references to the (virtual) places at which they want to work on the web, They do not find them in printed books or journals; they do not even find them in on-line journals. They learn about them from their use by other comparable web places. The distinctive characteristics of most of these places is that their editorial control is relatively weak but not non-existent. Usually it's there. almost all serious mailing lists have a moderator (In this instance it's Vivek Tiwari. Most are published from a major academic institution. In this case it's Princeton. Usually the good one have established their reputation with time. This one has been going for 12 years now.
  4. How do we judge whether they should have articles on WP? The same basic way as anything else, RSs, the presence of encyclopedic content, and some indicators of importance. The sort of indicators we use for other media are such things as number of books an author has published and where he has published them, number of recordings a musician has produced, and so on. We look for number of users--considering the size of the subject, the almost 1000 members is very respectable. We look for the importance of contributions to it (some have been demonstrated). We look for references and recommendations to it in other sources (some have been demonstrated). DGG 20:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
There are many lists with size over 1000. And if this list is "very important in the academic world", where are the sources for the same? The "importance of contributions" to the list? One unconfirmed prediction first posted to the list? Or one discovery of new species announced on the list? And the "references and recommendations" in other sources? A mention among many mailing lists in "Indian Birds", or a mention in "List of India-related websites" by an individual? Other references merely mention the list once "In a discussion on the Internet, members of the NATHISTORY mailing list, set up to discuss India's eco-diversity and wealth, stressed that this decision would protect..."[42], "On the listserve nathistory-india, at least a couple of dozen people wrote against the bill"[43] etc. utcursch | talk 05:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have added details above showing this is not "notable" except for a few one-liners (and some of the claims are not really what they are claimed to be!). If real, non-trivial references are made, then the list may be notable, but such one liners (or listing someone with an email address matching the site) don't make the list notable in any way, as you suggested. --Ragib 23:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per T&E. Meets all of our standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Per T&E? Same question: Where are the "number of noteworthy predictions"? utcursch | talk 05:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notable in academic circles is too narrow for me to make it notable. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 22:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, noting that invoking systemic bias to explain why there are no sources for something doesn't work. However, that doesn't need to be done here. -Amarkov moo! 00:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, marginally notable. Everyking 05:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment to all including self ! Check oneself for fairness, see whether you are applying the same level of critical examination, application of guidelines and rules for all. Step back and look at the forest instead of the trees. Try to be constructive. Delete and keep are not the only alternatives. (references WP:BASH, WP:ATA, WP:GD). Shyamal 06:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. I reserve the right to retract my vote. I read and re-read WP:WEB. The mailing list is not appropriate for an encyclopedia and may only be acceptable as part of a broader entry in a new posting, such as Natural History of South Asia. Bluestripe 22:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC) There is no doubt that the Natural History of South Asia is an important and notable subject. Perhaps it is not the mailing list that is as important as the group and what the group does. Answering the questions -- What the group is? -- as well as -- What the group does? -- will make this entry stronger. The mailing list can be worked in as the means for communicating ideas on the Natural History of South Asia. It does meet our criteria for insertion. This is an example of an entry requiring improvement rather than deletion. If given a chance, the subject is encyclopedic because it is helping define a branch of knowledge that, although of primary relevenace to the academic community, is relevant to the rest of us in the context of an encyclopedia. See: Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines. Bluestripe 14:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed Natural History of South Asia is an important subject. But the discussion here is about "Natural History of South Asia mailing list". How does it meet "our criteria for insertion", simply because it "can be worked in as the means for communicating ideas on the Natural History of South Asia"? utcursch | talk 14:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If given a chance, the subject is encyclopedic because it is helping define a branch of knowledge that, although of primary relevenace to the academic community, is relevant to the rest of us in the contect of an encyclopedia. Both the mailing list and its subject are relevant and noteworthy. Bluestripe 14:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read up at WP:WEB Blue. Cheers Lethaniol 14:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Like Shyamal has suggested, the article content can be incorporated in a new article (probably Natural History of South Asia). Just because a mailing list is discussing an important subject, it doesn't become notable enough to deserve an article. utcursch | talk 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Following three comments have been copied and posted from my talk page as most part of them deals with this debate and are my answer to Bluestripe. Thanks Atulsnischal 13:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Two things. First, I would feel more comfortable if you maintained a user page. The idea of the red link to nowhere is disconcerting. Second, it is the Natural History of South Asia that is encyclopedic; not the mailing list addressing same. The mailing list might be included in a broader article that deals with the Natural History of South Asia. Bluestripe 22:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Like you suggested, I wrote a few lines on my user page, instead of leaving it blank or as a redlink, when you get time can you kindly help me Archive my talk page, please do it anytime you get time. Thanks. As for the mailing list I firmly think it is a pioneering example from the region and is hugely notable and hence Encyclopedic :-) Atulsnischal 23:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I learned about archiving by visiting User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto. Hope this helps. Good luck with your review. Remember, you catch more bees with honey. Bluestripe 23:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The creator of this page seems to be trying to garner support for their cause by asking for help from other users who have had, or still have their articles up for WP:AFD (e.g. myself and Bluestripe at least) - see [44]. Although this is unlikely to be a problem I thought I should mention it - as users who are most likely to get their articles AFDed are either inclusionists or newer users who may not be as well versed in policy. Cheers Lethaniol 14:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Atulsnischal has been attracting a lot of users to this page[45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]; I don't know whether to call this canvassing or not -- I am not sure about the criteria for choosing talk pages. utcursch | talk 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
This is not the first time Atulnishchal has done this. During the last Afd for this article, he spammed/canvassed many pages as well, and outright demanded at various project/talk pages that other users vote "keep". I notice that he is doing the same for this AFD. --Ragib 15:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, just found these people seemed to know the rules for discussing articles for deletion, so just wanted their view too, just picked a few randomly from deletion review page close to first deletion review for this article as utcursch is trying to force a bit too much of his opinion here, his attempts to get this article deleted is turning out to be a personal vendetta to win this debate and Ragib and Aditya Kabir seem to be pals, I have already mentioned in first deletion review that I have a problem with Ragib he has been systematically following the articles I have worked on and undoing changes. Thanks Atulsnischal 16:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
"Personal vendetta"? I don't think we've ever crossed ways before this deletion debate. And no, User:Ragib and Aditya are not my pals. In fact, I remember encountering Ragib at only three places: Wikipedia talk:Vernacular scripts (where we had opposite opinions), this debate and WP:INB. And I've never encountered Aditya before this debate. And for the fifth time, I don't have any hatred for this list -- I just don't find it notable enough for a separate article. You might be interested in going through WP:NPA. utcursch | talk 16:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, let me rephrase for all, utcursch wants to come across as a great CowBoy macho WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATOR, cruising on on his Horse and winning debates by the thousands. No body said you were friends with anybody though. What I said was User:Ragib is friends with Aditya both have given shallow strong deletion votes, both have been collaborating before. As for utcursch there are better things to do then winning debates to become and retain WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATOR status, "Personal vendetta"? YES to win this debate, you have been going on and on in the first deletion review also, I requested before too to let others participate but your ego is too much, cowboy on a horse type macho EGOAtulsnischal 17:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice try, Atul. You became quite pissed off with me when I pointed out your canvassing and attempts of vote-stacking in the first AFD. Then you started personal attacks against anyone who votes against you! Please prove that I have asked anyone to vote here, before commenting on whether I'm bringing "pals" here. You, on the other hand, have been active in canvassing in favorable places to stack votes.
As for my removal of huge amounts of spam from some articles you have edited, you are free to report that to WP:ANB. I have failed to make you understand that adding 30 external links to a few-paragraphs article is a bad approach, so someone else may have better success there. --Ragib 18:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Atul, all I can say is that you seriously need to read WP:NPA. My involvement in this debate is result of its listing at WP:DSI, and nothing else. utcursch | talk 04:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I participated in the DRV, so a notification of a follow-up discussion is not unusual and accepted canvassing. I haven't checked if only one group of DRV participants was canvassed, and if, the others should be informed as well. ~ trialsanderrors 18:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I do not think this meets WP:WEB as said above the content and persons involved in of course notable, but the mailing list in itself is not. In fact I find it hard to imagine any mailing list being encyclopaedic (though there likely is). Cheers Lethaniol 14:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems notable and cleaned upRaveenS 19:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I think the onus of proof is on those who'd like it deleted, and I don't think a case has been made in terms of WP:WEB or WP:NOT or other relevant guidelines and policies. Andrewa 06:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, many of the keep votes have been solicited by Atulsnischal (talk · contribs), as seen by the messages left on the talk pages of the users. This sort of canvassing is just a way to subvert the afd. --Ragib 06:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, I have explained myself above already. Also please reread canvassing, Thankyou Atulsnischal 12:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Hi Ragib you like to give me many friendly advices right, here is one for you as per WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not a battleground" for taking out personal grudges against people. Hope to remain friends with you :) Atulsnischal 13:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mangojuicetalk 17:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Osiris Games

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are games created by Osiris Games and a baby company (Myrtilus Games) of them:

Chart Wars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Bestseller (game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Myrtilus Games (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Insider Tabloid Magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I’ve done a Google search for Osiris Games and it reveals 655 results [56], for a notable game company that doesn’t seem enough. Further more, the article lacks sources. I can’t find many reliable sources for them. The games Chart Wars and Bestseller don’t seem notable, there’s big questions over their notability as well. The main Osiris Games article is created by Damien Russell, which to quote the article is one of the four members Osiris Games so it also looks like vanity. The other creators of the articles also have very little edits.

Myrtilus Games is the baby company of Osiris Games so god knows how small they are if Osiris Games has only has four members and that seems to be the parent company.

Myrtilus Games also has a page about it’s game Insider Tabloid Magazine, which also seems none notable.

Due these serious questions about notability, probable vanity and lack of independent sources, I am bring this up for AFD. Based on the lack of evidence I’ve found, my vote is delete. Englishrose 22:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


Keep I disagree.. of cause. Osiris Games and Myrtilus Games (baby company?) are two of the fastest growing freeware gaming companies on the web. The website (especially Osiris Games) registers hundreds of hits per day, and if the article's werent being looked over; why is everyone editing 'Bestseller'? If you have Bestseller, you need the Osiris Games, and Myrtilus Games articles. Chart Wars is also THE biggest freeware music simulation game on the internet. As for Insider; if you feel you must, fine.. but I still think there is nothing wrong with any of those articles and I would like them all to stay.Damien Russell 04:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete I did a cursory look for any verifiable sources and found none that were reliable. Damien Russell, despite the conflict of interest, I'd suggest that your best bet to keep these articles up is to source independant, third party coverage in major news outlets. Staff reviews by places like IGN, Gamespot, 1UP.com, and other major gaming sites would help immensely as well. If sources exist, source the article. If they don't the article fails verification, probably has notability issues, and according to those two policies must be deleted. Cheers, Lankybugger 13:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There are no reviews from such places as IGN, Gamespot or 1UP.com because the games are not published to such a broad audience. They are indie games, and Osiris Games and Myrtilus Games are indie developers. Please see the websites for more information, but other than that, the site is mentioned and linked on other sites (freeware gaming sites, and download.com of cause) - but no major review sites (because they only review major releases). Look, fine; if you want to remove these articles from wikipedia then go right ahead, but you better be willing to remove every other indie-developer's page on wiki as well. I mean look at the links up for removal; all Osiris Games related articles.. why are these up for removal when theres a whole list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_independent_game_developers, that are happily being accepted? Damien Russell 14:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep .. This is an indie company. The articles have been cleaned up remarkably since they were first introduced and people are continually trying to update it when new attributable sources are available. There is an interest in the game, and those who are wishing to learn more about it, and the companies, would benefit from having these articles on Wikipedia. To say that the fact that the articles were created by people who haven't had a long history of edits on Wikipedia is not only unfair, but a very slippery slope to start down. Subjecting your decision to a "Google" search and saying that Chart Wars nor Bestseller don't seem notable indicates your obvious lack of knowledge in these genre of games and their popularity. Perhaps maybe you should nominate your "Furniture (band)" article for deletion. I see no sources on there and I certainly haven't heard of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secandido (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Feel free to nominate something for deletion if you feel it doesn't belong. As I stated, there's no indication of reliable sources which indicate the notability of this indie developer. Just because you may like something doesn't mean it fits the requirements for notability. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, what matters if whether it fits the definitions of notability. Osiris Games and Myrtilus Games would both have to be improved with reliable sources proving their notability as outlined at WP:WEB or WP:CORP, while Chart Wars, Bestseller and Insider Tabloid Magazine would have to be improved with reliable sources proving their notability as outlined at WP:SOFTWARE. Cheers, Lankybugger 19:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all none of the articles meet Wikipedias notability requirement, listed at WP:CORP. UnitedStatesian 14:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all Nothing here approaches meeting WP:CORP or WP:SOFTWARE. Also fails to satisfy WP:RS & WP:COI. Shareware and freeware developers generally are not notable, and generally neither are their products. Caknuck 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 10:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tim and Cindie Travis

Tim and Cindie Travis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. -- Longhair\talk 23:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 23:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I feel that the publicity they have engendered, together with their publications, makes them notable.--Anthony.bradbury 23:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is one story from a reliable source on "Tim Travis" bicycle which is linked on the article. The other links don't meet the reliable source test. Google News Archive comes up with nothing which suggests that their trip hasn't had much coverage outside the OC Register. [57]. Capitalistroadster 01:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Peta 08:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per Capitalroadster, I don't think the coverage of this couple and their travels is sufficient. They've published a book that might become notable at some point, but no evidence of that so far. Mangojuicetalk 16:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Insufficient assertion of notability. According to the article, this isn't even a charity stunt, just two people tooling around the world on bikes. Caknuck 17:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This debate is hard to interpret, some rewriting took place that changed the issue. There aren't enough delete comments to overbalance the keep comments that mention the real notability claim of the article. A fresh AfD listing would probably be appropriate, but let's give it at least a couple of weeks. Mangojuicetalk 15:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snowmen hunters

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Snowmen hunters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete as nonsense. User:ScottS insists on removing {{db-nonsense}} tags, so I now raise the matter here on Afd. --Xdamrtalk 23:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that there has been a substantial tidying-up of the article within the past 24h, I think the G1 speedy deletion (as nonsense) is now inapplicable. There certainly seems to be a genuine topic behind this, although the article was pretty meaningless at the time of nomination. Given that we now have a reasonably coherent article, it all boils down to one question—is the subject notable? I will therefore leave this nomination open so that this issue may be settled.
Xdamrtalk 22:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Please keep. I do not understand why, this is continued to be tagged. Please discuss.


Please do not delete.

Several people, as I believe directed by the original deletion notice, have voiced their desire to see the article remain. They've made their voices known here: [58]. Yes, it's a kind of stand-in article currently, but HUNTERS fans are now on the way to update/expand/fix the entry. Please do not delete. Thanks

  • Delete A couple quick searches didn't turn up any articles that would support WP:N. I would, of course, change my vote if someone can point me to some sources that would satisfy notability requirements.Chunky Rice 00:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete unless properly sourced post-haste. Which I strongly suggest is impossible, since this appears to be something made up at school in one day. ---Haemo 00:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Answer to address Haemo's contention that HUNTERS is no more than a school project, here is the bio/background of the show/makers: Zanzibar19 BioZanzibar19
Still does not meet WP:A or WP:RS, and totally fails WP:NOTE. Also, abusing the Speedy Keep terminology does a disservice to everyone involved. --Haemo 03:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I do aplogize if I have abused the terms. I'm trying to learn as I go. Zanzibar19

  • Delete Blatantly speediable under G1, but given the history, lets AfD it first and then G4 it if (when) it reappears. EliminatorJR Talk 01:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep but possible rewrite. Include at the very least [59] as source. James Callahan 02:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    That looks like a primary source to me. To satisfy WP:N the source must be independent of the subject. Chunky Rice 02:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    Answer to address Chunky Rice's questions of notability, I would submit this interview from the Internet entertainment news show VIRAL. Zanzibar19
  • Speedy delete per nom, and A7. Leuko 02:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep but possible rewrite. Snowman Hunters is a cult hit on youtube.com and google videos. As one of the top comedian shows on youtube.com it counts as a significant entertainment show given its high viewership. Similar in some aspects to Trailerpark boys in its breaking of stage rules (talking to the audience and such) it is a vulgar satire of American paranoia and attitudes towards outsiders. Some are considering it for deletion because they do not understand the new entertainment media of youtube.com and because they have not heard of the show. I would be embarrassed for wikipedia.com for not including this show. The entry does need some more information and better writing however this show clearly merits inclusion due to its scope and the newness of its contribution to video short entertainment on the Internet. James Love 07:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
— James Love (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Answer to questions of notability. Here are several prominent video websites which have spotlighted/highlighted/created special channels for HUNTERS:

GoFish.com, Veoh.com, StupidVideos.com, Grouper.com Zanzibar19

  • Answer to address contention SNOWMEN HUNTERS is ridiculous and nonsense. Yes. Yes it is. It's meant to be funny. Granted, it's kind of a cult hit so not everyone likes it, and if we fall off under the notable guidelines, so be it. But please don't delete until this discussion has run it's course (5 days, right?).Zanzibar19
  • This completely unverifiable. Ryan Neisz isn't found on IMDb with writing or crew credits for any of the listed shows (and its "Battery Park" not "Batter Park"). If he did participate on those sitcoms at all , it was in a very minor role and fails to confer any notability. Minor celebrities on YouTube is a bit of a reach, 691,551 all time views (for their "most popular" video) is a blip in the YouTube world. Even if fans were to come and "improve" this article - they would be unable to provide any sources, and blow by blow plot summaries of each video won't help the situation one bit. Strong, strong delete unless a a reliable source magically appears very soon. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Answer to address CosmicPenguin's questions on Ryan Neisz' credits, here is a page from Yahoo TV's crew credits page, which outlines some of his credits. As for accomplishments in the world of online entertainment, I'd again point questioners (as I believe they are honest and earnest in asking these questions) to this episode of VIRAL.Zanzibar19
Comment - please read the standards under WP:WEB. None of these "sources" come even remotely close to meeting this. Furthermore, please sign your posts with four tildes - it's very hard to read this AFD like this. --Haemo 03:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Please keep the snowmen hunters page. It is a show growing in popularity on YouTube, and there are fans all over the world. The show is meant to be silly and downright nonsensical, that's what makes it funny. Please keep the article.
WP:ILIKEIT is not an argument. --Haemo 03:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Answer to address CosmicPenguin's... I'm sorry, I was temporarily distracted by the greatness of that name... anyway, to address Mr. Penguin's question about being a blip in the YouTube world, I submit the Zanzibar19 YouTube page, which shows the YouTube determined honors of 13th Most Subscribed Comedians on the site, and 48th Most Viewed Comedians All Time. If this doesn't rise to the level of notability per WP (as I'm not deeply familiar with all the variables) so be it. However, in the world of YouTube, these honors are not insignificant. Zanzibar19
Seriously, sign your posts. And you have a serious WP:COI commenting on this AFD, since you appear to be involved in this project. Unless your username is simply a coincidence, which I doubt. --Haemo 03:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • On a related unpleasant note, I'd like to bring this to everyone's attention: http://www.zanzibar19.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=89. It appears a user with exactly the same username as the Zanzibar19 is actively canvassing new users to vote on this AFD. This is directly contrary to the WP:AFD procedures, and seriously abuses this process. I sincerely hope this isn't you. --Haemo 03:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer Haemeo: I'm sorry if I've not IDed myself correctly per WP guidelines. This is my first serious exposure to being a part of a WP article, and I'm unfamiliar and trying to learn quickly as I go. I believe with this re-edit I've gone back and signed the answers I've provided today. As to the forum mention, I put that up today when one of our fans stated they had created a WP entry and I saw it was flagged for deletion. I'm sorry if this is against a WP guideline. It thought the WP community simply weren't familiar with us, and thought those interested in having a WP entry should let their voices be heard. I apologize if this is against a WP policy as you point out.

I am trying to abide by WP practices/guidelines (even while trying to get work done today. lol) which is why I have not edited the article itself or corrected inaccuracies within it. Zanzibar19 I'm sorry, I don't yet know how to time-stamp my signing.

  • Comment You can sign your posts by simply putting 4 tildes at the end of them. I highly recommend that you read WP:AFD WP:N, WP:WEB and other relevant Wikipedia policy guidelines. It'll make this process smoother for everyone involved.Chunky Rice 03:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Will do Chunky. Thank you for your aide. Zanzibar19 03:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Probably my last comment, as I don't want to do anything to damage/enrage/tweak the WP community or push unduely to have a SNOWMEN HUNTERS article if it doesn't meet the criteria. Per Haemero, Chunky's and other's questions per WP:N and WP:WEB, I believe these conditions are met primarily by VIRAL and to a minor extent here, both independent of Zanzibar19 Bio. Other independent links can be found above. On a final note, I'd ask the judge of this discussion with whatever grace I have not to have the legitimate efforts and work of our fans be tainted by whatever way I may have mishandled this discussion. As a former journalist (don't laugh now) I understand the need/value of independent information (which is why it would have been a kick to have a WP entry if it plays out like that) rational discussion and the difference between a popularity contest and a reasoned evaluation. I hope the sources I provided clarify that, and ask that my missteps (admitted) be seen in these lights. Thanks everyone. (And yes, I understand the oddness of outlining this back and forth in light of how ridiculous the show at issue is). Zanzibar19 04:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment First let me state that a cursory viewing of the forum associated with the production company Zanzibar19 will show that one of the moderators of that forum has the same username as the one I use here. That is because we are one and the same person. I do not have any other association with that company and am only a moderator because of my knowledge of running a forum. When my expertise became known to the owners of the company and their production schedule would not permit an active involvement by either of them in the running of the forum I volunteered to help out and moderate. My total involvement as a moderator is to delete offensive posts i.e. spam, porn. I recieve no compensation for this service and therefore there should be no conflict of interest. If you beleive there is please contact me and explain why you believe so.

Having said that, I would like to add to the discussion. I agree with James Love's comment above that this entry is about a hit cult video and as such deserves to be included here. There is a real need to stay abreast of current fast paced changes in the entertainment industry. Viral videos have an ever expanding presence in the marketplace on the internet as evidenced by Google's purchase of YouTube. This article is about one of the first hit shows on that medium and as such will provide some historical insight into the phenomenon for future researchers. In the past two days the article has been vastly refined and will no doubt improve as more research on the subject is done. If there are any improvements/refinements that should be made in the article I would welcome the input as this is the first one I've worked on. steveoutdoorrec 14:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment I agree with Mr. Steveoutdoorrec. This is an entry describing a hit show on the Internet's most popular independent video website.Salseiro 16:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
— Salseiro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Yes, the initial posting raised red flags on whether this should be included because insufficient information was provided. I've added some stuff for them and gotten folks to add some of the necessary references to merit inclusion. It's obvious that they have a following. I enjoy their irreverent humour on youtube and given the awards, others do too. They are not a flash in the pan since they are working on their third season, so let's get over the initial submission mistakes and move on. jamesarthurlove 14:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The thing is, even if we accept all that as given, it still fails WP:N.Chunky Rice 21:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN, until such a point in time comes as to make it WP:N. Until that time, delete with prejudice. And, as a bit of an aside to the video's creators: A useful tip for ya: "In order to break the rules [of cinema], first you must understand the rules [of cinema]". --Action Jackson IV 21:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment To Chucky Rice & Action Jackson IV: I call your atttention to WP:IAR. "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." In the age of the internet newsgroups and discussion forums a redefining of WP:N must and should take place. In fact this redefining of notarity is under discussion at this time at Wikipedia_talk:Notability and, by the look of the archives, has been raging for quite some time. It is possible for something, a new sport, viral video or other youth oriented phenomenon, to become notable without any hard copy articles being written about them. The article under discussion here is exactly that, a phenomenon with a following growing by word of mouth at colleges and high schools around the world and in discussion forums. The only difference between the Snowmen Hunters and Lonelygirl15 is that the latter caused a self serving publicity blitz by admitting that the character was a fake and not an actual 15 year old girl. Yet [Lonelygirl15] has an article with mutiple links to other paid actors character's websites included and as far as I can determine was not flagged for any reason. One must ask if a self serving publicity move makes one "notable," which gives it the right to have an article included here, why is this article not concidered to be a form of spam? Inclusion here only generates more hits to their websites for possible purchases of branded merchandise. Take a look at the articles and internet interview show now cited in the recent updates to article under discussion and you will see that there is some independent verification that Snowmen Hunters are gathering some interest in an admitted non-conventional media.steveoutdoorrec 00:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
How nice of you to admit that the topic under consideration is not notable. If it's not notable under the current guidelines, then it's not notable. If you want to get the guidelines changed, this is not the place to do it - the aforementioned discussion page is. Unless you're able to meet guidelines under WP:WEB/WP:NOTE, your article should be deleted - since you admit you cannot, I don't know what more there is to say. --Haemo 01:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And yet you seemed to have been able to miss the point of my post completely. No where did I “admit that the topic under consideration is not notable.” My point is that there are other articles on similar subjects that did not have to pass through a gauntlet to be accepted. Of course I will be making an argument on the notoriety discussion page on that subject. Here I am just pointing out that while the initial posting on the Snowmen Hunters was simplistic it was there to start the process of inserting a full-blown article. Over the last 48 hours much has been done to flesh the article out to meet the standards set and I’m sure that more information will be included as the show grows and matures. To stop its inclusion because some people seem to refuse to check out the supporting interviews and written articles is unconscionable. Yes, there is a written article in the Chico News and Review in case you were wondering.steveoutdoorrec 04:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If it's that notable, it shouldn't be difficult to add sources, should it? Yet there still aren't any decent ones in the article. (As an aside, from the talk page: "But to delete the first article on their early efforts would be tantamount to shredding Tolstoy’s first attempt at War and Peace"). EliminatorJR Talk 13:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Response As to the quote from the talk page used above; it was used to defend the original posting of the article. As I’ve said before the original was amateurish, at best, and was only intended as a place holder to start the process of fleshing out the actual article. That fleshing out has been done with input from people around the world.
o Also please refer to my post of 00:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC) where I stated, “It is possible for something, a new sport, viral video or other youth oriented phenomenon, to become notable without any hard copy articles being written about them.” My point being that in this fast paced age of the internet there are other ways for a subject to become “notable” then being seen in the print medium that is rooted in the 19th century. To ignore this, what many believe to be, alternative process of becoming notable would be wrong.
o At this time I would like to also address CosmicPenguin’s post of 02:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC) and his assertion that “Minor celebrities on YouTube is a bit of a reach, 691,551 all time views (for their "most popular" video) is a blip in the YouTube world.” What he chose to ignore, or just did not know, is that Snowmen Hunters is also on many more websites such as: ifilm, gofish, videobomb, vsocial, multiply, clipshack, tagged, vidilife, vsocial, and flukiest to name only a few to be found here. This list does not take into account the many facebook and myspace accounts of fans that have one or more of their videos embedded there by the owners of those pages who want to share them with their friends. Using the raw number on a counter of one website is not a suitable way to judge how many people may have seen one particular video. Every viewing on each website may generate many more viewings as a particular video is passed around by email or shared on any one of the many myspace type websites. That is why they are called viral videos and can create notoriety in a new way.steveoutdoorrec 20:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • But Wikipedia doesn't require written sources. Online ones will do. Surely a notable viral video would generate verifiable, reputable, secondary online sources? EliminatorJR Talk 00:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you. That’s my point. Some here have said that the subject is not “notable” due to there being no verifiable secondary sources. No amount of links to interviews and online, as well as one off line, article seems to satisfy them. It would look to an outsider as though they had looked at the original post and none of the refinements. steveoutdoorrec 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So there we are then - it's up to you to add those sources to the article in order for it to be kept. But note that just giving a list of websites where the video can be seen is not enough - see here. EliminatorJR Talk 01:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Ok, I think I see what you are saying, but just to make sure I understand correctly; does what you’re saying apply to the article on Snowmen Hunters under discussion in these two instances as secondary sources? Or should some change be made to how the sources are listed to make them more creditable? Any direction would be appreciated as this is my first foray into Wikipedia.
 Under the heading News Articles I’ve placed a link at the bottom of the article to Days of Lore by By Mark Lore where Mr. Lore states, “Among the 3,000 entries came one from former CN&R film critic Chris Smith. The cool thing is Smith was informed this week that his was chosen as one of the 20 finalists (among them a video from Andy Dick), which will now go to a popular vote with the chance of winning $50,000 to make his own pilot. Smith filmed the video, entitled Snowmen Hunters, with his cousin Ryan Neisz outside of Lassen Park as part of a series in March of this year. The premise focuses on a couple of yokels named Sherman and Everett (played by Neisz and Smith, respectively) who have a disdain for men with eyes of coal, carrot noses and stick "appendages." It seems Everett has never been the same since he caught his wife plowing the snow. It's pretty damn funny, too.”
 Under the heading Interviews I’ve placed a link to the popular online magazine Viral: Episode Nine in which one of the reporters interviews the creators of Snowmen Hunters and talks about the upcoming season.steveoutdoorrec 02:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • See Here for the WP definition of primary and secondary sources. EliminatorJR Talk 21:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd say that we've covered everything that is needed to have the article included here. One development that occurred today is that the Snowmen Hunters videos have been nominated by YouTube as one of the Top Ten video series for 2006. With all the video series that were uploaded in 2006 to be in the top ten is the definition of notoriety. Case settled IMHO steveoutdoorrec 01:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I remain unconvinced. You've got one trivial mention in a paper. The interview is better, but it doesn't appear that the source qualifies as reliable. And the award you're talking about doesn't appear to be a significant award. It's not being awarded by YouTube, from what I can tell. It's just a user driven thing.Chunky Rice 02:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The links speak for themselves:
Washington Post - YouTube Awards
BBC - YouTube Awards
CBS News - YouTube Awards
YouTube Home Page - Note button for the official "YouTube 2006 Video Awards. Vote for the 2006 Winners!" contest at the mid-right of the page.
YouTube 2006 Awards - Direct Link
These YouTube awards are official. Believe me, I understand if people don't enjoy/like/understand/get SNOWMEN HUNTERS, but it seems the notability portion of this discussion is settled. If some "just don't like" SNOWMEN HUNTERS, fine, but I'm not sure that's any more germane than the "I like it" reasoning so correctly excluded by Haemo above. If 'I like it' doesn't apply, neither can 'I don't like it.'
Maybe those asking for the inclusion of SNOWMEN HUNTERS were simply 5 days premature in advocating an article in WP. I don't concede this, but hypothetically let's say until yesterday the deleters on balance were right. The facts have shifted significantly just in the last 12 hours. A weekly online video show nominated by the largest online video site in history is by definition noteworthy. With this latest development, I think it's fair to say HUNTERS should be included in Wikipedia, along with other 2006 YouTube Award nominees for best series like WILL IT BLEND, ASK A NINJA, LONELYGIRL15 and CHAD VADER, all of which have WP entries.
Is this fair/honest/in the WP sprit/mission? I understand the nerves/questioning/horror given the original state of this article, but now it seems all the legitimate arguments for deletion have been answered fairly and fully. And yes, I'm an interested party as expressed above, but I don't believe that undercuts the reality before us. Whatever is decided, I thank everyone involved in this discussion, even though it's made me cry like a baby at times (We can joke here, right? I mean, if I were joking. Because in reality I cried puppy tears. It was thoroughly embarrassing). Zanzibar19 04:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Is is just me, or was Snowmen hunters mentioned absolutely nowhere in those links? Ok, so you've proven that the YouTube awards exist, but you still have not proven notability, since as far as I can tell, the show has not won a YouTube award. This is getting ridiculous. Motion to close as delete per WP:SNOW. Leuko 04:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Leuko, if you check the YouTube 2006 Awards Direct link, check the BEST SERIES link as indicated above, HUNTERS is there with the other 9 shows nominated. I've more than simply proven the awards exist, but proven HUNTERS was nominated. If you want to say it's only significant if HUNTERS wins (which won't be announced for a week) I'd respectfully submit the definition of notability you offer is remarkably tortured. By any normal notability standard, this more than qualifies. As for HUNTERS not being mentioned in the CBS/BBC/Post links above, those stories were written this moring based off a YouTube press release announcing the awards and before the nominations were revealed. The links were provided here to answer Chunky's questioning of the awards legitimacy. Just how is it that the awards are legitimate, the articles on the awards are legitimate, but those nominated are not? Didn't Xdamr, who opened this discussion, amend his comments to say notability was the only question remaining? If you honestly don't believe this qualifies, okay, but it seems a fair reading of all the notability arguments and links above run counter to your WP:SNOW proposal and the events of today. Zanzibar19 05:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
*Winning a significant independent award is certainly grounds for notability under WP:WEB. Being nominated isn't. It looks like Snowman Hunters might be on the brink, but it's not there yet.Chunky Rice 05:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
*Also, this isn't personal. It just doesn't seem to meet the notability standards laid out in Wikipedia policy. Believe me that I've argued for deletion of stuff I really liked, so it's not about that. If it is as you say, and the page gets deleted, just come back when the show has won an award or gotten some media attention and ask for it to be restored.Chunky Rice 05:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Chunky for clarifying. I didn't mean to imply you specifically were making this personal. I was trying to address what seemed to be the general notion that HUNTERS advocates were simply relying on the 'I like it.' It seems my writing of that came across more muddied than I'd intended. ('Say, how muddy did you intend...')Since you seem to be taking this fairly seriously and weighing it with a fair mind, I have to ask, does nomination really denote no notability? It would seem to me, at a certain level, even a nomination denotes significant notability. If this awards contest was from ObscureVideoSite.com, I'd understand. But this is YouTube, THE premiere online video site of the Web 2.0 era, and this is their first annual awards. Specifically, how does that not qualify as noteworthy?Zanzibar19 05:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I like to address Chucky's assertion that the interview on Veho is from a source that, in his words, “doesn't appear that the source qualifies as reliable.” By using a popular internet thing called Google (you may have heard of them) to do a search for Veoh Networks, Inc, the owners of the program in which the interview was done, the second hit in the search produces a press release with the title, “Time Warner, Michael Eisner And Spark Capital Join Shelter Capital To Complete $12.5 Million Strategic Series B Investment In Veoh Networks.” There seems to be a lot of unknown people throwing some serious money into this unreliable source. How did I ever find this out you may ask? I just looked at the bottom of the screen where the interview was, right after Copyright 2007 and there it was.
I'd like to think it's not personal but on your profile page your stated "goal is to source and clean up geek articles (board games, comics, etc.)." When I look up geek the first line is, "A geek is an individual who is fascinated by knowledge and imagination, usually electronic or virtual in nature." If so count me as one because I too am facinated by knowledge and imagination. With them we wouldn't be having this descussion because there would be no online much less "a multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project" steveoutdoorrec 12:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. I like to improve geek-hobby articles so that they meet Wikipedia standards. And from that, you've concluded that I have some sort of personal vendetta against this article?
You know, I've tried to be helpful and bother to actually explain why I was voting the way I was voting, and you respond by insulting me and questioning my character? I don't need that. My vote stands at delete and I'm done with this.Chunky Rice 16:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Because I'm not an asshole, I'll still tell you that if this AFD resolves in the article getting deleted, you should seek a deletion review with the argument that significant improvements were made to the article after the debate began and that it should be relisted so that all voters can have a chance to consider the new information. They haven't swayed me, but others may have different opinions.Chunky Rice 16:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I am sorry if I have offended you Chucky. Please forgive me as it was not my intention, truly. As I look back at my post I see that I worded it badly. The trouble with text is that it doesn't portray the emotions behind the words. With your permission I'd like to ask for the record that we forget that part and move on.
My point in my first paragraph still stands that the interview was from a reliable source.
Thank you for the help in spurring us on to refine the article and for the suggested recourse if it is deleted. I would hope that all the voters would look at the article one last time before voting to see where it was when deletion was suggested and where it is at this point in time. They may then see that signigicant improvements were made in a very short time. Chucky without your input the article would not be in the shape it is in. For that I thank you. steveoutdoorrec 17:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


  • I would also like to thank you Chunky Rice, and everyone else who have participated in this exchange. I'm not sure how it will come out, but I'm satisfied that between Haemo's, Chunky's and the other persistant posters on the delete side of this, along with the entries from the HUNTERS supporters like steveoutdoorrec and a few of my own entries, this question has been thoroughly examined. I'd like to offer my sincere thanks, and a hope that the things said in the heat of argument didn't sting unduely. Seems like some might, and that's too bad. I apologize for whatever part I've played in that. Suggesting another course of action was a stand-up thing for you to do Chunky, and I really do appreciate it.
All that said, I think it's almost time to call this. I did just get interviwed for tonight's KHSL Channel 12 local news, but we'll see if that runs tonight. I can't remember just how TV interviews figure into this. Who knows. There may be another ream of links in a week or so. Thanks everyone. Zanzibar19 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mangojuicetalk 15:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zoo Tycoon 2: Farms are Wild

Zoo Tycoon 2: Farms are Wild (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Likely a hoax; there are no sources cited and 0 ghits with that title in it. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. –Llama mantalkcontribs 23:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing found on Google search in regards to this material...nothing on Microsoft website. Blipadouzi 02:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. "Rumoured to be upcoming" is never a good sentence to see in an article. -- Black Falcon 19:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ezeu 23:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Park Village Elementary School

Park Village Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable elementary school. No verifiable sources that make this particular elementary school stand out. It had already been redirected to the school district article (Poway Unified School District} as most non-notable elementary school articles are, but User:The Phoenix Enforcer keeps removing the redirect, then leaving a talk page message saying "Hah!" on my talk page. I have decided to take it here rather than get into a revert war with him. —Ocatecir Talk 00:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please keep the page, I would like to leave something I have created.The Phoenix Enforcer 00:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per "National Blue Ribbon school of excellence for 2000-2001 and a California Distinguished School in May, 2000." Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that almost every school has won an award from time to time. I don't think this satisfies the threshold for notability (No independent source provided for this anyway). —Ocatecir Talk 00:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but according to Blue Ribbon Schools Program, it has received a very prestigious award. Its listed on the school website and I don't think a city government would lie about something like that, it could be considered illegal false advertisement if it was untrue. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability, once established, does not expire. An award that made the school notable several years ago continues to make in notable today. --Eastmain 00:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 01:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think the Blue Ribbon award is selective enough to establish notability. According to this site:[[60]], over 3000 of these awards were given out between 1982 and 1996 alone, and the program has been running another 10 years since then, selecting what looks like about 250 schools per year --- that's roughly 6000 of these awards given out. Here's a complete listing of schools that have received a Blue Ribbon award: 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 1982–83 to 2001–02. I don't think each of these schools deserves a separate entry. SkipSmith 01:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentI think the estimate of 6,000 schools is about right. The Blue Ribbon Schools Program article points out that that's 6,000 out of a total of about 133,000 schools of all types in the United States (although some schools have won in multiple years, so that cuts down the number of winners). If there were a total of say, 5,000, that would mean one school in every 26 has already received the award. I'm neutral. Noroton 01:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - so the School is in the top 4%; that seems notable to me. We are in danger of applying higher standards to schools, that are public institutions and have a permanence, than to the thousands of article on transient poupular culture - virtually every commercial CD has an article, many of which are little more than a track listing, take New Erections for example. Which article enhances WP the more? TerriersFan 03:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. D'oh! I should have just read Blue Ribbon Schools Program more closely instead of doing all that detective work! SkipSmith 02:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete In its current form, subject is not sufficiently notable IMHO, although this is a close call. Whether it is d'd or k'd, it needs a proper citation to these awards. Depending on the citations they come up with, Messers. A or TF just might swing my vote on this one. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Blue Ribbon Award now cited by U.S. Department of Education and Distinguished School Award by California Department of Education. TerriersFan 02:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - In addition to a Blue Ribbon award, this school has been particularly active in a number of initiatives. The test for inclusion in WP is whether there is likely to be sufficient interest in the school to justify an entry and that seems to be the case. TerriersFan 02:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep No matter how you slice it, the Blue Ribbon Schools Program is the highest level of recognition awarded to a school in the United States, along with its state's highest level of recognition. Notability is clearly established. Alansohn 12:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The school has some notability, and TerriersFan makes a good point that it's a public institution with some permanence. It also has the interest of a Wikipedia editor, which is important. And the article looks good. Worth keeping. Noroton 23:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable as a Blue Ribbon School award winning school, multiple third party sources are available as well. Yamaguchi先生 05:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keepper reasoning of Noroton, LordHarris 00:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per the comments supporting inclusion of this article above. RFerreira 02:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.