Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 23

< March 22	March 24 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Discussion on the current notability guidelines Use of global rights on English Wikipedia Proposal to add 'class C' to the article grading system Revisiting status of WP:Attribution Centralized discussion on terrorism related articles ArbCom proposal to create a Sourcing Adjudication Board Discussion to work out the implementation details of flagged revisions Discussion over the approval of bots Wikipedia:Plot summaries Global blocking on Wikimedia projects SSP/RFCU merger proposal Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)
Archive

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 APOBEC3G. Tizio 14:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ann Sheehy

am nominating his article fo deletion. The Notabillity criteria holds that "A topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable. The depth of coverage and quality of sources must be considered in determining the number of sources required and whether the coverage establishes notability."

As a quick google search finds, the only entries relevant to the object of this topic are the persons own professional homepage, departmental homepage, and her publications. There is no record of notabillity or record to support the derivation of this article, ie, that she is credited with discovering APOBEC3G, other than that she's the primary author of the original paper. A search of notable profiles in Nature describes APOBEC3G as the most famous work of somebody called Michael Malim. There is however mention of Ann Sheehy as his post-doctoral fellow. On the above criteria, I think the article should be deleted as it is both factually wrong and does not satisfy Notabillitycriteria Dudewheresmywallet 11:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Scienter 14:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Low notability, not meeting WP:BIO.Telly addict 17:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete doesn't meet Notabillity or factual criteria.--Paloma Walker 17:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to APOBEC3G unless anything to indicate she's notable for anything else is added by the end of this AfD - Iridescenti 17:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per Iridescenti. --Aarktica 19:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per Iridescenti. Discovering one protein doesn't automatically establish notability. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 21:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Week keep. Seems to be an important discovery. The article needs expanding, though. Garcia-Fons 22:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a sock-puppet, whose only edits have been today, to a string of AfDs. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep She is only an assistant professor, and they are not always N unless the work is particularly N. With respect to that, "no record ... that she is credited with discovering APOBEC3G, other than that she's the primary author of the original paper" is a rather remarkable assertion. Post Doc advisors and their Associates often can reasonably claim joint credit. But she has published 10 papers in 5 years, all in the very highest quality journals, and with the highest ones having, respectively, 260, 165, and 90 times. I've added them. I think that's very high counts for this stage in the career, and reflects the notability of the discovery. DGG 05:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep As above, she has a promising career. Gareth E Kegg 11:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Response I am not sure whether the promise of her career is a suitable ground or criteria to be entered into wikipedia. As DGG says, she is only an assistant proffessor. She is not notable in that she is not famous, either for APOBEC3G, or any other work. She maybe a very good proffessor and researcher, but I think you will find there are hundreds of Professors and researchers and scientists all over the world doing important work. They are not notable.

Re: "no record ... that she is credited with discovering APOBEC3G, other than that she's the primary author of the original paper" is a rather remarkable assertion," I do not assert it, I have provided a link from the journal Nature which describes the work as the most famous achievement of a Michael Malim, and describes Sheehy as his Post-doctoral fellow. Per my knowledge, I would imagine that Sheehy was probably involved extensively in the ground work and (probably a lot of)intellectual input, but the thinking, designing, conducting, supervision, and interpreting the experiment was probably by done Malim. Primary authorship of a paper is merely indicative of the author having carried majority of the ground work.

Re: She has published 10 papers in 5 years in high quality journals. This is not ground for notabillity or fame. Again going back to above argument, there are a number of people doing high quality research who have found their work published in high quality journals this very month. It is the implications of the results, and their associations with the achievement of results. APOBEC3G is described by Nature and other search engines as such. However, we cannot decide wether or not Sheehy should be credited with discovering APOBEC3G, and have to rely on external credible sources. Searching Google with "APOBEC3G, Ann Sheehy" gives this result among which the first is a citation of the original paper from her own homepage, and the rest are departmental homepages , wikipedia (or mirror website) entries, or subsequent publication citations. I have already provided a search of profiles from Nature with "Nature profile, Ann Sheehy" as criteria. The result points to a profile of Michael Malim and not to one of Ann Sheehy. Lastly, I have done an additional search of "APOBEC3G, Michael Malim", the results are more comprehensive, in particular, there is a feature from News@Nature. Without taking away any credit from Sheehy for her work guys, I think she's not yet as famous as to deserve a Wikipedia article, nor is she credited as much for APOBEC3G as the article would have us believe.Dudewheresmywallet 13:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect or Delete per above. Completely non-notable. Doesn't meet WP:BIO at all. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 22:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep -- Did anybody try a more specific Google search?[1] I added the first two suitable references I found with independent bylines to the article. This should satisfy WP:BIO (if not, add more). There is plenty of WP:V material from WP:RS available online. If there is a dispute about a fact, that is a content issue that should be solved by normal editing, it is not a reason for deletion. This nomination is another example of deletionists run amok. Dhaluza 23:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Response: What Dhaluza has provide above is nearly exactly the same search result as what I had provided earlier, ie,

Her Own professional Home page.
The Wikipedia entry on Ann Sheehy.
A number of scientific papers (original publications or reviews).
One article from International aids vaccing intiative that notes the potential importance of the APOBEC3G protein. It does however note Sheehy played an important part in identifying the protein, but also noted this was a prior ongoing work.
There are no other mention of notabillity.

The points of contention are:

Regarding WP:BIO- She is not (at least not yet), (per above search results in Google, which only finds her own own pages, publications, and institution pages and is not mentioned in any biographical or news article, as opposed to a different individual with regards to the same discovery). She is therefore not notable. By all means, if this changes in the future, I will change my opinion. Regarding her work and notabillity: (per WP:BIO); it states that;

"Creative professionals: scientists, academics, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals.

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.-The paper co-authored by Sheehy and others is cited, yes, Sheehy is not. No newspaper,online or journal article regarding Ann Sheehy has been located yet.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.- Closest it come to attributing the origination of the theory, concept, whatever you call it is to a different person.
The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.- Not sure of APOBEC3G yet falls into this category. In addition to the argument of the preceding point re:newpaper,journal and online articles, APOBEC3G does not yet seem that significant. Certainly not like DNA, MRI,Mass spectrometry,Vaccine. It does have the potential to, though.
The person's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) has won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance.- Again, it doesn't satisfy the first and last, and the middle is very tight to be fitted in. The original paper certainly has found quite a few citations, but it might peter out. Lastly, by calling it her paper, we're saying she did the work (the work that hasn't really become that noted yet, except for it's potential in HIV scientists), where as nowehere does it credit her (alone) (the HIV vaccine page does say, as I had said before, that she did to the ground work, and indicates that she was involved in intellectual input)."

Regarding WP:V. She is verifiable because she has authored some published papers. So has Masahiro Yamashita,W.C Haxton,L Ostrovsky(I could go on) , and you will find numerous citations for them.
Re:WP:RS, of course they are reliable because they're journal articles. Doesn't mean it is encyclopaedically notable. Eg, Ajay Nahata has had a publication in the current issue of Nature (p157), Karen Ardt has had quite afew notable publications, including in "The Cell", "Molecular Cell Biology", " Molecular Biology of the Cell", "Genetics" working in Ubiquitination and in fungi, and she's pretty well known in her field.

The bottom line is I think APOBEC3G qualifies as notable within the WP:Science category and does deserve an article. But it's discovery has not made it's discoverers as famous yet to merit an article in WP.Dudewheresmywallet 14:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep per the improvements by DGG and Dhaluza (see diff). We ought to judge her notability based on other academics in the biological sciences. The fact is that, in that field, there are few (if any) academics who have published major papers on their own (the cost of biological research is highly prohibitive to such a venture). Almost everything is coauthored. I believe the present information in the article ensures that she meets WP:PROF. -- Black Falcon 18:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Past life healing

Spammish essay in violation of WP:NOR from Rekhaa Kale (talk · contribs) who is trying to add similar things to Pastlife and Past life. Prod removed by author. JuJube 00:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as completely failing WP:ATT and also WP:NOT a how-to guide (in this case, how-to access memories of your past lives). Also I've categorised this debate as "Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic" =). Cheers, cab 00:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - as well as being utter nonsense, it's clearly just an OR essay. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Unverified, maybe original research. I think this also violates CSDG1, (nonsense), according to template description. The Evil Clown _{Please review me!} 00:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nonsensical original research. Mwelch 01:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete; vague, waffly and the epitome of unverifiable. -- Mithent 02:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unvertifiable, and utter nonsense, violation of NOR. Therefore, this article should be deleted anyways. Daniel5127 | Talk 02:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up between bong hits one day. — Krimpet (talk/review) 03:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete — for - well, all of the reasons given above. Philippe Beaudette 04:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Nonsense how-to original research. Maxamegalon2000 05:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Past life regression which seems to be a marginally better article. Or some other one. And perhaps a little better communication with the editor in question in order to help them contribute better to Wikipedia? FrozenPurpleCube 05:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete- OR, WP:NFT, also an essay. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 07:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. As well as the issues raised above, NPOV comes into play, is there is no evidence that we live past lives etc. Bensmith53 08:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per FrozenPurpleCube. There's a fair bit of content in the article so I'd normally suggest some kind of merge, but since there are no sources cited the article is next to useless. Waggers 10:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No citations and is presented (badly) as fact. 87.86.171.130 11:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Scienter 14:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete; Nonsense; essay; violates WP:NFT --Mhking 15:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unsalvageable gibberish Iridescenti 17:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Original research this is your brain on drugs.--Paloma Walker 17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete total nonsense. Acalamari 18:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Er, this looks quite like OR and looks like it was made up in school one day. Not to mention the fact that it appears to be a how-to, which per WP:NOT#IINFO does not belong on Wikipedia. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 21:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. As the Brits would say, "Utter bollocks." Realkyhick 07:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Scientology as that religion is all about past life healing. SakotGrimshine 18:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - opinioning/OR has no place in wikipedia. --Strangnet 09:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Retainas it gives a totally different and most scientific explanation of past life. Till now people think of past life as a belief, but here you find it as a tangible reality that can be tested by anyone in lab like situations too.Rekhaa Kale 18:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Retain~~Those who are not willing to know the real truth about past life, may want this to be deleted. but then you will simply be killing the desire of new authors to contribute to wikipedia.Rekhaa Kale 18:40, 25 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 10:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Bitdiddle

Delete - a character made up for math problems does not seem to me to be sufficiently notable to warrant an article. The character does not appear to be the subject of any substantial or non-trivial works. Google hits appear to be nothing more than copies of problems he's mentioned in. Otto4711 00:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge With Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. It is a character, true, but he is not notable enough to have an article, but probably in there for a section. The Evil Clown _{Please review me!} 00:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought of that but according to the Bitdiddle article the character pre-dates the course so I'm not sure it's appropriate. Otto4711 01:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That may well be, but Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs is a real classic in computer science. It is by no means an obscure or uninfluential text. Much of the exposition reolves around a small group of characters, including others, such as Eva Lu Ator and Louis Reasoner ("loose reasoner"). The are most assuredly not just names chosen for the sake of the exercises, these characters are integral to the text. Greg Woodhouse 14:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't object to mentioning the character in the course article... Otto4711 16:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - WP:INN. Unless there is something extremely unusual about the character or the situation they are in, the names of such characters are generally forgotten when you turn the page or change books. --Sigma 7 02:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment That's silly. Obviously this one is remembered by readers of the book and by students and professors in certain courses. Michael Hardy 22:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment That's silly. Obviously this one is remembered by readers of the book and by students and professors in certain courses. Michael Hardy 22:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. What Sigma said. Philippe Beaudette 03:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Student life and culture at MIT, perhaps. Seems interesting, but compare the importance of Alice and Bob in terms of problem-set characters. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Teachers make up characters and character names all the time to illustrate various points - we don't need articles on each and every one. No notability at all. Waggers 11:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I smell a prank. Scienter 14:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Gandalf61 16:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete There is nothing notable. Acalamari 18:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge per Dhartung. (Note to nominator: Consider {{prod}} before {{afd}} in the future; this entry could have been speedily deleted w/o incident.) --Aarktica 19:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to why, when you want the article merged, you're suggesting that I ahould have tried to have the article speedily deleted. Otto4711 22:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The {{prod}} tag is very useful in avoiding the unnecessary and protracted discussion on such issues. Given the responses, it is quite possible that the deletion would have occured without incident. Aarktica 19:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Sigma 7, Waggers, and Scienter. Plenty of courses involve characters invented for their practice exercises, but that does not mean they all belong in an encyclopedia. - Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 21:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: And how did this survive for so long? Created in 2003? - Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 21:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment: Maybe because no one thought to look for such a nonsense name, especially since most of us came on board here since then. As for me, I vote delete. Realkyhick 07:02, 24 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 - author/sole contributor request via blanking. — ERcheck (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ski patrol radio frequencies

violates WP:NOT; this is not a repository for indiscriminate tabular data. Delete Mhking 00:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, seems to be a good faith but clear misunderstanding by the author of what Wikipedia is not. — Krimpet (talk/review) 01:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete: I can't understand the context behind the article on a quick glance. It would be nice to fix this issue or otherwise integrate the table source links to other articles. --Sigma 7 02:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete, great resource JimmieJay|21:38, 22 March 2007

Delete — per WP:NOT. Incidentally, the contrib by User:JimmieJay is that user's only contrib. Philippe Beaudette 04:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, weakly. On the page I saw, most of its text seems to belong on a talk page rather than in an article. This seems to have always been the case. Now, the actual list of frequencies was removed, wrongly: in the USA, all radio frequencies apart from cell phones are public property, and with that exception all are open to be received by the general public. Magazines for radio hobbyinsts publish frequency lists for private radio services all the time. I used to eavesdrop on fast food order windows, myself. On the other hand, I'm not sure that Wikipedia is the right place to publish this sort of data. This is not "indiscriminate data", though. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The actual data is no longer on the page anyway. Scienter 14:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
'Do NOT Delete' This is extremely valuable information for ski patrollers! ==
- Comment: Perhaps, but it can easily be posted on a web site instead, and probably is. Realkyhick 07:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Realkyhick 07:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Nice idea but does not belong here Robbielatchford 17:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Question: Can the original author just remove the article, I see no need to fight the system and I appear to be upsetting both the ski patrol and the wiki gods. Might as well not embrace digital informationSkibum101 17:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete Since it violates WP:NOT. Acalamari 18:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete The page as I saw it was not informative to the casual reader - however, a good article about ski patrols could mention their existence - and either link to a list, or, better I think, to an external site that lists them. I don't think WP is the place for the list to simply stand as a "reference". human 20:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete The information has been removed anyway; someone decided that it "it is not appropriate to have it viewable by the general public as it represents FCC licensed private radio frequencies." — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 21:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete I have not heard of "licensed private secret radio frequencies." Places like Radio Shack have long sold big directories of all sorts of radio frequencies used by private companies, transportation companies, and government agencies. Anyone with a scanner can find them and publish them, and generally federally licensed use of the airwaves is public information. I could see deleting it as a violation of WP:NOT. Wow, it was really hard to find the text of the article from the history file. The original source info was from http://www.kc8unj.com/vx6.htm which, when you click on it, "Does not exist." So the info also fails WP:ATT unless a reliable source is cited for it. We shouild discourage such frequency listing because of verification problems and because they change from time to time, making it a maintenance nightmare, and because of the literal millions of entries worldwide that might result. Edison 01:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per edison Captain panda In vino veritas 00:25, 25 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 speedily deleted under criterion WP:CSD#G1. – Riana ^ঋ 04:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Space cuba

Delete Appears to violate WP:OR and WP:CITE. Would have marked for speedy deletion as nonsense but it had so many cleanup tags I figured maybe there's something I'm missing that people cared enough to tag it. MarkBuckles (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - patent nonsense. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - you only have to read the first sentence - and so tagged. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete I call bullsh^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpatent nonsense Ron Ritzman 01:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, a shiny pair of WP:BALLS. — Krimpet (talk/review) 01:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as nonsense. Already tagged elsewise. --Dennisthe2 02:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, space comrades. -- Mithent 02:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete — Oh please. Philippe Beaudette 04:28, 23 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. Punkmorten 13:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Working Class Rock Star (film)

Only a quotation from the website of the movie. -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 15:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, if it's released and becomes notable then it can come back. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, limited information --Sigma 7 02:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Bobanny 07:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete- limited information, no information from sources other than the official and myspace pages. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 08:04, 23 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. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amanda Lexx

Not notable. Epbr123 00:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete From what I can see there is no notability here. Possibly could have been speedied since there is no clear claim of notability. --Wildnox (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep after the recent reworking. --Wildnox (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. Mwelch 01:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Week keep now that there is an assertion of notability. Playboy is obviously a big name, so I suppose that hosting a show on their TV channel would be of note. Mwelch 07:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Article was underdeveloped, but I have expanded it significantly, adding a couple of references as well as assertions to notability. She is a former host of a Playboy TV show and has posed for a large number of magazines in different genres. Previous voters, please re-assess.LaMenta3 02:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep. I'm not sure about the notable, but if she had her own show on Playboy, then, well, that's a probable. clean it up. --Dennisthe2 02:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep per Dennisthe2. Philippe Beaudette 03:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep per Mwelch. Hosting a playboy show is notable enough, but just- article isn't really developed. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 08:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The subject is notable enough, the article just needs some improvements. Burntsauce 17:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete On following the links, the claim that "she had her own TV show" seems very misleading (even the bio on her own web site doesn't claim this, but just says "She has appeared on..."). Without this, her biggest claim to fame appears to be having had her photo in a European car magazine & being an extra on Baywatch. - Iridescenti 17:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep She seems notable to me. Acalamari 18:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep I pretty much agree with Burntsauce. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep It's got a few references now, I feel it passes, borderline however, the notability test. The Evil Clown _{Please review me!} 19:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per the above. --Myles Long 21:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep The article is reasonable now, and referenced. It establishes notability as far as I can tell; appearing on a TV show and in several major magazines is pretty notable. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 21:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The Playboy gig pretty much proves notability, though I never saw the show myself. (Darn!) Realkyhick 07:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notable enough Captain panda In vino veritas 00:24, 25 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 10:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somanorth

Unsourced and fails WP:N. Delete. Bridgeplayer 01:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete — for notability. Philippe Beaudette 04:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete non notable, has an advertisement feel also.--Paloma Walker 05:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep It could be cleaned up, with some work. --Axelboldt

Comment I think the issue here is not whether it could be cleaned up or not, but whether the church is notable enough, at the moment, to warrant a page in an encyclopedia. Adding outside, independent sources that make a case that the church is notable in some way would help this article immensely. However, a quick Google search will show that the only sources other than Wikipedia mirrors and Wikipedia itself that mention Somanorth are the church's own website. This is patently not notable. It is entirely possible that you are a member of this church or some other interested party. Please understand that a desire to see this church have a page in Wikipedia is objectively not, in itself, a reason to have one. Scienter 14:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Scienter 14:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom - fails WP:N though more importantly lacks any sources and does not satisfy WP:ATT. NOt to mention the fact that it is self-contradicting. Is it or is it not an emerging church? The article says both. Arkyan 16:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Little evidence of notability. --Infrangible
Delete as this subject is not yet suitable for an encyclopedia to cover. Mr. Berry 01:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The parent church apparently has no article (ot at least it isn't Wikilinked), so why should the satellite congregation? The multi-site church phenomenon is gaining ground, but does that mean we have to give a separate article to every satellite of every large church? Realkyhick 07:07, 24 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 10:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shaun Ward

Per WP:N and WP:BIO, the subject does not seem to be notable. I can find no reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. A quick google search confirms the subjects existence, but does not throw up much beyond what appear to be personal pages.

The article has been tagged as a notability concern since January, although the primary editor has removed it on several occasions. There is also a possible conflict of interest here. The main author's username is Eana, whilst the subject's webpage is [2]. This could just be a devoted fan or similar, or course. ->Ollie (talk o contribs) 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete: at the very least, this page should be a disambig page. If not, I think it would be better served as a page for either the Canadian politician or the American surfer. --Kmsiever 01:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete the artist as non-notable per WP:BIO. Mwelch 01:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Clearly non-notable. Philippe Beaudette 04:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Agreeing with Kmsiever. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 08:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete its self promo an he aint notable. just usin wiki 2 look good. no body of work to justify bein in an encyclopedia i put delete for an artist that had done hell o lot more than he has. --Zedco 13:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Professional status would seem to be a minimum for inclusion, all things being equal. Herostratus 14:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I am familiar with Shaun Ward and his dillusion of fame, while fasinating, should not be in an encyclopedia GERMANALPHA 9:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. per GERMANALPHA --Aarktica 19:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: User:GERMANALPHA seems to be a single purpose account - six edits since the 19th, all to Shaun Ward, it's talk page and this page. User:Aarktica only signed up today, the 23rd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Doesn't establish notability. Being "an active deviantART member" doesn't qualify you to be in an encyclopedia. - Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 21:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete no assertion of notability means speedy delete per CSDa7 ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as not notable. Realkyhick 07:08, 24 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 04:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scottsdale Gun Club

Not-notable. Originally tagged as db-advert, and later tagged for references, but those tags were being deleted rather early. Sigma 7 01:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I replaced the speedy tag the first time the creator removed it. The creator (wrongly of course) pulled the tag a second time. However, I did not replace it on this occasion because by then the article had been hanging around for two days and no admin had been prepared to touch it. I think it was correct not to speedy it; the page asserts notability and seems factual - no more of an advert than any article for a commercial organisation. As a Brit I have no expertise to judge gun clubs but if as the source says this is the 'nation's largest indoor shooting range' then, presuming there are a lot of them, that seems pretty notable to me. At present it needs a good dose of sourcing but that is a different issue. I am withholding a 'vote' until I have seen more discussion. TerriersFan 03:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete — as an advertisement. Philippe Beaudette 04:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Needs work, but notability is asserted. If notable businesses read like ads, then they should be fixed through editing, not deletion. Bobanny 07:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Can be re-written, made less of an advertisement. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 08:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Conditional keep contingent on reliable sourcing. The assertion of notability is very weak - the claim is supported by some websites I found in a search. Confusing the issue however is the fact that numerous websites made varied claims regarding the size of the facility, ranging from "Largest indoor shooting range in the nation" to "Largest public shooting facility in the world". Which, if any, is left rather unclear by a lack of compelling authoratative evidence pointing one way or the other. If no reliable sourcing can be added by the end of this AfD then I support a delete, however. Arkyan 16:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see any counterclaims in a google search for "largest indoor shooting range," and that claim is cited in the article. In any case, an unconvincingly sourced claim is cause for a tag in the article and some research, not deletion. Bobanny 17:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Establishes notability and has a lot of information. I'm a little wary of the article being created by a user named "Scottsdalegunclub", but it appears to belong in WP. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 22:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I am happy to go with the emerging consensus. I have cleaned up some of the more questionable parts. What it needs now is wikifying and the finding of a review article to source the main elements of the descriptions in the main two sections. TerriersFan 03:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep the group is notable. (and I say this as a longtime competitive shooter). ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The largest indoor shooting range in the U.S. is pretty much notable just for that fact. Realkyhick 07:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:CORP. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 22:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment it also has just 671 GHits, far too few to be considered notable by any means. --M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 22:55, 28 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 and snowball delete. Pure replication of a creative list is a copyvio ("creative list" = someone put creative effort into compiling it, i.e. not just a phone directory). ~ trialsanderrors 10:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The 25 Most Controversial Movies Ever

Article about an article published in Entertainment Weekly last year. Non-notable, most references to it are in blogs or other trivial sources. Croxley 01:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - possible copyvio but even if not there is nothing notable about this list versus any of the other hundreds or thousands of similar lists put together by various publications. Otto4711 02:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not Entertainment Weekly (thank God), and as such has no business serving as a repository of EW's "content". Since EW didn't exactly establish any pretense of objectivity, I don't think this is quite the same as copying a Billboard Chart or list of wealthiest individuals. --Action Jackson IV 04:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and Comment While the article is patent listcruft and should be deleted, the shortcomings of Entertainment Weekly aren't what should be on trial here, but the fitness of the article to remain. Pat Payne 20:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment - must we be so paranoid-defensive here? If it was objectively measured - say, I dunno, by doing a LexusNexis style search, or by hooking people up to a sophiscated biorhythmic MRI contraption and having them watch movies - it'd be of an encyclopedic nature. For example, List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada is a Keep, even though I personally can only call four out of the fifty movies on the list "good movies". Thus, what you somehow gleam as "shortcomings" are in fact exactly what's on trial. Jesus. --Action Jackson IV 01:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete — Are we going to have an article about every article ever written by any publication? What are we, LexisNexis? The article, in and of itself, is not notable. Philippe Beaudette 04:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. We can't have an article on every magazine article published. The article isn't notable- CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 08:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all the above. Metamagician3000 09:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - the fact that the contenent of the article can't be verified notwithstanding, the subject matter appears to be taken directly from another article. --Cyrus Andiron ^t/_c 14:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete; single article, plus the listing is arbitrarily chosen. --Mhking 15:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all of the above, far too subjective at not really encyclopedic material anyhow. Burntsauce 17:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT. Acalamari 18:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete An article about an article? That seems a little off to me. I agree with all the above, especially CattleGirl: we can't have an article on every magazine article ever published. The enwiki_p database would grow to 10TB. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 22:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. There are way too many lists like this one for us to just print them. It's somewhat of a copyright violation. Without a discussion about the list, I can't support having an article on it, and the purposes of this article is to reprint the list. (Oh, and stretch fair use a little bit further). Mango juice^talk 18:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete subjective list of no consequence when the next one comes out - which won't be notable either. TheRealFennShysa 15:33, 26 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 10:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of final appearances in Marvel Comics publications

Delete - "final appearances" in comic books are rarely if ever final. Additionally, the list could theoretically capture any charatcer who appears in a single issue or handful of issues, making the list indiscriminate and nigh-boundless. Pointless list. Otto4711 01:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete It's not only characters; "final appearances of artifacts, characters, dimensions, locations, species, and teams." Nearly 3 years old and still only a dozen entries on the list? Looks like someone started a list and then gave up on it. Croxley 02:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete — as potentially infinite. Every character that ever appeared is going to be on this list at some point. Philippe Beaudette 04:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment I don't necessarily feel the page should be kept, it's woefully incomplete, but I think some of the grounds in the nomination for deletion is troublesome. If this list is boundless, is List of Marvel Comics characters going to be nominated for the same reason? (I also don't agree with the concern about appearances not being final. There's a reason why Wikipedia pages can be edited. Information can always change). FrozenPurpleCube 05:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. List is not really necessary, and it would also be potentially infinite. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 08:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as death is not the handicap it once was in the Marvel Universe. They bump off Jean Grey (such as when Dark Phoenix was destroyed) and Doctor Doom every so often and then bring them back when the story demands it, for instance. The list would be lost adrift on the whims of story concerns, as characters once dead are returned to life. Pat Payne 20:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Looks like a violation of WP:NOT#IINFO. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 22:06, 23 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Telework Association

This article doubled in size recently from one sentence to two, but there doesn't appear to be much more to be said about it. After four months, it remains almost identical to the deleted American Telecommuting Association, which was struck for similar reasons. That said, I would withdraw my support for deletion if a strong case for notability can be made. MrZaius^talk 18:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Added expand and references tags. Also, I cannot find the deletion debate for the older page - was it prodded? --Sigma 7 14:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I added some references --Eastmain 02:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. As this was a semi-prod, I'm okay with the page being kept for a six months to see how it turns out and re-nominating it after that time. --Sigma 7 02:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. After reading the article, I feel I know absolutely nothing about what this group does. But if there is 1000 members, including individuals and corporations, it must be up to something significant. Bobanny 07:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and expand Looks like this organization is notable. I, like Bobanny, feel I know nothing about what the CTA does, but I would like to see this article expanded so it includes that information. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 22:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep references appear to have been added indicating notability. --Infrangible 01:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Good enough for now as a stub, but needs to be expanded. Realkyhick 07:12, 24 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 10:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ZZZap! The Live Action Series

Here is what is wrong with this article: It asserts no form of notability and provides no sources. It is a YouTube only, amateur production that has yet to be released. It is a recreation of a speedied page. I put up a speedy tag but it was removed. Delete Daniel J. Leivick 02:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Not verifiable with reliable secondary sources. Completely non-notable and currently non-existant. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 02:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete Zero notability. You might want to nominate Ryan Green (voice-over artist) as well, since the two articles are connected. Croxley 02:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgot about that, nominating it for a speedy delete. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at other edits by the user who removed the speedy tag, 62.31.117.70, and noticed he's been busy removing maintenance tags from other related articles as well, but I've replaced them now. He was also responsible for the classic Professor Burp's Bubbleworks, which is now nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professor Burp's Bubbleworks. Croxley 05:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, the children's series exists but even if it had a professionally made live action series it wouldn't warrant a separate article. -- Mithent 02:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Can't call speedy on this part though the article is crufty. One thing's for sure though, it's sheer crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 02:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'd say speedy as CSD A7, "does not assert the importance of the subject". A tribute to a TV show that only appears on Google video? I wouldn't say that's an assertion of importance. Croxley 05:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  - An A7 is for websites, people, companies, or clubs, though. This just appears to be a fan video on Youtube, if even that. Frankly, too, I'd rather dodge the speedy gun as it will allow us to G4 if necessary. --Dennisthe2 20:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete note that this isn't the notable UK kids' TV series, but a fan-made youtube parody. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 22:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. No notability or verification or anything to speak of. Realkyhick 07:13, 24 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 10:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of origins in Marvel Comics publications

Delete - there are tens of thousands of characters in Marvel comics, making this list almost boundless in scope. Information on the origins of characters often appear in multiple issues, either with additional details emerging or origins being retconned completely. Unmaintainable list. Otto4711 02:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

comment Actually, I'd say this list could be kept bounded, by limiting it to Marvel Comics characters with a Wikipedia article. It might eventually lead to a long list, as there's a lot of potential for content, but that can be said about almost any subject. Furthermore, I'd say that your characterization of this list is incorrect. It doesn't seem to be a page about the origins so much as the first appearances. Though in that case, it'd be redundant to List of first appearances in Marvel Comics publications. I suppose folks could be going for some sort of difference between the two, as there are some cases where the two things don't overlap, but I don't know if that warrants two separate pages. BTW, there was a prior discussion on this at this page FrozenPurpleCube 05:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information. What next, List of costumes in Marvel Comics publications or List of secret identities in Marvel publications? Superheroes periodically have their origin stories changed; should this list contain the first story, the most recent story, or all of them?--Nydas^(Talk) 08:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- The first example you give is a bit hard to fathom, since while it is something that should reasonably belong on the character's page, I don't think you could make it an effective list. The example of secret identities is certainly worth considering though, it might make for a good article. Don't see why having a changed origin matters, it's possible to cover a lot of information on a list. FrozenPurpleCube 16:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Like the also-listed List of final appearances in Marvel Comics publications, this is just indiscriminate information. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 22:12, 23 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 as clearly invented nonsense. --Wafulz 04:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tripanocil

Blatant hoax. WP:NFT. Google returns a grand total of zero hits for "Tripanocil", article reads like WP:BOLLOCKS Action Jackson IV 02:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, no Google hits at all = hoax. -- Mithent 02:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete G1 (nonsense). So tagged. --Dennisthe2 02:59, 23 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 as failing WP:PORNBIO. Arguments for keeping did not provide any reliable sources showing notability. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexis DeVell

Not notable. According to IMDb, she has appeared in 50 porn movies but by porn star standards, that isn't particularly notable. She has appeared in a few porn magazines, but again that doesn't really make someone notable. Epbr123 02:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Looking at WP:PORNBIO, she doesn't seem to be notable. --Dennisthe2 03:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete for notability. Philippe Beaudette 03:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete if the best that the author can do is cite her apparently out-of-proportion-to-the-rest-of-her-body-sized chest as a criteria for notability. Pat Payne 20:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Dozens of video appearances, writing and production credits, published interview, multiple magazine layouts, magazine cover, appearance at AVN Awards... Notable. Dekkappai 23:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- She might be notable if she had won an AVN award. The article has no reliable sources and there is no indication provided that she passes PORNBIO. Epbr123 23:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Dekkappai. Multiple magazine features including a cover satisfies WP:BIO and suggests a significant fanbase. LaMenta3 02:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Number of magazine features can contribute to a porn star's prolificness, and certainly more so than the Google test, which on its own is unquestionably invalid, but it does speak to both the size of an entertainer's fanbase/following (see WP:BIO) and the prolificness of their work and can be used in conjunction with more valid criteria of either WP:PORNBIO or WP:BIO to make a determination of whether they have a significant following and/or are prolific in any genre. This actress doesn't even seem to be prolific in porn in general, or anything else for that matter. I can't find anything about this actress other than her IMDB (and similar) profiles and some minor mentions/inclusions on spammish porn sites. She doesn't even have a website of her own. While even that is not an immediate grounds for inclusion/exclusion, again, it is a piece of evidence that needs to be looked at as a part of a whole. All of the sources in this article are IMDB (or similar) and while such sites may be used as sources in conjunction with other reliable sources, including the actress' own website, if she has one, as this is an article about a person and would be considered a primary source provided the information is neutral, and preferably at least one third-party reliable source, IMDB-ish sites alone are not acceptable as reliable sources. Epbr123 20:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Copy-pasting my EXACT wording from a different case where I voted delete, especially in a case where it isn't even really relevant to the comment made or the discussion at hand, is not going to help prove your point. In fact, this comment further supports my argument for a keep. Granted, the sources are not entirely in place, but given that the magazine features exist, they could easily be found and added. I make a good faith effort to expand upon and/or confirm the notability of EACH of the articles that I vote on in ANY AfD, especially in cases where it could go either way. From now on, please at least form an original argument instead of spamming AfDs with someone else's words. LaMenta3 22:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Remember - you agreed to license your contributions under the GFDL. Epbr123 22:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
      - Yes, but that doesn't give you license to take someone else's work and pass it off as your own. LaMenta3 00:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Note Nominator has significantly changed his nominating statement since the beginning of this discussion.LaMenta3 02:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment according to IMDb, her name is Alexis De Vell (note the space in her last name). M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 22:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Dekkapai, especially the 8 magazine appearances (including an interview), totalling about 50 pages of coverage devoted to her, and the cover photo appearance. -- Black Falcon 18:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't quite count as reliable independent coverage. Epbr123 20:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monica Cameron

Not notable. She may have appeared in about 48 movies but by porn star standards, that isn't particularly notable. Epbr123 02:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Looking at WP:PORNBIO, she doesn't seem to be notable. --Dennisthe2 03:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete — unless notability can be proven. Philippe Beaudette 04:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Since when was doing anal sex in all of one's films a notability criteria? I don't believe that morality should equal notability, but if this is the best the article's author can muster, then that's a pretty pathetic stab at notability... Pat Payne 20:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Doing anal in all of her videos may make her prolific or notable in a pornographic subgenre as per WP:PORNBIO VP4. LaMenta3 02:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:PORNBIO, I'd also like to point out that the above editor's claim that doing anal sex in all of her movies was a "stab at notability" made me wince :) EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Yeah... I meant that in the most harmless way possible as a figure of speech, but looking on it again....yikes :) Pat Payne 01:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Note Nominator has significantly changed his nominating statement since the beginning of this discussion.LaMenta3 02:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete though I almost want to vote keep because EliminatorJR just made me laugh so hard with the "stab" comment! hahahaha but yeah does not meet WP:BIO ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:34, 24 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 10:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tiffani DiGivanni

Not notable. She may have appeared in about 12 movies but by porn star standards, that isn't particularly notable. Epbr123 02:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Looking at WP:PORNBIO, she doesn't seem to be notable. --Dennisthe2 03:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete — No proof of Notability. Philippe Beaudette 04:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete This reads like the world's worst resume, not an encyclopedia article, and she doesn't seem to have done anything remotely notable. Iridescenti 18:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete She's a barely there in the industry. RabidWolf 21:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Reluctant Delete Made an honest effort to find notability. Found none. A reluctant delete only because of the recent methods and attitude of the nominating editor. Dekkappai 00:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- WP:AGF etc. Epbr123 00:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

she was great in the sack i say keep her!!!!!

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Dark History of Uchiha: The Bloodline of Tengu

With the exception of using a personalized reason for speedy deletion, I don't think I could do my usual tagging of this article as "unremarkable". Anyway, this article is complete and utter fan fiction that some members of the Naruto community have come to hold as gospel. The only factual part of the entire article is that some of the characters mentioned actually exist, though what the article says they've done and how they are all connected is bogus. Falls under Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Fancruft, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), and so on. ~SnapperT o 02:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly I agree with the Delete, but unremarkable is not given as one of the reasons for a Speedy.DGG 05:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to criteria A7, "unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content." ~SnapperT o 05:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete — As fancruft. Philippe Beaudette 04:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Philippe Beaudette 04:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
A rasen-shuriken to the article (Speedy delete) Completely original research; saw this on Narutofan forum under THEORY section, which means completely unproven stuff. I may need to check out if seeing this is another pointless theory war that attempt to insert credibility to they argument. I may like Naruto, but this is just completely ridiculous. George Leung 06:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, can't see what CSD criteria this would fit under. Still, as fanfic, this is original research and has no reliable sources, effectively failing WP:A. And per WP:FICT, fanfiction and fan theories are not notable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete "This is a Theory and may contain spoilers" <- That pretty much says it all right there. Original Research. Wait until we get enough votes to WP:SNOWBALL this and then do so. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - How has this managed to stay up for ten whole days without being AfD'd? Iridescenti 18:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Bitdiddle? The article has been around since 2003, and we are only now getting around to discussing nuking it. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 22:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

People search this on Narutofan forum, not in this site. Plus, only extreme Uchiha-tards will like this theory. George Leung 19:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete "This is a theory"? There we are, WP:OR. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 22:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete fanfic, the end. JuJube 00:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as both copied content and complete nonsense. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Looks to be copied, very long, not Wikified, put me to sleep. Realkyhick 07:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. patent nonsense DaveApter 16:59, 25 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 10:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Escape Magazine contents

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of tables of contents. Otto4711 02:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete — per WP:NOT. Philippe Beaudette 03:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete — per WP:NOT. --Hooperbloob 05:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge - with Escape article. The magazine was an important one in British comics history. Rhinoracer 12:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete; violates WP:NOT (a merger would not be in order here, either) --Mhking 15:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of any kind! Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOT. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as IINFO. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 22:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Listcruft. Realkyhick 07:15, 24 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. Reliable sources have not been presented, and no arguments have notability have been made. Even WP:PORNBIO says "this number is big is invalid criteria for notability." --Wafulz 20:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simony Diamond

Not notable. She has appeared in around 168 porn movies but using the number of films that a porn star has starred in to determine notability is very controversial. Epbr123 02:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Looking at WP:PORNBIO, she doesn't seem to be notable. --Dennisthe2 03:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete — No proof of notability. Philippe Beaudette 04:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete wow lot of porn on here today. is it cos its friday?--Zedco 10:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep 168 films, per IMDB. Clearly notable. Also, this article has been around since September, 2005. It's the AfDs that are showing up, not the "porn." And, incidentally, an article on a pornographic actress is no more "porn" than an "I don't like it" argument is a valid reason to delete. Dekkappai 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep while using the number of movies may be controversial when it's a relatively low number, this actress far exceeds the number of movies needed for notability. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Number of films in a genre can contribute to a porn star's prolificness, and certainly more so than the Google test, which on its own is unquestionably invalid, but it does speak to both the size of an entertainer's fanbase/following (see WP:BIO) and the prolificness of their work and can be used in conjunction with more valid criteria of either WP:PORNBIO or WP:BIO to make a determination of whether they have a significant following and/or are prolific in any genre. This actress doesn't even seem to be prolific in porn in general, or anything else for that matter. I can't find anything about this actress other than her IMDB (and similar) profiles and some minor mentions/inclusions on spammish porn sites. She doesn't even have a website of her own. While even that is not an immediate grounds for inclusion/exclusion, again, it is a piece of evidence that needs to be looked at as a part of a whole. All of the sources in this article are IMDB (or similar) and while such sites may be used as sources in conjunction with other reliable sources, including the actress' own website, if she has one, as this is an article about a person and would be considered a primary source provided the information is neutral, and preferably at least one third-party reliable source, IMDB-ish sites alone are not acceptable as reliable sources. Epbr123 20:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment Copy-pasting my EXACT wording from a different case, is not going to help your case. I make a good faith effort to expand upon and/or confirm the notability of EACH of the articles that I vote on in ANY AfD, especially in cases where it could go either way. This was one that I'd overlooked until your plagiarism was brought to my attention, so now I shall see what I can find about this one. From now on, please at least form an original argument instead of spamming AfDs with someone else's words. LaMenta3 22:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    - I have significantly cleaned up this article, and referenced it some, but I'll abstain from voting in this AfD because any vote may give an appearance of impropriety based on the above conversation. All contributors who either return to or add to this discussion, please review my changes and make improvements as you can before voting. LaMenta3 00:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
      - In my honest opinion, a set of database entries and an appearance in a porn magazine doesn't prove her notability or provide reliable sources. Epbr123 01:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Note the nominator has significantly edited his original nominating statement. Dekkappai 21:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per Disavian. Olessi 04:34, 24 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 10:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Monthly H manga

Delete as a redlinkfarm, or on the theory that someone might write an article about one of the items at some point, merge to H manga. Otto4711 03:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Effectively a disambig page with no articles. Resolute 04:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - No content and links practically exclusively to non-existent pages. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 22:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hedging a bet on a Speedy Delete A3. So tagged. --Dennisthe2 22:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as an indiscriminate list of red links. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Haven't seen that much red since I looked at my bank balance online. Realkyhick 07:16, 24 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. Shimeru 08:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Anne

Not notable. She may have appeared in about 40 movies but by porn star standards, that isn't particularly notable. Epbr123 03:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - does not meet notability requirements. Philippe Beaudette 04:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep I believe the article should be sourced. If the information on the article about her is true (for example: she's been in about 40 adult films), then sources and clean up are needed; not deletion. From what I've seen today, Epbr123 seems to be nominating loads of articles about female porn stars for deletion. Acalamari 18:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- No reliable sources and no indication provided she passes PORNBIO. Epbr123 12:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Wiki isn't a historical board for porno stars. The article has little relevance to most readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.150.130.246 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 23 March 2007 — 12.150.130.246 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note Nominator has significantly changed his nominating statement since the beginning of this discussion. LaMenta3 02:39, 24 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. However, per Newyorkbrad, it appears that there may be scope for an article on the history of portrayal of the undead in comics. WjBscribe 01:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of comics with vampires

Delete - overly vague inclusion criterion. Vampires appear in innumerable comics as main, supporting or incidental characters. Otto4711 03:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete; violates WP:NOT --Mhking 15:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete endless open ended list. Artw 18:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Meaningless list, which noone will ever read. - Iridescenti 22:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Indiscriminate information. Next someone will start a list of lakes with water in them. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 22:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete - indiscriminate, could go on forever. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. Who comes up with all these lists, anyway? Realkyhick
Redirect to Vampire fiction. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Marge presumably to Vampire fiction. We have that and Vampire films and I can't see any reason we can't have something on their appearance in comics. (Emperor 15:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC))
- Comment digging around and pondering this issue, perhaps the problem is the name. A list with every appearance of a vampire would indeed be endless but there are also comics where the vampire if a major character in the series (like Blade, Angel, Fiends of the Eastern Front, etc.) and there aren't countless throngs of these. I am unsure if this was the intent of the list but I'd suggest it would be worthwhile refocusing this and moving it to Vampire comics where it could become a decent entry. (Emperor 19:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC))
Marge per Emperor reasoning :) MURGH ^disc. 18:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete or merge , but probably delete as listcruft. Who wants to scroll through pages of vampire fiction because there's a ridiculously long list in the middle? M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 22:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep although the article needs quite a lot of work. A chronological list would be of interest because until the early 1970's, the Comics Code forbade depictions of "living dead" in Code-approved comics, with the result that for example Marvel Comics was not permitted to depict a character called "the Zombie." I believe Tomb of Dracula (1972) was the first post-Code comic from a mainstream publisher to depict a vampire after the rules were changed. Newyorkbrad 23:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Now this is interesting information. I am against this simply being a list but if you can source that information it could form part of a useful entry probably at Vampire comics. So I'd lean towards moving it or at least taking the information and starting another entry that isn't a list. (Emperor 00:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC))
  - There's related discussion at Tomb of Dracula. Beyond that, this really isn't my expertise, but I would do what I can. Newyorkbrad 17:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. List title is too vague, "with vampires" could mean anything, really. Burntsauce 17:24, 30 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. Cbrown1023 talk 19:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nina Ferrari

Not notable. She may have appeared in about 76 movies but by porn star standards, that isn't particularly notable. She has appeared in a few porn magazines, but again that doesn't really make someone notable. Epbr123 03:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete — unless Notability is proven. Philippe Beaudette 04:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep At least 77 films (per IMDB), appearances in major magazines, plus a cover. Notable. Dekkappai 00:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Also apparently appeared on an AOL Television show. I added the link, which worked at the time. Seems to have problems now, but shows up on Google... Dekkappai 00:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- That isn't a television show, its a porn movie [3]. It might be best to remove it from the article. Epbr123 12:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Note Nominator has significantly changed his nominating statement since the beginning of this discussion. LaMenta3 02:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- No-one cares. Epbr123 02:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Yes we do. Revising history in a discussion is strongly frowned upon throughout Wikipedia, see WP:TALK#Own comments. And it helps make it clear that you're not an experienced editor, and may not be overly familiar with wikipedia policies, guidelines and precedents, which might well be relevant (at the least, it might affect how closely someone wants to study your nominations before forming a conclusion). LaMenta3 is quite right to point it out, although it doesn't seem unduly significant in this particular case. Anyway, please stop doing that. TIA Xtifr _tälk 07:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    - If you were an experienced user, you would have heard of WP:AGF & WP:CIVIL. I did consider whether the change was significant before I made it. I suspect I have more experience than you. Epbr123 09:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
      - I am quite familiar with both policies, thank you. There's nothing against AGF in thinking you might be inexperienced and your proposals might stand a little extra scrutiny (experience and good faith are orthogonal), and I see nothing uncivil above except your "no one cares" comment (which is also incorrect). Xtifr _tälk 20:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep she is a notable pornstar.Kamui99 12:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per multiple appearances in magazines. I counted about 50 pages devoted to her in various magazines, in addition to a cover photo. -- Black Falcon 18:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Those arguing keep or merge simply haven't addressed the problems raised: that the list is a colection of trivia, unencyclopedic and based on OR. Both keep and merge opinions seem to simply express a liking of / enjoyment reading the topic and point to other similar lists. Policy-based reasons for keeping are few. WjBscribe 01:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Marvel Comics endearments

Delete - trivial beyond belief. That Stan Lee or some other editor or whoever called someon by an adjectival name once or frequently is a ridiculous criterion for a list. Otto4711 03:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete — Otto's right - this one is incredibly trivial. Philippe Beaudette 03:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - One can't dismiss the context. These endearments were part of the direct reason that Marvel went from a minor upstart with eight titles a month to a pop-culture conglomerate. It wasn't just the quality of the stores -- lots of critically acclaimed comics, movies, TV shows, etc. never find success -- but from the deliberately familial sense that these endearments created. Aside from the importance as an historical marketing tool, many (such as "Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man") have entered the popular lexicon. --Tenebrae 04:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Trivial. Tenebrae's argument would best apply to an article on the usage of the nicknames, provided sources discussing the phenomenom could be found. Maxamegalon2000 05:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Question If all of these are by Stan Lee (and so far as I know they are), then merge to his article, or rename to make it clear that we're talking about his practices, not Marvel's per se, even if they have adopted them. I'd say that would be a reason to cover the practice in his article, since influencing a major comic book publisher is a notable act in itself. I don't know if somebody has covered this in any Stan Lee biographies off-hand, but it certainly seems possible. FrozenPurpleCube 05:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete I can see how this has some value. But that value is geared more towards an encyclopedia covering either comic books or marvel specifically. In a general use encyclopedia it seems out of place. Also, looking at the guide lines for the creator articles (WP:BIO) and character article (WP:CMC) it seems the inclusion of "nicknames" is frowned on in those places. Since that is where you would normally expect to find this stuff, this list begins to look very out of place.
(Note: the character nicknames were not limited to use in the editorial texts, they permeate the scripted dialogues through out the comics in question. I'm surprised that Hulk's terms for other characters didn't make the list.) — J Greb 05:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. You need to know the context. These are a bigger piece of comics history than people who haven't read as many comics might realize. I'm not sure "endearments" is the best term for these nicknames, but these expressions played a surprisingly important role in distinguishing Marvel Comics from its rivals back then. And to address Manticore's question, no, these do not all come from Stan. Often they were originated by Roy Thomas and other writers and editors of the time. Doczilla 05:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Comment~~ Delete and Merge All the points given above are correct as these endearments played an important role in recognizing these important comicbook people. But question is, do we need a separate endearment article? or couldnt we just merge these endearments to their respective owners? PS: i suggest that they be included in their infoboxes †Bloodpack† 05:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment That may work for the real people under "Psuedonames", but I still believe that is not wholly in line the Biographies guides. The characters though is a non-starter. There is a strong sentiment in the Comics project not to have these types of nicknames in the 'box. — J Greb 05:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  - I think I already know why and its probably the same reason it shouldnt have an article about endearments. If it cant be included in infoboxes, then the more of it if it has an article (endearments). As for the real people, yes, lets just include that in their bio †Bloodpack† 06:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to ask for reliable sources at this point to back the claims that these nicknames had anything to do with Marvel's expansion from an eight-title company to a pop culture conglomerate. Otto4711 06:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Good point... if there is one (likely I would think) then that plus a few examples of the endearments should be rolled into the main article on Marvel Comics. — J Greb 06:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep and rename - I'm not too hot about "endearments", but the article/list is interesting, and I enjoyed skimming through it. - Crockspot 06:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This is pretty trivial. It'd make a neat fanpage, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no sources for the central thesis that use of these nicknames is somehow important to Marvel's success. I don't really see how it can be.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - One could also make a DC version of this page (though it'd likely be shorter). Just for Superman we have such names as: The big red S, The big blue boyscout, the man of steel, the man of tomorrow, the last son of krypton, etc. Then Batman: The Dark Knight, The Dark night detective, The caped crusader, etc. (And not forgetting the boy wonder, of course). How about Capt. Marvel as the Big red cheese? Or the Phantom as the ghost who walks? I think that a list of such names is a great way to be able to look them over as a group. And marvel (through Stan Lee) did have a "way with words" when it came to describing the characters. I do agree with the poster above though that I wouldn't mind a rename if we could come up with something better than "endearments". - jc37 09:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Or at Least Tweak we could change the page around to just explain what it is, and add a spot to the superhero box for endearments with a link to this page to explain what it is. It is true this is an important part of Marvel, but the way it is set up, it is trivial.Phoenix741 12:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and move to List of Marvel Comics epithets. Could use a bit more context, but the use of these sorts of nicknames is a hallmark of Silver Age comic book style. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete; incredibly trivial, and certainly both non-encyclopedic and outside the scope of Wikipedia. --Mhking 15:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleteabsolute nonsense. Brian Boru is awesome 16:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete -- really, these nicknames don't need an article of their own: It would be pretty easy to incorporate them into the superhero info box, and mention the creator's names in their relevant articles. Pat Payne 19:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - If the names in this article are truly important, they should be added to the characters' pages. We don't need a huge list of them all in one place. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 22:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. List of endearments? Huh? Puh-leeze! Just put them on the individual articles. Realkyhick 07:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. As others have stated: put them in the individual articles, a huge list isn't necessary. RobJ1981 08:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - This article is innane beyond belief. Extremely trivial. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 03:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Move. I'll grant that maybe the list doesn't deserve its own article, but it should be incorporated into another article. As for the importance of the endearments in boosting Marvel's popularity...I can't remember the actual title (so this isn't really much of a reference), but there was a coffee-table book on the history of Marvel up to about 1990 (I think it was released in 1991, as it was the 30th anniversary of the beginning of the Silver Age) and the author mentioned at one point about how personalising the Marvel bullpen endeared the staff to readers, and by implication, this increased the company's popularity.The Drainpipe 00:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Move The above editor is thinking of Marvel: Five Fabulous Decades of the World's Greatest Comics, by Les Daniels (Harry N. Abrams, New York, 1991) ISBN 0-8109-3821-9, which does, indeed, write about the catchphrases and endearments being part of "Marvelmania". "Origins of Marvel Comics" by Stan Lee (Simon & Schuster, 1975) ISBN 0-7851-0579-4, and Tales to Astonish: Jack Kirby, Stan Lee and the American Comic Book Revolution by Ronin Ro (Bloomsbury, 2004) ISBN 1-58234-345-4 also talk about it. I'm thinking the article might be more appropriate as a section with Marvel Comics. And given the pop-cultural weight, this information is at least as significant as List of fictional rabbis or List of characters from Alias.... --Tenebrae 02:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

By adding those references, you just voided every "not encyclopedic" comment. I wish we had more such actions in XfD discussions. (In other words, I'm a fan of links and references in XfD discussions : ) - jc37 08:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what else you argue, please don't argue that an article should be kept because some other article exists. Articles stand and fall on their own and the existence of one article has nothing to do with whether another article should exist. As far as the references go, they don't establish the necessity of a separate list article for the endearments themselves. The existence of the endearments may itself be somewhat notable but, again, a listing of every single time that an alliterative word got attached to someone's name in a comic is not. Otto4711 13:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey i am just going to say this idea again cause well I think it will please everyone. Why don't we keep this page to explain what endearments are, and for the characters page we add a section for endearments(with a link to this page) in the superhero box. That will mean this page will be renamed but I think it is the best choice.Phoenix741 13:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Delete and Merge (though not in that order) While the information is useful, a list page is not. This is all information that belongs on the page for the character, the page for the creator (stan lee), OR possibly as a mention on the Marvel Universe page, wherein one can say 'Certain endearments and nicknames have permeated the Marvel universe. Many created by Stan Lee <list a couple examples> are still in use today.' Boom. Done. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC) -- Edited to clarify that I mean to merge the data into other articles and delete the list page. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and merge - Normally I might say it needs to go, but these can be cited and put into context by being added to the Marvel Comics article as part of a style section. These are part of how Marvel defined itself in the 1960s, along with Stan's Soapbox and the interaction of the Marvel Bullpen with the fans and characters. It's actually a pretty important detail to Marvel Comics; it just needs to be put into context, which can be done. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 13:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The present text, title, (I brought its preciousness and vagueness up on the article's discussion page a while back), and treatment of the article is embarrassing, but the topic itself seems valid. The article attempts to describe part of a popular and distinctive literary style. Stan Lee the stylist has been appreciated, loved, imitated, disliked and mocked by writers, editors and readers for decades. If he's important in his sphere as a stylist, then that style should be relevant. In hindsight I regret exerting so little effort to improve some of the article's obvious defects: for example the article's current 'Cultural influence' section contains a sub trivial example. --AC 08:03, 30 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. This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary [4]. Hu12 00:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xiulian

Xiulian is a word, yes- but isn't Qigong a word as well? --Shadowkun980 14:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the artilce for Xiulian talks about the word, and not about what the practice is. The qigong article talks about the practice.Zeus1234 14:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No opinion. Correcting listing. Otto4711 04:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This is one for wiktionary: it's about a word. Bobanny 07:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. If accurate, this could be merged to Qigong. —Cel ithemis 03:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Article needs work and sources, but this statement elevates it above WP:DICTDEF: "People after the Cultural Revolution however, realized that saying Xiulian would upset the authorities" Dhaluza 23:27, 28 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 10:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baird Judson

Minor candidate from a minor party running in minor Canadian elections. Richfife 03:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Notability is not effectively asserted. I ran in an election once and got more votes than this dude, and I'm not notable. Bobanny 07:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. My cat could get more votes, and she's not even Canadian. Realkyhick 07:20, 24 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 10:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leslie Flint

Delete - stub article with no assertion of notablity. Otto4711 03:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:N. Philippe Beaudette 03:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete It doesn't take a whole lot of effort to at least claim notability, even if it's not. This one doesn't even bother. Bobanny 08:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete only link ref is her wesite. no effort has been made for this article--Zedco 12:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete I'm more notable than this guy Iridescenti 18:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I'm less notable than Iridescenti, but more notable than this guy. Realkyhick 07:22, 24 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 10:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phosphagen (dietary supplement)

"Advertisement masquerading as an article". The "article" does not establish notability other than being a brand of creatine. The information used to assert notability is unsourced, or is simply marketing that was used by the manufacturer itself about its own product. There is already two articles about creatine and creatine supplements. There isn't any need to have a separate article about one specific brand, and this article doesn't add or enhance the information already in the other creatine articles. Quarte t 03:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Obvious soapbox. Pablothegreat85 04:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect — to Creatine. Philippe Beaudette 04:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and not even appropriate for a redirect. Why should one commercial supplier's brand have a redirect.DGG 06:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete without redirect. Spam-ish. Realkyhick 07:22, 24 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 10:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Judy Singer

As far as I can tell she does not seem to be sufficiently notable to merit an encyclopaedia article. She has a website [5] has had pieces published in obscure books, and has given a couple of seminar paper to a limited audience, apart from that nothing. Zeraeph 03:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - not a notable academic. - Richard Cavell 04:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete — For notability, but I'd love to see the article sourced and notability proven. Philippe Beaudette 04:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable person--$UIT 04:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete She finished her honors thesis in 1998? I'm guessing she's not even finished her schooling yet, which is kind of important if her notability is based on her academic cred. Bobanny 08:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable enough.--Zedco 10:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Realkyhick 07:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete partly on the basis that she sells copies of her essays through her web site. Any notability would be as an activist and founder of ASpar. Certainly not as an academic--none of her various essays are published in professional sources. Nor tis there any evidence that she intends an academic career. DGG 01:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Judy Singer coined the word neurodiversity which has 224000 google hits [6] and neurotypical which has 69000 google hits [7]. I'd consider someone noteworthy after inventing largely used words. Q0 15:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I wonder if a merge and/or redirect to neurodiversity could work? Q0 15:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
CommentAre there any verifiable sources that establish she created the term at all? --Zeraeph 23:44, 25 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) 21:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1-san

A character created on a message board which doesn't seem to be verifiable or having. There was a VFD 2 years ago here. Seems like if some sort of reliable source was available on the subject, it would've been noted already. There's already a mention of it in the 2ch article and I don't think this passes WP:ATT on its own so delete. Wickethewok 21:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 23:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. There are two books on 2ch AA characters commercially available that I know of (both in Japanese). Shift_JIS art lists both in its further reading section. Those should be considered reliable sources. Also, this nomination does not say what has changed (presumably for the worse) since the previous nomination, which resulted in a keep. — Gwalla | Talk 03:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Consesus can change and the article was still entirely unsourced and unnecessary. Wickethewok 04:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 12:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Richard Cavell 03:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete I've read over both the article and the previous deletion discussion, and I understand the arguments that led to the "keep" result. It might be notable, its totally out of my field of interest or expertise so I don't know, but the problem is it has no sources at all and therefore is deletable as original research. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Tractor kings fan 20:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
If this is notable, someone with knowledge of the subject should be able to come up with references to prove it. Delete if that hasn't happened by the time this AfD expires. --Selket ^Talk 01:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- References are the aforementioned books, and the corresponding article on Japanese Wikipedia: ja:1さん. — Gwalla | Talk 05:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. SakotGrimshine 18:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Ok I fixed the reference for the Japanese wiki as for some reason it was not showing up. I also added a few external links to flash pages with videos of 1-san and a small Java (i think its Java anyway) game. I am not sure what the policy on foreign language Wikipedia pages as references is but I hope this helps. I am not a huge fan of this character or anything, I'd just prefer to expand an article than to delete it if I can. Cheers, Colincbn 13:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I also just added the actual ASCII art in question. I feel it adds a bit to the article and as it is obviously not copyrighted I don't think there is a problem there. Colincbn 13:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't know why I am spending so much time on this (maybe be cause he's so darn cute) but I added some "see also" pages and a few more links. I would like to cite some more references but they are all in Japanese. I also did a bit of clean up. I hope this is enough to qualify as a "keepable" article now. If not I would appreciate a push in the right direction. Just let me know what is needed and I will try to find it before this AfD runs its course. I would hate to be wasting my time, however I have a bad feeling that that is exactly what I am doing. but, meh. Thanks, Colincbn 16:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I added the two books mentioned above to the References section. I will put in the actual page numbers of >>1-san's entry soon.Colincbn 09:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - sources have now been provided. It also seems a reasonable content fork of 2channel. While that article is not terribly long, merging would unbalance it. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep There are plenty of references for 2ch characters it's just that none of you can read them. Here is a list of 2ch characters on the Japanese wiki list of 2Ch ascii art characters whereas English wiki has 3, Giko Cat and Shii-chan. I'm not suggesting that English wiki should just copy from other language wikis, but there is ample evidence that it exists. Check google for 1さん (in Japanese) and you'll thousands of hits. Here is another flash of him 1さん love Brettr 11:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Four, actually. Monā also has an article. — Gwalla | Talk 06:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep for reasons of geographic/cultural balance. 38.100.34.2 22:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete (or merge into the forum it's from if anybody feels like it). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:21, 29 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. --bainer (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle Pike

Essential recreation of the contents of the now-deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle Frontier article. Very minor areas in the Pokemon universe. Very few, if any, secondary sources to elevate said articles above stub status. Also listing these articles:

Battle Dome (Pokémon)
Battle Arena
Battle Factory
Battle Pyramid
Battle Palace

I would normally merge them into one article, but as said article was deleted through AFD, I am listing them here instead. Hbdragon88 04:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - they're not a recreation. They're all-new text by a new author. The articles are therefore not speediable. Having said that, it's clearly gamecruft. - Richard Cavell 04:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete — Cruft. Philippe Beaudette 04:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Battle Dome is about the TV show, I think you mean Battle Dome (Pokémon). TJ Spyke 04:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Fixed. Hbdragon88 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge We can just merg this article into Pokémon (anime)#Pokémon: Battle Frontier. Af648 05:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete all - no assertion of real world context, fails WP:FICT. MER-C 07:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - this is what happenes when AFDs go awry -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- request - I had originally asked that the orginal deleted article be moved to my userspace but that never happened, i'd like to ask if the closing admin of this AFD could do me the favor. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria
Merge with Pokemon Emerald#Battle Frontier--222.155.143.54 03:55, 30 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 10:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tales of a Spida

Good Lord, I hardly know where to begin with this. It looks like Thouze (talk · contribs) basically went around and created a walled garden of assorted articles. I was going to speedy delete them, but there's so many that I figured bundling them in an AfD would be better, just on the off chance they're legit. Anyway, I believe this, and each of the following articles, do not meet WP:ATT or WP:MUSIC.

Soldier Side (Showstoppa single) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Lights Out (song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
K-9's (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Dreamz of Reality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Sick in the Head (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
The Acapella Show:Rapper's Decisions(EP) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nothing Better (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Living In The Fastlane (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Wafulz 04:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete all NN albums/songs. TJ Spyke 04:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
D-leta dem-all and add these to the list if it's not too late:

War Zone (Make It Hot) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Man of Steel (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Dakota II (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Hip Hop, Don't Stop (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Bobanny 08:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is what I did. MER-C 11:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete all per above. MER-C 11:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete all, fails WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki 14:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per nomination --Mhking 15:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
DELETE ALL per nom. Ward3001 22:17, 24 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 10:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armstrong Rhinofloor

Not Encyclopedic.Djbaniel 04:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment fixed nom. cab 05:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete for being an unencylopaedic recitation of an obscure advertising campaign for a non-notable floor covering product. Eddie.willers 05:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete trivia. Bobanny 08:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - advertising campaigns may achieve notability but this one doesn't. Otto4711 21:02, 24 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 10:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northern California-Southern California rivalry

Primarily unsourced original research. Also no coherent theme or purpose. Gateman1997 05:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Refs have nothing to do with the subject of the page. The comparison of political data is inherently original research, and seems unrelated to sports rivalries. Should we have articles for every intraregional rivalry? South Jersey vs. North Jersey, Manhattan vs. Staten Island, Upper East Side vs. Upper West Side, etc. etc. etc.? Feeeshboy 05:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. That there is a strong division in terms of political and social ideologies between North and South California is fairly beyond questioning. That they do not see eye to eye on every topic and some sort of "rivalry" exists is also fairly obvious. Even more blatant, however, is the fact that this is completely WP:OR and should be deleted. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, an article on the rivalry itself is not notable as this sort of regional division is common in larger states; e.g. New York has New York City and Upstate New York, but we don't have a "New York City-Upstate New York rivalry" article. Cover some of the salient beefs in one or the other article. -- Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a clear case of WP:OR. --Dennisthe2 22:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete wow! Selket ^Talk 01:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice. There are actually a number of newspaper stores and articles (and cartoons) about this, but the article makes no attempt to look for them. The article could be usefully redone when someone wants to do a proper article. As for the NY State analogy, there are articles for both New York City secession and Upstate New York statehood movement.DGG 02:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Obvious nonsense. Artaxiad 21:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete It should be obvious that this should be deleted. --Eric Bekins 02:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep as convention of Category:Regional rivalries. Article might be poor, but topic is notable. Kevlar67 02:38, 27 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Professor Burp's Bubbleworks

Original research, non-notable, POV. And badly written, if this fairground ride even deserves an article, this isn't it. Croxley 05:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete for being a non-notable ride in an obscure fairground in a backward country. Eddie.willers 05:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised no-one's pulled you on that comment yet. WP:CIVIL. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

- Aaaah...but I have a secret defence that makes such a comment unassailable - I'm really a limey! Eddie.willers 01:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Non notable? It was a flagship attraction. Obscure fairground? is one of the most popular in the London Area. Backward Country? Bah! It is come back in another form according to the chessington website so Keep and re-write. Bjrobinson 10:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Chessington World of Adventures, where it's already mentioned. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per my remarks on Beastie's AfD. Does everyone have a grudge against rollercoasters and porn stars today? - Iridescenti 18:15, 23 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Thing and Bad Thing

I'm struggling to find the words to say. This article just seems so stupid. They're just common words that happen to end up said together, how does that warrant an article? What next? articles for good boy, good time, and good job? In technical terms, the article seems to be nothing more than dictdefs and an impossible to prove ~~entomology~~ etymology. I mean can you seriously prove who the first person to use the term "good thing" was? SeizureDog 05:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Unless I'm missing something here. How the has this survived for 5 YEARS? That's a Bad Thing. Deleting it would be a Good Thing. Croxley 05:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment They were originally four separate articles, an AFD debate a year ago merged them all in here. Hbdragon88 05:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Unsourced, ORy. MaxSem 06:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete.Deleting this would be a good thing, keeping it would be a bad thing. Am I using them correctly? Bobanny 08:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge to 1066 and All That per Sjakkalle. Even if this is reworked, it still amounts to a usage guide entry. Merging would also add to the significance of 1066 and All That in that article, which is currently pretty slim. Bobanny 17:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect or merge to 1066 and All That, which is the book these phrases came from. The terms are in broad usage, and probably of some etymological interest, but I'll agree that the lack of sourcing is a Bad Thing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - this appears to depend heavily on the Jargon File - all four terms have entries there and the bicycle couriers joke is 'borrowed' with only a little updating for changed technology. The article needs sourcing and rewriting to survive. -- BPMullins | Talk 13:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Note that the result of a prior AfD led directly to the creation of this article. Nothing really has changed since then. Not sure what this has to do with entomology, but I do believe that 1066 and All That is in fact the source of these phrases, since that book uses them frequently as vague, conclusory value judgments on all sorts of historical events (and that's the joke). - Smerdis of Tlön 14:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Smerdis. I think the last AfD got it wrong. It would be better to have a single article under the title Bad Thing, covering all four terms and with the other three redirecting there. Add citations to the Jargon File which provides the support for 1066 and All That as the source and things will be neater. -- BPMullins | Talk 15:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete it Delete it hard. 4kinnel 17:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to 1066_and_All_That. The phrase as discussed here is fairly commonly used in this specific sense in the UK, particularly in the music press, but I can't see anyone thinking to search for it as an article. - Iridescenti 18:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Is sounds like WP:OR. I have heard the phrase used as "A Good Thing and [A] Bad Thing" or "A Good Thing [or A] Bad Thing". I think this page is kind of useless as a search would not end up there. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep (or in the worst case transwiki), phrase(s) used relatively often, not quite clear without knowing the background.--Ioannes Pragensis 22:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and all other delete votes. The fact that a previous AFD resulted in the creation of this nonsense is immaterial. Consensus can change so if consensus turns against this junk, good. Or should I say Good Thing? Otto4711 21:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
keep per Ioannes Pragensis reason and per all other keep votes reasoningOo7565 21:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak, weaker, weakest delete Using capitals is a means towards the end of creating expressive language in a textual environment. It is an important thing. I use "Good Thing" all the time in digital communication. BUT....Wikipedia is not The Jargon File. News of this Thing belongs there. Ezratrumpet 03:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to 1066_and_All_That per Iridescenti. Mike Christie (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The article is still a bit of a mess, but it is not inherently unsuitable, "Original Research" about "common words that happen to end up said together", and all that. I would support a rename to simply Good Thing: those who say that the combination title would never be searched for are probably right; it is not common. I think, however, that a merge to 1066 could lose other uses. Best, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
keep - I've actually come across this article while surfing Wikipedia in the past... or, rather, the previous article that got merged as a result of the previous AfD. AfD closers should think more about what they're doing before finalizing a decision - this one's now resulted in a rolling delete. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep (or move to good thing). Incoming links show that it is a common enough term in talk pages, and so notable outside Wikipedia in peoples expressions of opinion. It is more than a dictionary etymology, and needs to be explained encyclopedicly. But it shouldn't unbalance the 1066 and all that article. --Audiovideo 20:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Per nom. It was only upon reading this AFD that I realised that the article wasn't a joke. Or maybe it is and it hasn't been noticed yet. Suriel1981 23:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Clean Up. This could be a good article with a little work put into it. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 04:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru 08:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Camels

Incomplete afd. Anon gave "see Wikipedia:Notability (music)" as the nomination reason. I have no opinion. --- RockMFR 06:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete. Doesn't look notable to me, though they mention getting some radio play and working on an obscure soundtrack. Needs sources. Bobanny 08:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete I can't find any articles on these guys. They aren't even listed on AMG either. If there are published articles on them I'd reconsider. --W.marsh 13:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep seem to be reasonably well established and notable within their subgenre & area even if not to a wider audience. I've written plenty of articles on bands less notable than this which no-one's had a problem with. - Iridescenti 22:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
keep per User:Iridescenti - they would probably fail Wikipedia:Notability (music), but I've always felt that the criterion there is too stringent and arbitrary. Wikipedia:Notability (music) admits that it only lists rules of thumb, anyway. However, it really seems to fail WP:ATT and WP:V, and the article should certainly have been tagged for a major cleanup. I almost want to vote delete, but won't because to be fair you'd pretty much have to delete most other indie band articles. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
delete - Article fails WP:ATT and WP:V, no independent sources (ooh - a MySpace page!), and if you read the page history you see a user named TimtheCamel did all the editing. To me, this now smells like a vanity page slightly disguised to make it not read like a press kit. I'd happily change my vote if anyone proves notability, though. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:46, 31 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. Punkmorten 13:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ruddleston

Obviously a vanity article. 黒雲 21:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --- RockMFR 06:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. It's only four words. I'm not sure which combination of Wikipedia guidelines to cite. Bobanny 08:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. very interesting article, spent ages reading it. alot of time and effert gone into it. deleeeeeeeeeete!--Zedco 10:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as NN surname, can be neither a dab nor redirect page.--Tikiwont 10:30, 23 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 10:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allen Maier

Incomplete nom. Appears to be an entirely non-notable musician. --- RockMFR 06:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete non-notable. Bobanny 08:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete its pathetic. not notable--Zedco 12:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete (can't see any reason for speedy though), and I don't think anyone would miss its parent article Dropping Daylight either. - Iridescenti 18:21, 23 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dmitry Kuzmin

Not notable. Completely unknown in Russia as a poet. Hasn't published a single collection of poems, nor has he poems published in any major Russian magazine. He has mostly published his ARTICLES and TRANSLATIONS from American poetry. I have no problems with him being gay but he is listed here as a well-known poet, which he isn't. Far from it. It is hard to understand how come this article has been here that long. Don't confuse him with Mikhail Kuzmin, the prominent Russian poet of the beginning of the 20th century who well deserves to be listed in Wikipedia (incidentally, Mikhail Kuzmin was also Homosexual). The only claim for notability is the Andrey Bely Prize for his contribution as an ORGANISER of literary events. Come on, if we start listing all the organisers of poetry evenings as great poets, this will be the end of WikipediaWickedPetya 06:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess the new User:WickedPetya wants this afd [8]. My own feeling are neutral wikipedia can live without this article, but addition of this article does not harm it in any way `Alex Bakharev 06:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: WickedPetya added a new nomination to the end of the first; moving his text here. —Cel ithemis 06:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

link to first AFD

Keep has an entry in Russian wiki - [9]. Catchpole 11:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: He has, indeed, and it is very critical of him. Quoting from there: "Dmitry Kuzmin is a former administrator of Russian Wikipedia (January 2006 - August 2006). He was banned from Wikipedia in August 2006 by the Arbitrary Board of Russian Wikipedia for repetedly offending writers and abusing his power as administrator. Several cases resulted in court cases against Dmirty Kuzmin". Further on, Russian Wiki says: "Many prominent Russian critics described him as untalented writer, notably Dmitry Bykov, Mikhail Kotomin, and Marina Kulakova. Dmitry Bykov calls his work "a schoolboy's poetry". In the quoted article the critic goes on to say that there's no point in discussing Dmitry Kuzmin, as this man only wrote a few poems lacking any glimpse of originality, and hasn't published anything significant yet. He hasn't authored even one book. WickedPetya 22:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep for the same reasons he was kept the first time, but I want to add that the way he is quoted in this German article, suggests he was rather notable in 2001. Once notable, always notable - was that not the rule? It is true that Google does not tell the correct story when you google for "Dmitry Kuzmin" (there are others with that name, but he is also named Dimitri Kuzmin, Dmitri Vladimirovitch Kuzmin, ...) but when I google in Cyrillic for "Кузьмин Дмитрий Владимирович " -wiki -Караваев and "Кузьмин Дмитрий Владимирович " -wiki -Караваев (excluding Wikipedia and another older poet with the same name, I get 561 googles. More than a few other people that have an article here. --Pan Gerwazy 12:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I made a mistake here. Of course, one of the googles should be for "Дмитрий Владимирович Кузьмин " -wiki -Караваев. Bad copy paste. --Pan Gerwazy 23:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Disregard this! The German article is not about Dmitry Kuzmin. He is only mentioned briefly as "poet and critic Dmitry Kuzmin", that's all. He is NOT quoted in the article. The man quoted in that paragraph is Jewgeny Gorny, a reputable philologist who comments on the Russian Internet literature, and not on Kuzmin. Anyone who has German can check it up in the article. Any claim of Kuzmin's notability on these grounds is simply not on.WickedPetya 22:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment This is a German journalist interviewing Jewgeny Gorny and asking him out of the blue what he thinks about Dmitry Kuzmin's ideas about Russian literature and the internet. The name Kuzmin is thus mentioned three times in the article. In other words, if Jewgeny Gorny is deemed reputable, in the journalist's eyes Kuzmin is as reputable. This is proof that in 2001 people outside Russia and the former Soviet Union knew about him. Once reputable, always reputable. --Pan Gerwazy 23:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment:Google hits for Dmitry Kuzmin: 2 (two!) In Russian, "Кузьмин Дмитрий Владимирович": 15 (fifteen!). Pan Gerwazy comes up with 561 hits, however he counts the hits for everybody by the name Kuzmin, which is one of the most common names in Russia. This man is Kuzmin Dmitry Vladimirovich, but Pan Gerwazy counts the links also for Kuzmin Dmitry Valerievich, Dmitry Sergeevich, Dmitry Nikolaevich, etc. What have they got to do with our man? WickedPetya 22:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    - "Answer: everything. Have a good look at my quote - if you put the three names together between quotation marks, you cannot find what WickedPetya claims, because someone like Kuzmin Dmitry Valerievich will not show up. Note that my googles also exclude Wikipedia mirrors and a guy who by sheer coincidence happens to share the three same names, but who in order to be distinguished from our man, nowadays gets "Караваев" (Karavayev or Karavaev") added to his name. So that WickedPetya understands what I am talking about, I add the two links (we need two links, because there are two main ways of ordering the names):

[10] and[11] Add his pseudonym, which also nets more googles than the 15 the nominator claims: [12]--Pan Gerwazy 23:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete But is he notable for the english wiki? I can't see how. And is there confusion with his name? Let him stay in the russian wiki where it'll serve the most good. --Zedco 12:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Notability is not affected by language or nationality. -- Black Falcon 20:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Seems to be a journalist listed among poets. Garcia-Fons 22:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a sock-puppet, whose only edits have been today, to a string of AfDs. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - we just had an AFD yesterday for this article, and the consensus was keep. Why is this article being nominated again so soon? That's not how this process works. --Haemo 00:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Because it is a "strong delete" case. Don't know what Caligula made this horse a senator, but it shall be removed, and it will be, sooner or later. WickedPetya 11:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- The previous AFD was actually last May. It was mistakenly relisted for a while yesterday, until I removed it. —Cel ithemis 00:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Tentative keep. Kevin Moss, editor of an English-language anthology of Russian gay verse, writes: "A few serious gay writers have appeared on the Russian literary scene as well. Among these, the most noteworthy are poets Dmitry Kuzmin and Yaroslav Mogutin, and Alexei Rybikov..." (p. 759 of ISBN 0-815-31880-4) So it appears he has some importance (as a big fish in a small pond perhaps, but even so). There may not be enough English-language sources to write much of an article, but sources don't have to be in English. His history with the Russian Wikipedia is neither here nor there, really. —Cel ithemis 01:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep A poet can be chiefly notable as a translator. . I accept the view above as being a big fish in a little pond, and that is sufficient. We should not be second guessing the quality of his verse--or indeed of his translations. The ru WP article shows him to be a notably difficult literateur, but that's still notable. DGG 07:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: He might be a translator, but he isn't prolific, nor is he notable - none of his translations were published in book-form. One thing is quite clear: this man isn't a notable poet. Where are his books? His publications in reputable magazines? This pond you're talking about looks more like a puddle, and the smell coming from it isn't very enjoyable. You also talk about the quality of his verse - have you read them? I have (it was hard to find work of this "notable poet", though.) My teenage students write much better, I can assure you. So why is this article here, in the first place? What an amazing string of biased 'keep's!! WickedPetya 11:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete Not notable. I've checked the provided links. The nominator is right: there isn't any significant publication of his poetry in Russia. Badvibes101 15:12, 26 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 redirect to List of Doctor Who robots#Clockwork Droids. WjBscribe 06:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clockwork Droids

Delete - non-notable entities appearing in a single episode of a TV show. Otto4711 06:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - List_of_Doctor_Who_robots#Clockwork_Droids is sufficient. If the droids appear regularly in forthcoming series, the article can be reinstated but if they're a one off, List_of_Doctor_Who_robots#Clockwork_Droids is all we need. Waggers 11:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to List_of_Doctor_Who_robots#Clockwork_Droids then? Plausible search term/link and we are covering this topic somewhere. Why obfuscate by removing the link? --W.marsh 13:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to List_of_Doctor_Who_robots#Clockwork_Droids. Absolutely no need for their own article, but they're referred to as "Clockwork Droids" enough that someone might reasonably search for it. --Brian Olsen 16:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect via TARDIS to the dimension known as List_of_Doctor_Who_robots#Clockwork_Droids, until such time as recurring appearances and significant story actions require a separate article. -- Dhartung | Talk 21:12, 23 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 11:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hard Edge Core

months old neologism, article placed on talk page instead of article itself... Chris 06:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. "Hard Edge Core was started in late 2006/ early 2007 by Matt Waltman and Greg Espenlaub at Pine Creek High School in Colorado Springs, Colorado." Classic example of something made up in school one day. —Cel ithemis 07:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete article admits it's something made up in school one day. - Iridescenti 18:23, 23 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 11:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intricate Unit

non-notable band Nardman1 07:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Also co-nominating

Lycaon(musician) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
M-Dizz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Ben Kopec (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Nardman1 07:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Understandably the members of this band may not require pages as there is not alot of information available on them, however, the band itself is quite noteable, having been active for nearly a decade, having toured regionally, put out multiple albums under their own label, and having worked collaboratively with multiple artists and organizations. In addition the band surfaces on multiple pages in results listed through google and yahoo, when searched for respecively. Slaughterhouseo1 11:18EST, 23 March 2007
Delete unless there's at least the vaguest assertion of notability on there by the end of this AfD; at the moment from the article their biggest claim to fame seems to be being so bad that a crowd threw bottles at them. - Iridescenti 18:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - no sources which either assert or support notability for this band. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure the image on the page violates the image guidelines. (Not the content; the jiggling) --Haemo 00:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Need to have toured nationally, put out albums on a major label and have some significant media coverage - none of which this band has. -Nv8200p talk 21:51, 27 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 unverified notability through reliable sources unrelated to the actress in question. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hannah Hobley

Previously deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Hobley. Two articles: one says that Hannah Hobley is an actress who plays Chantelle Garvey, the other says that Chantelle Garvey is a character played by Hannah Hobley. And that, literally, is it. No evidence that this (very young) actress has achieved multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. These, and one-liners on a couple of other characters, are the only work of the user who created them. Previous versions have been created by the actress herself, which invites suspicion when an SPA is the creator this time round. Guy (Help!) 07:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is considerable evidence that this actress has achieved mulitiple coverage. As well as her IMDB entry, just do a Google search on her name and there are umpteen references to the actress and the character she plays in online TV magazines such as the Radio Times etc. The ITV and Tiger Aspect websites have both references and pictures of her also. What has her age got to do with anything?!! Also interesing to note that Guy has proposed deletion of Chantelle Garvey but none of the other characters from the Benidorm TV series - why? Benidorm has been a very popular TV series in the UK and it concerns me that someone from the USA decides to try and discredit an accurate and verifiable Wikipedia entry on a British actressFspinner 11:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)This user has made no contributions other than to this article. --Zedco 12:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

SO why are there no reliable sources cited in the article? IMDB is not evidenbce of notability, as it's user edited. Noised about on Teh Internets? Big fat hairy deal. I live in the UK, I have seen nothing about this actress yet. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

- Why would you not consider the ITV website and Tiger Aspect's website reliable sources?Fspinner 13:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)contribs) 13:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
Delete and request that nominator takes a look at all the links from the Benidorm entry (such as Geoff's mum). This is a walled garden and breaks notability, advertising and VAIN guidelines. Vizjim 11:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete ive just been lookin at the links. ive never heard of her. she aint notable by a long stretch an if we had people on here who get bit parts in the mass o tv stuff, the wiki might crash. even i had a bit part once. in the sckool play tho. but the teacher did video it.--Zedco 11:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
KeepThis actress is listed as a principal cast member on both the ITV and Tiger Aspect websites, so certainly not a 'bit part' actor and Benidorm is a major ITV sitcom which has been so successful that it has been recommissioned for a second seriesFspinner 14:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Could you define "major" in this context? Context being a Thursday broadcast slot at 10pm. Vizjim 14:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrtten by a BAFTA nominated writer and with a cast of well known British comedy actors and broadcast on the main ITV channel with peak viewing of over 5.5 million, that's how I would define 'major'Fspinner 14:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Whereas I would define major as having been described as major by reliable secondary sources. And I would also describe a significant actress as having been described as significant by reliable secondary sources. You can see where this is headed, can't you? And that's cast including not cast of well-known British comic actors (and Johnny Vegas, who must have a talent for something, I just haven't spotted what it is yet). Appearing in a show with big names does not make you a big name. Guy (Help!) 16:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I wasn't suggesting that this actress was a 'big name' and I was actually replying to a question about Benidorm the TV series , not the actress under discussion. I would say that being a principal cast member in an ITV1 show certainly is notable under Wikipedia rules and those rules don't require you to be a 'big name' actor to be worthy of a wikipedia article. I notice you haven't replied to my questions about why the ITV website and Tiger Aspect website are not (in your opinion) good enough to be considered as reliable secondary sources. Oh and you also haven't responded to my question about you mentioning her age. I wonder, are you a frustrated performer of some kind? You can see where I'm heading with this can't you? Fspinner 16:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Umm, towards breaking the WP:ATTACK rules? Vizjim 00:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep She played a major character on a major (albeit IMO terrible) show on the biggest channel in the UK - I can't see why this was AfD'd in the first place. - Iridescenti 18:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Two things first, speedy keep is an invalid !vote here; second, who says major character? Not the reliable secondary sources (of which none are cited in the article). The major parts are listed in the article for the show. Who says major show? The time slot says otherwise. And even that is not actually relevant: has she been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources? No? Fails WP:N. Yes? Cite them in the article, it gets kept. Simple. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment "The time slot says otherwise" - Huh? Benidorm was on at 10pm, generally ITV's highest-rating slot after 7-8pm (which contains Coronation Street and Emmerdale) - and had to go out after 9pm at any case due to the UK's watershed rules. Not saying it wasn't an awful programme but it was certainly a major one, given that it was flavour-of-the-month Johnny Vegas's first mainstream sitcom; the only issue is whether her part in it is enough to make her notable given her lack of other experience. IMO the fact that ITV lists her as one of the main credits on their website is enough to make her so, even if the article does need a huge fleshing-out. - Iridescenti 22:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Guy, are you actually saying that this actress is not notable because of her show's 10pm timeslot?? Besides a timeslot being an absurd argument, I'll remind you that ER was the most watched show in television history... and that was a 10pm show. --Oakshade 17:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete purely based on the fact that the article isn't sourced at the moment, if those appear then fine, keep it. At the moment, another example of "was in a TV programme". EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep on more or less the same grounds--I think it is clear that it is sourcable. But the one to keep is the one on the actress. The character is covered adequately in the article about the show, and that article should be deleted.DGG 07:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Hannah Hobley and no opinion on Chantelle Garvey - Principle cast member on popular national TV show. The show has become more popular since the last AfD. (And why is this in the "Places and transportation" catagory? - UPDATE: Just corrected this.--Oakshade 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)) --Oakshade 21:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep this person is very notable.--Matrix17 14:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete No evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A reminder on what is written about actor's notability

Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, and television personalities
- Have appeared in well-known films, stage plays, television, and other productions.

This actress has appeared in a well-known television production. This fact is supported by the ITV website, the TV programme's own website, the (highly prestigeous)production company's website, where she is listed as 'main talent'. The ITV press website list her previous performance credits also. This item should not have been listed for afd in the first placeFspinner 12:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please read the text above that, which states The following criteria make it likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person. People who satisfy at least one of these criteria may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. This article should not have been created in the first place. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

People who satisfy at least one of these criteria may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them Well I would say that she does have a good deal of verifiable information available about her e.g. the aforementioned reliable websites but I guess we're not going to agree on thisFspinner 13:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The sources are not independent, please provide independent sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Not independent of what?!!! They certainly are independent of the actress. I could understand you saying this if I was citing her personal website but no way can you say that she's not independent of those websites Fspinner 13:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Not independent of her, obviously. Companies she works for are not independent sources. Please show us where the "good deal of verifiable information" is, at the moment it stands at two sentences. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect, I think you misunderstand the workings of the television business. She does not work for ITV. In this instance, ITV is a network that transmits a programme that she is in. Neither does she work for Tiger Aspect. Most actors are self-employed and effectively sell their services. What's confusing is that some actors are in fact salaried and do work for ITV. A good example of this would be the actors who are regular characters on Coronation Street and are on the ITV payroll. So when you consider this, it is totally reasonable to say that the websites I have listed do represent independent, verifiable and reliable sources. There are pictures of her, in character, on three of the websites and she is listed by name also. The ITV Press website has background information about her. Incidentally, it's generally accepted that 'bit part' actors can generally be identified by actors credits that list their role as 'man at bustop' or by the character just having a first name Fspinner 13:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, I don't. She appears in a TV show for ITV, produced by a production company. Neither ITV or the production company are independent sources, it's not difficult to work out. Even ignoring that, the sources are trivial, as evidenced by the "good deal" of information being a laughable two sentences. We're trying to create an encylopedia, not a directory of every two-bit struggling actor/actress that there's absolutely zero public interest in. Google search ignoring IMDB, Myspace and Wikipedia returns a grand total of 39 unique hits, so there's no interest. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

two-bit struggling actor/actress - well talk about you insisting on verifiable secondary sources!.... you hardly have any proof that this actress is 'two bit' or 'struggling', so there was no need to say that really was there? Anyway, good to see that you confirmed that she appears in an ITV show. Incidentally I disagree with your google search analysis. There are considerable number of hits from TV listings and laughable two sentences?, you obviously haven't read the ITV press release with her biog have you? Fspinner 14:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment If you take the time to read what I said, I did not describe Hobley as two bit or struggling, so kindly refrain from making false accusations. You disagree with my Google search analysis? What do you disagree with? The 39 unique hits? The lack of any non-trivial reliable sources in those 39 hits? The fact that all TV guides generally say is her name and that she appears in the show? I have not read the ITV press release given that the link to it is not in the article or on this page to the best of my knowledge, but that does not change the fact that the article is two sentences long. So perhaps you might like to improve the article instead of arguing over guidelines and policies which you seem rather oblivious to? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

We're trying to create an encylopedia, not a directory of every two-bit struggling actor/actress that there's absolutely zero public interest in. .....well, I thought that read pretty much like you were implying that this was what you considered this actress to be and it's there in black and white for others to judge but, hey, you've said you didn't describe her as such, so that's fair enough. I certainly don't want you to think I've been making false accusations about you Fspinner 15:18, 31 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Break.com

Non-notable website which reads like an advertisement. Delete Real96 07:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

* Delete clearly an advertisement/spam ZBrannigan 07:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Veteran Wiki Archivist 07:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)This user has made no contributions other than to the AfD of this article. Real96 09:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Real96 The deletion policy is clear when it states "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion". Also, What are you stating here? Because (Veteran Wika Archivist) is a "new" user he is not right in what he is/was doing? This user saw the need to edit this page, as it was obviously compiled by somebody within Break.com (with all the self back patting within its content). You have only been with us a few months yourself. This should never have been marked for deletion when only a clean up was necessary. I will recommend to Wiki admin that new members be restricted in these processes in future.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pollyfodder (talk • contribs) 19:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Veteran Wika Archivist 18:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Response to the statement above regarding my contributions. I have been with Wikipedia for over 3 years and due to the nature of the recent amendments I have made to the Break.com page, am unable to use my real username without exposing myself to Break.com. Hence, my commitment to Wikipedia has spanned longer than a few months! I believe in telling both sides of a story for TRUE historical value! The Break.com page was nothing more than an advertisement before my amendments, and now reflect the true Break.com. Wikipedia has always been about ACCURACY, TRUTH and FACT! we cannot and MUST not show bias as editors!

A fine example of the bias I am refering to can be seen on the Peter Beattie page. This page is obviously edited by one of Mr Beatties 150 strong media entourage as it only reflects the few achievements of the Beattie government, not the current woes faced by Queensland under his rule. Editors need to have a very close look at this page. Whenever any of us try to ammend this page our work is undone within a matter of hours. Is this what Wikipedia is about? NO! Please have a good think about this. When you get to my age you will appreciate my concerns.

Recent amendments I have added to this page have shown this site up for what it really is. I agree, it was originally an advertisement probably set up by an employee of break.com, but now amongst the original self "back patting" the truths are coming out, thus, I strongly recomend we leave it in here. may teach them a valuable lesson! There are more to come! I also suggest that whilst these truths have been exposed, the page should be LOCKED. I also suggest Wikipedia barr the IP of the person who originally submitted this advertisement/spam from this page.

Delete its like an ad and is self promo. dont agree keepin it, this is an encyclpedia not a fun chat room. the truths about the site can go elsewhere.--Zedco 11:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Veteran Wiki Archivist 18:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Yes it was an advertisement/spam which is why I edited it. Break.com has always portrayed itself as a squeaky clean site for kids. My recent modifications to this advertisement/spam has exposed this site for what it really is. Parents also need to know these truths to prevent their children from entering this site.
Delete - This is a non-notable website. Also, the article is written with a very unecyclopedic tone to it. Unless there are sources that can confirm its notoriety, it does not merit inclusion.--Cyrus Andiron ^t/_c 14:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Website seems to have crossed into notability[13], but needs substantial Cleanup, especially NPOV. Citicat 15:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, obvious spam; violates WP:SPAM --Mhking 15:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Non-notable? Spam? These users must not know anyone that works in an office with a computer. Break.com is one of 3 premiere "workplace diversion" media sites,(Break.com, Thatvideosite.com, eBaumsworld.com) albeit the riskiest of the 3(frequently unfiltered adult-oriented content). It is very notable, (though not my personal favourite). I agree with the "badly written" comment, but that can be redone easily. I don't see how it qualifies for deletion. Cleanup is needed.--Lostcause365 17:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Does not meet WP:WEB but has page views regularly exceeding 1,000,000 ("Views" are listed on each piece of content). If this goes then Collegehumor may as well go. Agree Cleanup is needed. Robbielatchford 18:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete under {{db-advert}}. - Iridescenti 18:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, over 1000 Google News Archive results, many likely usable to source the article. Frequently brought up as a YouTube competitor. Clearly one of the "breakout" casual humor/video websites. -- Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've done some cleanup, mainly removing all the internal links to various parts of the website, and some unrelated content such as websites (that you've never heard of) owned by the same company. There was also an obvious corporate turfing of many mentions of Break.com as "TMFT Enterprises LLC website Break.com", also removed. The article still needs references, though. -- Dhartung | Talk 07:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete. Probably shouldn't have been here Garcia-Fons 22:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a sock-puppet, whose only edits have been today, to a string of AfDs. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, total spam; violates WP:SPAM Prester John 23:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep The content is sourceable and is encyclopedic. It by no means serves as an advertisement, and I can well understand the reticence of Veteran Wiki Archivist. Alexa ranks are in my opinion not good for much but showing significance of sites like this is one of the things they are good for, for there isnt much other way to select out the real losers. DGG 07:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete due to lack of independent reliable sources proving notability. Most of article is unsourced and OR. I hope closing admin disregards the SPAs. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep agree with DGG. Alexa rank of 73 in the US is a strong indicator of notability. I think many of the comments here reflect an anti-commercial bias. Describing a company and its products is not necessarily advertising or spam. As far as the tone, I don't think it is any worse than the average WP article--sure it could be improved, but it does not deserve some of the overly negative comments registered above. Dhaluza 23:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, notable. Everyking 05:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
KEEP A clean up was warranted but most of the content seems fine now. I cannot understand the removal of the "culture section" within the last 24 hours. There have been a few unnecessary deletes within the last 72 hours. I have edited several sections and have left explanatory notes. I have also locked the page and recommend that this be finalised withing 24 hours, will mention this to Wiki Admin. Totally aggree with Veteran Wiki Archivist, accuracy, honesty and truth are paramount if Wiki is to remain credible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pollyfodder (talk • contribs) 19:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
Keep per the vast amount of non-trivial news coverage and exceedingly high Alexa ranking, not to mention content deals with the likes of NBC Universal and Showtime. Too many single purpose accounts and WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes here to stomach. Burntsauce 20:30, 29 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 11:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gxportal

Non-notable software, no assertion of notability. Contested prod. MER-C 07:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - only external links are to sites affiliated with the software, so no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:N. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 10:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete -- agreed; borderline advert -- Selket ^Talk 01:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Advertisement possible spam. Artaxiad 21:19, 25 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 11:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mister Iraq and related articles

Non-notable male pageant. Can't seem to find any reliable sources that verify the claims made about the contest, so it fails WP:A. Also reads incredibly like a press release or an advertisement, both violations of WP:SOAPBOX. Also nominating Miss Iraq for the same reasons as it's male counterpart (unattributed and written like an advertisement), as well as two further articles noted below. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - no independent sources are provided to establish notability per WP:N. Also possible WP:COI issues, as the author is User:Mriraq. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 10:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete theres no indipendent refs and does read like an ad. amazin that even the war didnt stop them? pity no pics tho!--Zedco 11:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete; violates WP:SPAM (and arguably WP:NONSENSE, but I won't quibble on that point) --Mhking 15:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Further searching of the creator's history find these other articles (both of which I'm tossing into this nomination):
- Talat Model Management (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), the company that supposedly runs the two pageants, and
- Iraqi Model Searches (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), a talent search run by the above company

Theses subjects both lack any independent reliable sources about them, meaning they also fail WP:A. A quick search of "Talat Model Management" brings up a Tripod page who cites the Wikipedia articles as sources for some of their content. Looks like a mini-walled garden being set up here. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 17:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete based mostly on interactions with Mriraq and his contributions to related pages: Miss Iraq and Claudia_Hanna. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete seems like nonsense. Artaxiad 21:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable and horribly written.--Sefringle 02:13, 26 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 11:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of types of clothing

There is already a category Cat:Types of clothing that has all these entries (I checked) and is much better organized and more comprehensive. Since there's really no commentary for the list, it's not adding anything. Calliopejen 07:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep - although the nominator's rationale makes sense (and generally I prefer categories to lists), I can't see a compelling policy argument for deleting it. It isn't inherently an indiscriminate or non-encyclopedic subject for a list, so it doesn't fall under WP:NOT. However, it does need rewriting with more commentary, and the criteria for inclusion need to be clarified. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 10:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This is more of an index than an encyclopedia entry, and contains almost nothing that isn't already in a category. Agent 86 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as something that is better handled by a category. --Dennisthe2 22:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, redundant to category. - PKM 06:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete sort them by categories less space easy better. Artaxiad 21:21, 25 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 11:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thalia festiny

Not notable. According to IMDb, she has only appeared in 42 movies, which by porn star standards is very low. Notable porn stars tend to have made over 100 movies Epbr123 08:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete CSD A7, no assertion of notability. I'd tag it myself, but I don't want an article about porn to appear in my contribs history. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 10:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you know that edits that are deleted do not appear in Special:Contributions? MER-C 11:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if the tag had been disputed and removed, or the overall result had been Keep, then it would have stayed there. I didn't want to risk that. I'm sorry, but it's personal; I have friends and acquaintances in RL who know my username and are perfectly capable of looking up my contribs. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete - A7. So tagged. MER-C 11:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Yet more porn stars trying to use wikipedia as advertising space to further their careers by looking notable. yawwwn and shes famos so soooooooon.--Zedco 11:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete; what's with all the porn stars flocking to WP? --Mhking 15:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Un-speedy~~ looking at her IMDB profile, she's got two magazine appearances:

"Hölgyvilág" (Hungary) 25 September 2000, Vol. 2, Iss. 39
"People en Español" (USA) December 1997 (cover)

Now, I have no idea what or how notable how notable "Hölgyvilág" is, because I'm not Hungarian. But being on the cover of People is pretty significant, no? I think she might pass WP:PORNBIO #3, but I'm not sure. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete no assertion of notability at all. Although it leaves me fascinated as to how much of a market there was for the movie "Perfect Feet". - Iridescenti 18:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Made an honest effort to find proof of notability. Couldn't. The nominator's methods and attitude have made this a much more reluctant vote than it should have been. Dekkappai 00:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wow. You mean she's never been in a magazine? Epbr123 00:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. While People coverage is generally a big deal, Disavian, I think in this case IMDB is wrong. Why would spanish language People magazine cover a Hungarian porn star? Instead, until further evidence to the contrary, I think whom People en Espanol actually covered was most probably just Thalía - "Grammy award winning Mexican singer". Not Thalia Festiny. TF has no coverage. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 06:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ahh, okay. I wondered about that. Note that I simply wanted it un-speedied. With your clarification, I think this one's worthy of a delete vote. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:08, 27 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 11:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buddha and the Seven Ascended Masters vs. Godzilla

Funny (a Godzilla movie made by a Reiki master and featuring transcendent themes and "copious nudity") but nevertheless a hoax. PROD was contested by author. Shunpiker 08:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please preserve this lovely hoax on BJAODN and then delete. —Cel ithemis 08:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, don't pass BJAODN, don't collect $200. A deliberate hoax needn't have such honour lavished on it. Resurgent insurgent 08:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as hoax, per comments above. Possibly preserve at WP:BJAODN at the discretion of the closing admin. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 10:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - hoax, this one really is complete bollocks. I love that essay. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete "The Seven Ascended Masters of Theosophy versus Godzilla"? I eagerly await the follow-ups: "Rudolf Steiner versus Rodan" and "Madame Blavatsky versus Mothra". Destroy all hoaxy monstercruft. --Folantin 11:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, but definitely save on WP:BJAODN; this made me laugh. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete since it is a non-important hoax, we needn't waste our time with this. Burntsauce 17:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 00:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I didn't laugh. --Haemo 00:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
worthy of BJAODN DGG 07:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete that was pretty funny! Move it to WP:BJAODN please. - Denny 02:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete made up name, or if there is a name add one appropriate one. Artaxiad 21:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
For God's sake, let's close this and delete it now. Everyking 04:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom; a search on imdb returns nothing.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catalina Cruz

Not notable. I don't think she even has an article in IMDb. Epbr123 08:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose deletion - The article Catalina Cruz should not be deleted as she is a notable porn actress and thus merits an article. What may be deleted though is the parallel article Catalina cruz -- fdewaele, 23 March 2007, 11:30.
Speedy Delete and Salt the earth; this page was deleted as a result of an earlier AfD; someone later recreated it and Catalina cruz. both should be deleted, and salted. --Mhking 15:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep appears to have a significant following as an internet-based porn model/actress and fellatio instructor. (That's almost odd enough to be notable by itself.) She has also appeared in a significant number of fitness magazines under the alias JennaZ. Both of these potentially satisfy WP:BIO for the special case of entertainers. LaMenta3 22:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think someone having their own porn website makes them notable unless its a notable website. Epbr123 23:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  - That's not what I said. She doesn't have an IMDB article because all of her work has either been in print or on the internet. The print work establishes her notability as a fitness model, as the magazines she posed for are relatively notable in their genre. She has a strong web presence with three separate sites which are mostly independent of each other. Her main website has been in existence and regularly updated for 5 years -- a long time for any website, let alone a porn website. This suggests that she has a rather significant following through this site if it has been able to sustain for so long. She also has a website where she offers video lessons and other resources teaching fellatio techniques and a non-spam/splog, regularly updated blog which makes references to her main website, but operates mostly independently of it.LaMenta3 02:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, she is a notable porn and fitness model.Kamui99 03:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per LaMenta3. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above. Artaxiad 21:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep notability meets porn actress requirements. —Ocatecir ^Talk 06:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep famous porn actress. Deleting articles kills wikipedia. --91.127.108.155 20:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC) — 91.127.108.155 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep per Lamenta3 while removing the unsourced material which tends to creep into these and similar articles. Burntsauce 17:22, 30 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. WjBscribe 02:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tia Bella

Not notable. According to IMDb, she has appeared in 25 porn movies but by porn star standards, that isn't particularly notable. She has appeared in a few porn magazines, but again that doesn't really make someone notable. Epbr123 08:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Yet more porn stars trying to use wikipedia as advertising space to further their careers by looking notable.they hav been busy 2day--Zedco 11:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Please do not make accusations about other Wikipedia editors such as this unless you are able to furnish proof that the person who created this article is Tia Bella. 23skidoo 14:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete; what's with all the porn star articles flocking to WP? --Mhking 15:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep The filmography in the article shows two releases named after her (WP:PORNBIO Q3), an the article also shows that she was on the cover of a magazine that is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article itself. This suggests the appearance in many other notable magazines, as this tends to be a prerequisite to getting on the cover of any notable magazine in any genre. So she also passes WP:BIO. I didn't even have to do work on this particular article before I voted keep, and with my history in these discussions that should say something as well. LaMenta3 21:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Note Nominator has significantly changed his nominating statement since the beginning of this discussion. LaMenta3 22:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Only thing I can add to LaMenta's discussion is the fact that the Doc Johnson company has issued an artificial vagina named and modeled after her. Multiple magazine and film appearances, plus a commercially available reproduction of one's privates? Now that's notable. Dekkappai 00:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wow...Dekkappai keep per me...isn't that kind of backward? ;) Actually, the most impressive part of this comment is that there's a commercially available reproduction of her privates. I'm rather amused by that... LaMenta3 03:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per artificial vagina. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per artificial vagina. RFerreira 05:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per artificial vagina. bbx 05:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep because its too funny not to add on to the "per the artificial vagina" bandwagon... I mean they did make it exactly like her. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep since she clearly fills a niche and thus is notable via WP:PORNBIO, is easily recognizable and although hasn't been in many films, many are notable. WP:V, WP:IAR, and P.S., artificial vagina. Xihr 06:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Which niche? Epbr123 21:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per the reasons expressed above, artificial vaginae notwithstanding. ;-) Burntsauce 20:14, 29 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 11:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skyy Black (porn star)

Not notable. Epbr123 08:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Yet more porn stars trying to use wikipedia as advertising space to further their careers by looking notable.--Zedco 11:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete; what's with all the porn star articles flocking to WP? --Mhking 15:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment While I happen to agree with this particular nom, they are in no way "flocking" to WP...many of the porn star articles up for AfD today were nominated by the same person within the span of a couple of hours as a suspected means of making a WP:POINT.LaMenta3 21:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Apparently promoters and fanciers of pornography have established a guideline WP:PORNBIO to create an easy route for promoting such performers via the high web presence of Wikipedia. This article has no independent sources at all, and thus should be deleted because it fails WP:ATT and WP:N. Edison 16:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- WP:PORNBIO is an established policy that is merely a clarification of WP:BIO given the unique aspects of that industry. It has been established over a long period of time, and is based on the results of innumerable AfDs. It's not some tool to promote porn stars, just like WP:MUSIC isn't a tool of the RIAA. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hate to say this, but... delete. haven't heard of her at all. George Leung 19:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete; For once, I agree with you, Epbr123. She's made 11 movies according to imdb, and there isn't anything written about her that I can find. I'd also like to point out that Skyy Black has been speedied five times and salted. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete and salt per Disavian. This is just an attempt at getting around the speedy/salt of the other namespace article. LaMenta3 21:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not sure about the Salting... Tried hard to find proof of notability, couldn't. Dekkappai 00:39, 24 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 11:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dharam Jit Jigyasu

This person's only claim to fame is that he was at Gandhi's side during the latter's shooting. There is a lack of coverage from independent, reliable sources per Google, which means this person is non-notable. [14] The CBS article referenced therein, as well as this article itself, were written by the grandson of the subject (see comment on IMage:Dharam Jit Jigyasu September 4 2004.jpg), and hence there is a conflict of interest. Resurgent insurgent 08:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete - ordinarily the CBS News article would count as external coverage in an independent source per WP:BIO, but the nominator claims that it was written by the grandson of the subject, which negates its value for the purpose of establishing notability. Delete unless further independent sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 10:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - doesn't seem to be much notable there, and it's all unreferenced. FiggyBee 06:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
weak delete unless sourced I think he is notable as a witness of such an event, but only if here is some other source. Surely there must be some Indian sources. They dont have to be in English, according to the rules,though translations of key passages would be good.DGG 07:39, 24 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 Nomination withdrawn. Epbr123 18:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anastasia Christ

~~Not notable.~~ Keep I admit she does seem to be prolific in the big bust genre. (Even though she's only a C cup). Epbr123 08:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Yet more porn actreses trying to use wikipedia as advertising space to further their careers by looking notable.--Zedco 11:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Please don't confuse the issue...this article does not to appear to have been created by the actress or anyone directly affiliated with her. LaMenta3 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep I've cleaned up and referenced this article a bit, and it appears that she has been in a large number of films (87 US releases and at least 26 European releases), which satisfies WP:PORNBIO Q2, and she appears to be rather prolific in both the big bust and anal subgenres. (Satisfies VC4)LaMenta3 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Number of films in a genre can contribute to a porn star's prolificness, and certainly more so than the Google test, which on its own is unquestionably invalid, but it does speak to both the size of an entertainer's fanbase/following (see WP:BIO) and the prolificness of their work and can be used in conjunction with more valid criteria of either WP:PORNBIO or WP:BIO to make a determination of whether they have a significant following and/or are prolific in any genre. This actress doesn't even seem to be prolific in porn in general, or anything else for that matter. I can't find anything about this actress other than her IMDB (and similar) profiles and some minor mentions/inclusions on spammish porn sites. She doesn't even have a website of her own. While even that is not an immediate grounds for inclusion/exclusion, again, it is a piece of evidence that needs to be looked at as a part of a whole. All of the sources in this article are IMDB (or similar) and while such sites may be used as sources in conjunction with other reliable sources, including the actress' own website, if she has one, as this is an article about a person and would be considered a primary source provided the information is neutral, and preferably at least one third-party reliable source, IMDB-ish sites alone are not acceptable as reliable sources. Epbr123 20:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Copy-pasting my EXACT wording from a different case where I voted delete, is not going to help prove your point. For that matter, you changed your nominating statement to keep this article after I had sourced it and cleaned it up, so plagiarizing my argument (which actually supports the keeping of this article as much as it supports deleting the other) in an attempt to use my words against me makes very little sense here. I make a good faith effort to expand upon and/or confirm the notability of EACH of the articles that I vote on in ANY AfD, especially in cases where it could go either way. From now on, please at least form an original argument instead of spamming AfDs with someone else's words. LaMenta3 22:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Well over 100 films, prolific in specific genres, article is well-sourced. Dekkappai 21:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Note The nominator has significantly edited his original nominating statement. Dekkappai 21:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close as the nominator has withdrawn and the delete vote was from an apparent single-purpose account. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:42, 24 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 14:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Otherwize

No references, reads like publicity material, does not assert notability, only one other article page links to it, very limited editing activity Croctotheface 08:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete - unsourced, so no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Delete unless sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 10:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep Strangely enough, I've heard of this rapper. However, his notability is not asserted in the article. Additionally, if the article does survive AFD, it is in need of cleanup in order to adhere to the biography standards. --Cyrus Andiron ^t/_c 14:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, but asserts notability. Can we get some sources of the notability? If yes, I'll change my mind. --Dennisthe2 22:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete Self promotion out da boootay. Also non notable; other rappers have beaten Eminem, which is the only real notable thing he has done. Delete this jive turkey. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:26, 24 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 after an overhaul. --Wafulz 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Emin Salla

This fellow won't go away. The first AfD debate was here. It was speedied five times subsequently. This isn't a recreation, so I'll leave it for people to judge. I remain concerned, as I was two years ago, that we're allowing a platform for a crank. Marskell 09:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Black Falcon 20:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete its self promo. looks a scary guy. is also a follower of ufos? you can tell hes done it himself. google comes up with sum intersting things. hes been busy self pomoting--Zedco 10:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete due to no evidence of notability per WP:PROF; all external sources are from his own website. Delete unless appropriate independent sources are added by the end of this AfD. Although I would also take issue with the comments above; the fact that he's a "crank" and a "scary guy" is not per se an argument for deletion. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 10:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that. To elaborate: I am worried that his reputable academic work could be used as a Trojan horse to allow for his crankish material to be given space on the site. Look at his awards and grants: he basically drops off the radar at the beginning of this decade—I'm assuming because he decided "the extraterrestrial presence" was more important than peace studies. And there's nothing particularly notable about his early work; a solid academic resume, but nothing that demands a Wiki page. Marskell 10:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- i agree with Marskell and i did not say he was a crank, just he looked scary, which was a personal opinion, that ok i maybe shoulnd hav said. but i do still think its self promo and 2 delete.--Zedco 11:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, plenty of publications and certainly worth keeping. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.65.123.206 (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Keep - I think it should be kept (no bias on my part towards his picture), it has good data and is a good start for a biography that can be improved upon (I have seen smaller biographies of scientist and yet they never get deleted? i wonder why hehe...) ... I don't feel there is any promotion going on here. Just keep the article b/c it is a good start biography that has the potential to be improved upon (:O) ... the video is a great proof of who he is -Nima Baghaei (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment the above user was the creator (and sole editor prior to this AfD) of the article. - Iridescenti 18:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

- A good start to a biography that will detail what? The seventeen alien races the general public isn't aware of? As I say, he's got a decent academic resume prior to his becoming a crackpot, but nothing in that early work suggests that a Wikipedia page is in order. And his exopolitics material can only be found on his own pages or other unreliable sites. Marskell 18:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 14:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep After checking out his books, awards won etc they are all genuine and I'd consider him notable in light of his previous career for the UN and USIP. Just because he has some - er - odd views doesn't mean he should be deleted, otherwise David Icke would need to go as well. Besides, he does seem to be a big name in the UFO community, to go by Google. - Iridescenti 18:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Blaggck. No one said his books aren't genuine. Publishing a book and being an academic is not the threshold for inclusion. I guess I'll stop at this... Marskell 19:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: i added a recent radio show he was interviewed on, on exopolitics (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Yes, looks like a crank to me too, but a notable one. Exopolitics...heehee. Bobanny 22:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete there are indeed claims of notability so that gets it around the speedy threat. Unless references can be cited to back up those claims, it should be deleted. --Selket ^Talk 01:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I just added some references and citation today and yesterday (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep The books are sufficient. The publication of four notable academic books by reputable publishers is more than enough notability. How to deal with his [present career is admittedly a problem. I suggest editing the lede to separate the two in distinct paragraphs. When a distinguished academic makes a fool of himself, he becomes if anything more notable, because really notable folly or even sharply unconventional views will certainly attract attention. It is certainly true that " one can be "worried that his reputable academic work could be used as a Trojan horse to allow for his crankish material to be given space on the site" but deleting the bio because of that looks a little like POV-pushing; there have been many AfDs here where the opponents of some view try to convince themselves that the notable exponents of it aren't really notable .DGG 03:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why are his books notable? Marskell 07:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the second and third and maybe the 4th are published by major reliable academic publishers. I cant say as much for the first.DGG

What I'd be interested in is independent reviews confirming the subject's notability. Simply publishing a book through a major publisher is not a notability claim, IMO. Ditto on his alien ideas. I'm sensible to the fact that kooky ideas, by virtue of their kookiness, may garner a response. Has any reliable source talked about this man? Perhaps the original author knows of some spots? Marskell 08:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added references and excerpts from the readily available reviews to the article.

His work for East Timor is also notable as a international politics in the practical sense service. And I really cannot decide whether his conversion to what most of us would judge as lunatic fringe social science, makes him more or less notable. To me, it makes him more notable. But I agree this is by no means a hard -and-fast judgment or an obvious decision. DGG 01:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for digging up reviews. I still tend toward "successful, but not exceptional" academic, but can see a contrary argument. His "conversion" only makes him more notable, IMO, if third parties have deemed it so. In the first AfD, an anon mentioned that he'd lost tenure; this, which actually supports the "lunatic fringe social science," notes he "lost his status at American University," which would be a kind of perverse, minor notability claim. Perhaps the university itself released something, but I can't find it. Marskell 14:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - i added yet another radio interview with jerry pippin (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - ok i just added a third radio interview with dolphinville radio (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep WP:PROF doesn't really apply since this guy is more notable for his post-academic "fringe" persona. His academic career wasn't especially notable but, along with Dr. Alfred Webre, he is recognized as a pioneer and leader in the dubious field of exopolitics. Along the lines of Tom van Flandern, this guy is a minor celebrity in a fringe field and meets the notability requirement. Irene Ringworm 19:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - i added a Washington Post interview citation! (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - i added two more citations from the United States Institute of Peace! (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - i just added the Career section (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - i just added the Coast to Coast AM as a reference (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - i just added a short video clip of him describing Exopolitics (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - i just added another radio interview that occurred yesterday (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

At the Hubble Space Telescope, we watch the universe; Down Under, universe watches us! ... Sorry, couldn't resist. Keep per the overhaul this article has experienced in recent days (see diff), including the addition of multiple sources. -- Black Falcon 20:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientists warning against anthropogenic global warming

The dreaded WP:NOT, in this case Wikipedia is not a list of quotations, which is all this article is at present. Created as a counter to Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, but before anyone uses this as a reason to keep see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This article can never be anything other than a list of names and quotations, since all the relevant science is located elsewhere on Wikipedia (Attribution of recent climate change, Global warming etc.) QmunkE 10:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Plus possible POV fork and violation of WP:SOAP. Very little content. Three out of the five quotations don't live up to the title of the page: they only show the quoted scientists believe in the existence of global warming, not that it is anthropogenic. --Folantin 11:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. A breach of WP:OR in its synthesis of information from a range of sources, presumably to push a particular POV. Dangerous triangulation of disconnected information from various sources. Snalwibma 12:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - just a vehicle for POV pushing and soapboxing. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - The POV arguments could be used for *any* article supporting either side of the global warming controversy (of which there are plenty, and none of them are under attack of being POV - or at least have survived them pretty well).

The main point for creating this was to have actual scientists' opinions, rather than just those of politicized organizations, like in Scientific opinion on climate change.

And just because the article is not complete yet (it IS labeled a Stub) shouldn't be a reason to delete it. --Brissbane 14:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC) (article creator)

If you feel it can be improved, please continue to do so. However, at present and for the reasons I have given above it fails to be anything more than a list of quotations, which is not something which constitutes a Wikipedia article. I don't make any judgements about the neutrality of the article, it is the content (present and future) which I take issue with and that is the reason I nominated it. QmunkE 14:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Articles are not supposed to support arguments, they are supposed to present them. If you feel an article is biased in its coverage of a subject, please take it up on the talk page of that article. QmunkE 14:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom and possible POV fork. ~ UBeR 16:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Grossly inaccurate in its present form, but that's a minor point compared to the fundamental unsuitability of the article. Raymond Arritt 16:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
delete - A good-faith attempt but I think misguided. Anything approaching a full list would be far too long; this will always be hopelessly incomplete and thus badly misleading William M. Connolley 17:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - it's impossible that a list like this can be anything but hopelessly incomplete, so hopelessly incomplete as to be severely misleading. Guettarda 21:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - In response to Brissbane's comment above, Scientific opinion on climate change mostly lists scientific organizations, not political ones, and that is the best way to present the state of the consensus. I can see the argument that individual scientists' opinions are worth including, but the right way to do that is to cite a survey (if one exists) rather than in effect attempting to do a survey by hand; that would be OR and doomed from the outset. The article listing skeptics is only possible because there are so few of them. However, I do appreciate the effort that went into creating the page on Brissbane's part. --Nethgirb 07:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete That's what I think too. The list will be much too longer, as anyone who can get press attention is likely to say something on the topic. . The other side is worth keeping so they don't get overlooked. For these, Wikiquote is the place. DGG 07:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- Noroton 18:54, 23 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon

This is just one of an infinite number of possible variations on the six degrees of separation game. It is completely arbitrary. Why Kevin Bacon, not Michael Caine or Warren Beatty or Patrick Stewart or any other randomly chosen actor? See the History section: plainly made up in school one day. This might just merit a short paragraph in Kevin Bacon, but that's about it. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep notable meme, plenty of reliable sources. Catchpole 11:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, has been the subject of many published articles in non-trivial sources. Vizjim 11:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, notable meme that is called Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon by many notable sources. 87.86.171.131 12:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter why Kevin Bacon was chosen or if he deserves it, the "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" thing is mentioned quite a bit in pop culture (even in Nature, apparently), with Kevin Bacon's name vastly more than any other actor. It's not Wikipedia's job to regulate whether pop culture memes are acceptable to our standards or not. If multiple reliable sources have covered them, we cover them. --W.marsh 13:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Arbitrary in the sense that the game didn't have to make use of Kevin Bacon, sure, but ever since it has, it has become a well-known and well-sourced pop culture meme. Tarc 13:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Certainly people could have fixated on Caine or Beatty or Stewart, but google it for Bacon, for Caine, for Warren Beatty, and for Patrick Stewart, in each case knocking-out the other three and Wikipedia. History, arbitrary or not, has produced a clustering around Bacon. Indeed, some might go so far as to suggest that this clustering has become more significant than talent in sustaining Bacon's career (such as it is). —SlamDiego 13:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep a rarity of rarities: a "meme" article that's notable and verifiable by reliable sources, and has remained notable for many years on end. The fact that it's been made into a published book is more than enough for me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, probably WP:SNOWBALL-able. I was actually introduced to the concept of "The Six Degrees of Seperation" as a variant of "The Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon". Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete- maybe add part of this article to the article on six degrees of separation, but there is absolutly no need for this subject to have its own page. Greatestrowerever 15:00, 23 March 2007 (GMT)
Keep - we also have Bacon number and even (save us) Erdős–Bacon number. We'll never know why Kevin Bacon, but there he is. -- BPMullins | Talk 15:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep; notable in and of itself, and the accepted source of where the phenomenon comes from (even though it was around longer than Kevin Bacon) --Mhking 15:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This is the name by which the concept is popularly known to the most people, and we could probably source it until this time next week. (Whee, and I'm one degree of separation from Kevin Bacon!) RGTraynor 16:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep and a potential WP:SNOW candidate here. Agree that while the choice of Kevin Bacon as the poster child for the concept was arbitrary, it was not an arbitrary decision on the part of editors here, it's just how the concept evolved! Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, there's already at least one reliable source referenced, and while we should have more references than that, the sheer number of possible reliable sources from Google News alone means that attributing this article should be easy. — Krimpet (talk/review) 17:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Surely this is a joke? When I think "Six degrees of..." the first thing that comes to mind is Kevin Bacon. Burntsauce 17:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep One of the most repeated memes on the planet. I'd assume that Mr. Bacon's large repertoire of films combined with his four-syllable full name are what's behind the seeming random choice, but it's out there. Alansohn 17:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep I see no reason to delete this article. Acalamari 18:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong & speedy keep this should never have been AfD'd, this was one of the best known phrases in the 1990s computing community & is still in common circulation. - Iridescenti 18:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. None of the other actors mentioned have oracles dedicated to the concept. --Myles Long 20:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep, big pop culture meme, and I have been surprised to find totally non-internettish people aware of the joke. -- Dhartung | Talk 21:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong WTF time to get your head examined keep ... like Myles says above... none of your other suggestions have an oracle dedicated to them. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Umm...just a guess, but "Kevin Bacon" is a good rhyme with "separation." Bobanny 22:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep and close. Why in blazes is this being AfD'd? --Dennisthe2 22:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep I can see why someone unfamiliar with the (rather bizarre) concept might think it not notable, but it plainly is. JuJube 00:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - this was the original "six degrees" meme. --Haemo 00:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and will someone close this please. -- Selket ^Talk 01:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep I can only surmise that the nominator does not understand the incredible ubiquity of this meme. I'd be surprised if anyone in the US under 75 didn't know of it, Net-savvy or not. This may be the most notable meme ever with hundreds upon hundreds of reliable third-party references and dozens of articles about it specifically. --Charlene 02:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Guy just thought that we needed a slight jolt to wake us up to-day. :-) —SlamDiego 04:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep, of course. c'mon Guy, srsly... FiggyBee 06:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - what the heck, I've always heard of this as the Kevin Bacon game, and was flabbergasted to know that other variations even exist (outside of MAD Magazine, that is). Yes, this is widespread enough. Just because something is made up in the school one day doesn't mean it may become one day notable; last I checked, it's just good practice to say "this is TMUISOD and can't escape its fate, but by all means, welcome back when it is notable". Sometimes it does happen. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, voicing in. It just happened to be Kevin Bacon, but this is the notable origin name.. MURGH ^disc. 10:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, although this feels like merely piling-on at this point. Generally, I'm very dubious about these so-called "Internet memes"—often just the fleeting ephemera of a disposable digital age that have been briefly subject to a flash crowd phenomenon—but this is one of the granddaddies of all Internet memes, and it has spread far beyond its digital roots! It's been around for nearly two decades and shows no signs of disappearing. At this point, it's probably more notable than the majority of Bacon's movies, and within a couple of decades, might be more notable than Bacon himself! :) Xtifr _tälk 19:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This wasn't especially smart, considering the game was the subject of an entire book published by the Penguin Group, not to mention 121 Amazon book references, and 112 at Google books. Oh, and 67 Google scholar mentions. I strongly suggest withdrawing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Guy, please seriously consider withdrawing this nomination. RFerreira 23:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, he's offline right now per his userpage. Also, checking the Oracle... --Charlene 00:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - It gets mentioned just about every single time he's interviewed for anything. Offhand it was specifically mentioned in his episode of Biography and by Conan O'Brien while interviewing Bacon on Late Night with Conan O'Brien. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 09:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Eh, that only says that it's important to Bacon. Other arguments above explain why it is worthy of its own entry. —SlamDiego 14:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Reply - I disagree; the fact that it gets brought up so much means it has national attention, making it notable. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    - The reason that you (actually) gave in your original comment only established that the 6° thing should be mentioned in the article on Bacon himself. Please note that I was one of the first to call for keeping the article, for reasons that I gave up above; but it is still appropriate for me to raise an objection to the argument that you gave. —SlamDiego 03:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Could some admin apply WP:SNOW here and close this out? 31-1 for Keep is about as overwhelming a consensus as you're ever likely to see. RGTraynor 13:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- WP:SNOW should not be applied here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  - And that would be because ... ? RGTraynor 13:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    - It would be inappropriate. JzG is paying attention, if he feels that he should withdraw his deletion suggestion, ~~then we can shut this down, not before~~, there may be a stronger case, but he's not the only one arguing deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
      - There is a difference between giving every dog its day and just wasting people's time. This is the latter. NeoFreak 13:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        WP:SNOW is dangerous, and should only be applied when the costs of allowing continuation are markèdly high. —SlamDiego 14:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        I don't agree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        There is nothing in WP:SNOW requiring the acquiescence of the nom in an AfD. RGTraynor 14:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        Well, there's nothing in WP:SNOW. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Subject of many non-trivial references in books, including an entire book mentioned above. David Letterman mentioned it when he hosted the Academy Awards. I can understand getting rid of some of the sillier made-up so-called "memes" on Wikipedia, but this is about as notable as they get. --Canley 15:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per most of the other arguments. Has someone also brought up the actual board game that was released? Definitely notable. TheRealFennShysa 15:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Very notable meme. - Denny 15:58, 26 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. Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neighbour Jones

NOTE: When the voting ends, please send me a message to my talk page about the results. Because this page is NOT on my watchlist. Thanks. TheBlazikenMaster 11:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Jones' only appearance is Donald Duck comics, and the only info you can get there is how much he hates Donald, doesn't deserve his own article. TheBlazikenMaster 11:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep The article right now is not really useful, but it could be improved. For instance one story he was in was banned and only first published in the 80's (originally made in the fifties). I will see if I can find some sources for that. Garion96 (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep notable Carl Barks-created character with 68 years of history. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

He might be notable, but does he have any appearance besides the Donald Duck comics? I'm a subscriber myself, and have watched some Donald-related TV shows, and Jones made no appearance. TheBlazikenMaster 17:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I know he appeared in both comic books and newspaper comic strips. I'm not sure whether the character was translated to animation (1952's "The New Neighbor" short uses another neighbour, Pete). Even if he appeared in print only, he has a long history and some worthy references, including Carl Barks and the Disney Comic Book: Unmasking the Myth of Modernity (ISBN 1578068584) and Carl Barks: Conversations (ISBN 1578065011). Also, this page gives his name in some of the foreign-language versions, so it might be possible to find even more sources under some of those. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was wrong to nominate this article for deletion then. But the article is now pathetic. There is only one section, no picture, few links. I will add a stub tag after the voting is over. TheBlazikenMaster 19:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep Notable character in a very influential comic, created by a very influential writer. - Iridescenti 18:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep important part of the Carl Barks universe.Dr bab 00:07, 25 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 all since they've been confirmed. --Wafulz 21:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] D.O.C. (Lost)

WP:CRYSTAL, unsourced Will 11:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Seems like a clear violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. And MySpace is not a source. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

~~*Delete all~~ Delete One of Us and DOC (and create articles once there's verifiable info from reliable sources). No verifiable info, most has no source, and the sources that are there are spoiler sites, which aren't RS. --Minderbinder 12:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Updated - if someone can find an ABC source on the others I'll change my vote on those as well. --Minderbinder 19:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete all, except for "One of Us". I found and added an official reference for the title. S e rgeantBolt (t,c) 17:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep D.O.C. and One of Us which have official confirmation and shouldn't even be here. Delete Catch-22 per Lost Wikiproject policies. --thedemonhog talk contributions 19:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A spoiler blog is hardly official confirmation. --Minderbinder 19:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In this case it is. Also, I change my vote to Keep all because of more official confirmation from ABC's updated program schedule. --thedemonhog talk contributions 03:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Dae Kim is an actor on the show and should be considered a verifiable source. The spoiler blog is linked to because Kim's myspace is set to private. ShadowUltra 20:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Myspace is not a reliable source, neither is a blog. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
What I'm trying to point out is that the source is Daniel Dae Kim, not MySpace. MySpace is simply the venue where he stated the information. If he stated it in his backyard, is his inanimate backyard the source? No, he is, because he said it. ShadowUltra 23:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep All. I can provide where i got the name titles and how i know the characters are being featured. These are ALL official. MySpace should however NOT be cited as reference, Just as a support. One of Us, D.O.C. and the REST are "CONFIRMED augrunt 06:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Confirmations

Catch-22' Confirmation - 02/28 - Source: Kristin on E!Online, Also featured on IMDB augrunt 06:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

One Of Us' Charlie is about to get caught by the fate that Desmond predicted. Through a series of flashbacks, we will find out more details about Juliet's life before and on the island. (Tv.com) Confirmation - http://imdb.com/title/tt0979597/ augrunt 06:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
D.O.C.' is ALSO on TV.com and IMDB... augrunt 06:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but the more I look into it, the MORE information I find that these titles are correct. I also have other sources. I can dive in further, but this is enough not to warrant these articles for deletion. augrunt 06:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right and you are wrong. The episodes have been confirmed, however the sources you have cited are not credible. You should have links to ABC Medianet's schedule grid and Daniel Dae Kim's blog. Also, read up on the Lost WikiProject's policy concerning future episodes. --thedemonhog talk contributions 08:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Lemme try to understand

Based on ABC, we know One of Us and Catch-22 are confirmed. The deletion tag should be removed. From Daniel Dae Kim, a cast member (therefore, he meets the Lost wikiproject's reliable source criteria) confirmed D.O.C. So, we should end this discussion. ShadowUltra 18:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a way of knowing for sure that the myspace page is really DDK's? --Minderbinder 19:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Just end this pointless discussion. All sources (if any) are reliable and add to the pile of evidence. The amount of "weight" a source carries is what is under review here. and If you want, i can dig up around 50 websites that offer that THESE are the titles. and like Minderbinder said, We already know One Of Us and Catch 22 "ARE" confirmed. Remove the tags, close this thread. and lets go our own ways. augrunt 03:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete: No official confirmation. -- Silva Storm

Uh, yeah there is. --thedemonhog talk contributions 00:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Daniel Dae Kim has cofirmed that this is his MySpace page on several occasions, on the Fuselage forum, and elsewhere. We can be fairly certain that all three titles are reasonable. Depressed Marvin 00:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep All, they all have reliable sources now. ~HJ ^[talk]@½ -03:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Strongest Keep All Possible, because 1) the article is interesting, 2) Lost is one of the highest rated shows on television, and 3) plenty of reputable references available. Sincerely, --164.107.223.217 02:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- ABC confirmed the title today. I don't feel like fetching the excel grid that revealed it. But it's up at ABCMedianet. ShadowUltra 03:19, 31 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. WjBscribe 08:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Bigger Bang Tour set lists

I think that this violates WP:NOT's provisions stating that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is also not a guide nor a fansite. And we already have a song list page, which lists all of the songs performed on the tour. This seems like overkill. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've found this page really useful to be honest - can't see how deleting it would be of any benefit - KEEP Cavie78 13:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete: I love the Stones, but this is a clear case of Wikipedia is not a directory. — Krimpet (talk/review) 18:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as it is a ridiculously long directory. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:39, 23 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 to Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork. WjBscribe 09:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and pork

Unnecessary article with almost no content. It is POV to single out Islam for this aspect of its dietary law when Judaism and other religious groups and cultures prohibit the consumption of pork as well. Islamic dietary laws already exists, and even that is unnecessary considering the existence of the halal articles. In general, I have noticed a tendency on Wikipedia to single out Islam for such things, even when they are not unique to Islam. Khorshid 11:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There's also the fact that it simply isn't an article - just a couple of bits of gossip and lots of requests for people to write an article on the subject. Either delete outright, or change to a redirect to Islamic dietary laws. Vizjim 11:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge There in another article about this issue (Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork) and we don't need to both of them. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - other articles already cover this. Metamagician3000 12:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Poor quality article. Looks like it might have been created as an unnecessary fork. As Metamagician says, this is already covered elsewhere on WP. --Folantin 12:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork --Mhking 15:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork; there tends to be a bit of attention paid in the United States to this particular facet of Islam -- read the links on the page -- and I was trying to give a voice to that, but as an article, I think this would be better developed in a large topic about dietary restrictions. --User:Crtrue 12:34, 23 March 2007 (EST)
merge anything relevant to Islamic dietary laws then delete. There is not enough content here to warrent an article.--Sefringle 17:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ it would be better to develop this article and have both Islamic dietary laws and Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork reference to it, rather than maintaining both updated when the other one has been modified. --FateClub 17:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Changing to Merge into Islamic dietary laws per below discussion. --FateClub 18:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Delete or redirect~~. Clearly an unecessary content fork, no need to keep it. A redirect to, say, Islamic dietary laws would also be acceptable. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought about that too, a redirect... but to which one? Islamic dietary laws or Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork? --FateClub 17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh-oh, this is bad. Turns out that the appropriate section in Islamic dietary laws simply directs us to Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork, which in turn directs us here to Islam and pork. I have to rescind my previous !vote and change it to a merge, as we can't have a redirect that references itself, and a simple delete would leave redlinks where information ought to be. Therefore I would propose merging any useful and verifiable information to the Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork article, as the first references it. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 19:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork. Garcia-Fons 22:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a sock-puppet, whose only edits have been today, to a string of AfDs. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, merging any appropriate content into wherever. Islamic dietary restrictions arguably should have an article; a particular aspect of them, not so much. -Amarkov moo! 23:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I dont know what the big deal was. We have Islam and alcohol as well. Nominator, can you please also nominate Islam and alcohol? I will leave you a message. --Matt57 01:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

CommentIslam and alcohol is one of the sub-articles of Islamic dietary laws. But in the case of pork it has two sub-articles and one them is excessive.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever it is, I will make sure Islam and Alcohol goes as well. They are both small stuff that should be mentioned within the dietry laws. Thats the reason why infact I made the Pork article. --Matt57 04:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I hate to tell you guys going for "merge" this, but there is literally nothing of value in this article to merge. The only two links are to a Google search for "pork + islam" and a blog (see WP:BLOG). So whats with people voting "merge"??? Weird. Khorshid 09:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, do not merge to anywhere - there is nothing worth merging. As it stands, the article is complete junk: completely POV and an OR essay. Right, I'm off to Saturday lunch. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, doesn't seem to be anything worth merging really.. ITAQALLAH 13:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 13:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete/Merge with Islamic dietary laws - not necessary to have an entire article dedicated to this - and there is currently no article per se anyway. Sfacets 13:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
keep and restore previously deleted content. --Striver - talk 22:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
delete, and merge the previously deleted content Striver mentions above into Islamic dietary laws - but redirect the title that gets left here to Islamic dietary laws, since I could certainly see someone typing "islam and pork" in the search box here. Striver, I think the content you point to above is great, but why fork it out of the Islamic dietary laws article in the first place? I'd rather see your content merged there and also into Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork, instead of floating off in this article where it obviously got deleted since. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:17, 31 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 redirect to Benidorm (TV series). WjBscribe 09:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mick Garvey

Article from single-purpose account about a single character in a minor British soap opera, Benidorm (TV series). Seems to break advertising and notability guidelines. Vizjim 11:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Benidorm is a major ITV sitcom which has been so successful that it has been recommissioned for a second series, so it's hardly a minor British Soap Opera is it?Fspinner 14:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Well, actually, if it's only had one series, yes it is a minor British soap. In fact it's not a soap, anyway, it's a sitcom, but delete the character or, if not, redirect to the show. Emeraude 14:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect the article, as well as Chantelle Garvey, Geoff Maltby a.k.a. The Oracle, Jacqueline Stewart and Janice Garvey to Benidorm (TV series). If it goes on to run for a load of series and the characters become notable individual articles can be restored but each character is, I suppose, a plausible search term, albeit with not enough to say for individual articles yet. Keresaspa 14:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete or redirect No point in a standalone article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:20, 31 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 as a violation of WP:OR. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of FRSs with public religious stances

ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody 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 amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

This list does not simply list Fellows of the Royal Society. It does not simply list, say, atheists. It does not simply list Christian apologists. It tries to synthesise information about people who fit into one category with what if anything they have said about religious matters, then does not simply list people who are both FRSs and willing to state their religious beliefs in public but also subcategorises them according to belief - all apparently to demonstrate some point (see the discussion on the talk page). This looks like someone's pet research project designed to push a point that they want to establish (apparently that most FRSs who have spoken up about religion have been favourable to it). Such an exercise is POV-pushing and inherently involves original research. Metamagician3000 10:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator, if there was any doubt of the outcome I'm seeking. Metamagician3000 11:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, for reasons explained by the nominator, and as discussed on the article's talk page. In brief, it's a matter of inescapable POV arising from the bias that is inherent in the methodology of such a list. Details here. Note that it is arguably quite a subtle and complex issue, and deserves some serious consideration. Please think about it and consider the issues before you add your opinion here. No knee-jerk reactions, please! Snalwibma 11:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep (as initial author). WP:LIST: "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." Making such a list cannot be considered WP:OR - if it were then all structured lists would be OR. I have no idea whether there will be more Atheists, Agnostics or Christians on this list - the intention is simply to present the information factually and without POV comment. When the people listed have their own articles which attribute religious positions in the articles (based on reliabile sources) additional refs seem superfluous, but can be provided if necessary. The fact that list A is not list B or C, or the possibility that people reading this list might draw conclusions which certain editors don't like, are not valid reasons for detetionNBeale 12:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - See also [15] in which it says "It'd be great if the Royal Society could find some way to emphasise that there is a wide spectrum of religious views in the society from (one) miliant atheist to (two) ordained priests and...". This list is clearly part of this same sentiment as the list was started by, and that blog entry was written by, the same person (i.e. NBeale). Ttiotsw 09:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Beyond the above entry indicated by Ttiotsw, the full blog is well worth reading for quality insight into the POV charges made here. --Plumbago 09:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment So far (24 March) the stated reasons for deletion below appear to be (a) that is it WP:OR "to demonstrate some point" or (b) that it is "pointless". The fact that the nominator and several other Editors opt for (a) demonstrates that it is not pointless. And if it is OR then so is every other structured list - such as eg this this and this which are all Featured Lists. NBeale 08:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

New Comments I've just found that a List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society has been in Wikipedia since 2005. If the "delete" arguments here were valid, that list should not be there. Dawkins cites an unpublished survey of FRS's religious opinions in TDG p101. NBeale 07:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

On those two specific points: (1) Go and look at List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society and see if you can spot the difference! (2) Dawkins is entitled to say what he likes in his own book - he is expressing his own opinions - but here the whole point is to avoid expressing your own opinions. Snalwibma 07:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I have no problem with a list of Jewish fellows unless it was then further grouped so instead of being alphabetical it was further sorted by what religion they were. For instance Harold_Kroto is simply listed under K whereas you would have him under "Atheist". It is this further separation that is when the WP:OR kicks in. The list also includes dead people; on this list we're talking about you have repeatedly said that dead people are not eligible for entry for some weird reason. Ttiotsw 07:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment NBeale misses the point completely. The lists he shows are facts and inclusion is unequivocal - either they are or they aren't. For this list there is subjectivity (the font from which OR spills) as the term "public religious stances" could be interpreted many ways - could just attending church regularly be taken as a "public religious stance"? Sophia 09:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Tks Sophia. If that's the problem let's clarify (rename if necessary) that the "stance" is that recorded in their WP Article (based on reliable sources)- hence no OR here. NBeale 10:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment NBeale also fails to point out that the lists he uses as examples i.e. List of HIV-positive people fails to include HIV-negative people, and that the List of Dartmouth College alumni fails to include other College alumni and that the List of Ohio county name etymologies doesn't include other counties. I'm all for a list of religious stances but atheism isn't a religious stance. To be religious it has to have a belief in and worship of a supernatural entity (or entities and they need not be a "god" in the theist sense e.g. Buddhists). Dawkins (the target of this article) as far as I know is approaching this scientifically and it's misleading to call this stance a "religious stance". These stances are comparing apples and oranges. Ttiotsw 10:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This list is pointless and misleading. The fact that the only justification anyone has given for the list is to "dispel popular misconceptions" betrays the initial author's agenda.

As others have noted, the list will never reflect what "top scientists" believe since it can only include the tiny minority who have chosen to publicly discuss their religious beliefs. It's better to have no list at all than a hopelessly misleading list.

There's plenty of good survey data out there about what scientists think of religion and other supernatural beliefs. Better to present these data than to conduct our own sloppy, inaccurate survey. Sideshow Bob Roberts 13:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I can see why you don't like this list, and think it might be "misleading", but how does this ammount to a reason for deletion according to WikiPedia policies??NBeale 14:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - that is the whole point. The list is misleading. The entire methodology of compiling this list is seriously biased. See article talk page for full explanation. Snalwibma 13:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Metamagician3000. Mikker ^(...) 14:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete As per nom. An arbitrary subject - why the Royal Society and not some other organisation (e.g. Chelsea Football Club)? And, on a personal level, I object to atheism being described as a religious stance - I think that, in itself, demonstrates the POV of the article! Emeraude 14:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete FRS has nothing to do with personal stances on any topic other than their own field of science. Most biologists would naturally be atheists. Physicists tend to lean towards other possibilities due partly to inconsistencies in current theory but even that would probably have little to do with religion as religious leaders might want one to believe. Shyamal 14:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

comment “Most biologists would naturally be atheists”--that's about as POV as they come :-) Freederick 09:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom and Snalwibma (and second the concerns of Emeraude). Anville 16:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nominator and Snalwibma. I really don't see what useful purpose this list achieves beyond editor NBeale's interest in separating science from atheism à la Alister McGrath's dispute with Richard Dawkins. --Plumbago 18:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom -Barte 20:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom Garcia-Fons 23:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a sock-puppet, whose only edits have been today, to a string of AfDs. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Gillyweed 05:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep I seem to be almost alone, but--I would have said delete if it were FRSs by religion. But FRSs do tsomer of them take specifically religious public stances, and it is not OR to find out, because they will only belong here if obvious. It is further relevant, because most of the make specific use of the status as FRS when expressing religious views, or when others use the as examples: these are cases where both the status and the religion is clearly discernible. I personally do not care how tit will balance out -- I think that the majority wont think it worthwhile or appropriate to talk about their religion, so its not a poll. Obviously the categories will get more refined as the numbers increase. DGG 07:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete as this list can be automatically generated through categories. I am also confident to state that it is also simply created for the purpose of showing the extent of disbelief in FRS. It is thus a synthesis of information. Why next we'll be AfD'ing a List of FRSs with public sexuality stances as homosexuality is usually targetted along with atheists by the same groups of people. Ttiotsw 08:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I've added more "humanists". I'm using the term "stance" to include what someone sponsors e.g. the secular, rationalist and humanist association promotion or support is taking a stance. Ttiotsw 11:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ttiotsw. That's exactly what this list is for, and greatly adds to its value IMHO. NBeale 16:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Use categories - this will be an OR minefield if not deleted. Sophia 08:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment' a random intersection such as this makes a very poor basis for a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment We'll I've tried to make a category as suggested but there seems to be an emerging consensus that this is not the way to do it. Balanced list avoids OR and is NPOV in my view NBeale 13:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. To address NBeale's points, I will say that this is WP:OR, a clear synthesis, and while it is obviously intended to make a point, it is, nevertheless, pointless. FRS is arbitrary and "religious stances" is vague. Why not a list of CoE Bishops with "public scientific stances"? Xtifr _tälk 20:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and xftr as OR synthesis, with no useful purpose other than trying to accumulate info for to support some partisan point. If this information was thought to serve a purpose, then to avoid being misleading it would need to be more discursive and nuanced, to distinguish between such variants as someone who says that he attends a Catholic church every christmas and Easter, someone who is an actively proselytising evangelical, and to allow for adequate discussion of people who change their religious stance.
The footnote in the article also says bizarrely that the article "is restricted to living FRSs because you cannot reliably determine the religious stance of a person who had died!", which is such a serious misunderstanding of WP:RS that the reliability of the whole article has to be rejected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment the point is that people's religious stances can change. Anthony Flew was one of the world's leading atheist philosophers - now he is a theist. If someone is dead there is unlikely to be any evidence what their present religious stance is. I also point out that this is a list not a normal article - such a discursive discussion would not belong in a list at all. NBeale 05:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply Nbeale, the list is called "List of FRSs with public religious stances", not "List of FRSs with current public religious stances", and the only reference to it being for "current" FRSs in a footnote. That lack of confusion about the list's scope doesn't enhance its credibility.
Your defence here is based on claiming a purpose for the list other than what this stated in the article, which again undermines credibility.
In any case a list such as this will have constant changing content, as new FRSs are appointed and old ones die, as well as the changes in religious stance you have just instanced. So the list you describe here is journalistic rather than encyclopedic: it does not consist of durable knowledge. What is the encyclopedic logic for judging that the religious stance of someone is notable when they are alive but becomes non-notable when they die? See WP:NN#Notability_is_generally_permanent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Many of these people claim their status as FRS to give weight to their views on religious belief. The point of an institution such as the Royal Society is that its fellows speak for both themselves and the Academy to which they belong. Given that science v religious faith is one of the great fault lines of modern thinking, this list is valuable and should be kept, added to and improved. Laura H S 08:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Laura H S (talk · contribs) has a particular attachment to AfDs of articles created by NBeale. --Merzul 20:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep This list is valid, verified information, and breaks no Wikipedia policies. What use anyone wants to make of it is their business, not Wikipedia's. Nobody is pushing any partisan points here, and the contents of the talk page is not a valid criterion for judging an article. If this was a less controversial topic (e.g. the public stance taken on homosexuality, as opposed to religion) would there be as much opposition? Yes, the public positions of the fellows can change in time; the article would simply have to be updated accordingly. I also object to the point made that the list would have to be "more discursive and nuanced". That would raise the specter of introducing a POV. Freederick 09:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality, as an alternate example, is not illegal in the UK any more (unlike a few years ago whereby Christians would support chemically altering sexuality of homosexuals) whereas it could be argued that a certain public support or stance on religion is still illegal. The still-extant UK Blasphemy laws only protect Christians and could (albeit unlikely) be used to imprison or cause hardship to those who highlight some of the more ludicrous nonsense promoted by Christians. To make a fair comparison you need to identify some human characteristic in which only 1 group is protected. Within religion, obviously women are discriminated against so that's a good candidate. The Catholic church actively rejects the equality of women with men, as does the Church of England and pretty much any other Christian organisation which fits under the papal thumb. I'm not, but wow a women atheist is screwed all ways by Christianity.

In the end my concerns are that we need not consider atheism or humanism to be a religion and thus not a religious belief but there does seem a drive towards equating the two for this list. Theism is about belief in a particular supernatural entity whereas atheism usually precludes this. It would be like having a list of astronomers with a stance of "aliens" and though implication that some support SETI equate this with a belief (or not) in UFOs. One side is an outright belief in "Area 51" nonsense and the other is a more scientific approach based on probabilities. With normal people this isn't an issue but FRS it is; the Christian FRS effectively believe in the existence of a supernatural being but cannot present any proof of this (or these) entities. Science, schmience. Ttiotsw 19:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think this gives a very good indication of (a) why this list is useful and (b) why some editors with a strongly atheistic POV want to supress it. NBeale 21:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. OR minefield and POV-pushing. Gnusmas 09:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Having a list based on well-refed info in the articles on these people cannot be considered OR. And there is no rational basis to describe a broadly balanced list of theists and atheists as "POV pushing". WP:POV cited says "Some contributors to Wikipedia misuse the term POV, taking it to be the antithesis of "NPOV", implying that a particular article or passage is affected by an editor's point of view. This is not what the term POV means, and should be avoided...Recall Larry Sanger's prescription that Wikipedia should describe all major points of view, when treating controversial subjects." NBeale 12:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - isn't it precisely because it's a controversial subject that its methods must be above reproach? Part of the problem, as I see it, is that the list is doomed to failure because of insurmountable bias in the sources of information. You cannot get at the information you need for most of the people who might be included (whether or not they are alive!), and the likelihood of having the information is likely to be influenced by the stance of the person, producing seriously skewed data. Snalwibma 14:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep The goal of the list does not appear to identify the scope of each persons religious or areligious belief. That information should be left for the individual to self-identify (ex Rees self-identifies) in a public capacity. If other names need to be added to columns, let this happen. The journalism "bias" suggested above is naturally favored against religious theism than say humanism. Over time, a useful list of scientific peoples who have SELF-IDENTIFIED religious or areligious views will be available with accompanying sources. The point is clear--there are a large number of theists who are scientists. This information may have nuances that are difficult to quantify but it does not necessitate deletion. Beginning the list by posting various Royal Society fellows is a decent place to start. This could be extended to anyone wanting to do the research from other academic scientific bodies who have self-identified. Under the wikipedia rules there seems little reason to delete such content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclaugb (talk • contribs) .

Mclaugb (talk · contribs) is another dedicated member of NBeale's fanclub. They haven't missed an AfD since the argument from love. Such dedication! --Merzul 20:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
delete Seems all roads lead to NBeale, I came here from Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community_discussion#Clarify NOR, where this is rightfully discussed as a textbook example of WP:SYNT.That this article needs a footnote telling editors to be careful is also a good sign this is a bad idea. --Merzul 20:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep While the format could use some work, the basic idea seems reasonable, if one assumes that the relationship between science and religion is worth debate. The FRS qualifier is objective, and as long as the public stance in question is verifiable, I don't see a problem with this, as long as people are willing to contribute to the list.hajjiwallah 00:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

hajjiwallah (talk · contribs) -- Welcome to Wikipedia, interesting first edit. --Merzul 01:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: note to potential sockpuppets/meatpuppets, write "hi", "hello world" or something else on your user page before you make your first edit. That way, seasoned editors won't spot you straightaway by the colour of your signature. ;-) Cheers, --Plumbago 08:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Duly noted. As for the topic, seemed interesting enough to merit discussion, and the above represents an accurate summary of my position. --hajjiwallah 01:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep I do not agree that there are grounds to delete this article since it is an accurate list and people are able to contribute to it Peter.Mash (talk · contribs)

Comment: now, what did I just say? Another interesting first edit ... --Plumbago 09:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Not sure how Plumbago's comment is relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.mash (talk • contribs)

Comment - I think Plumbago is making it clear that this is the first ever edit by Peter.mash on wikipedia, and suggesting that a review of this AfD should take account of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Snalwibma 09:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Comment: strictly speaking, my comment was entirely facetious. Following on from Merzul's earlier remarks, I was commenting on the remarkable number of first-time editors here. By the way, I was most amused to see that you've added a place holder to your user page (cf. my earlier comment). Who says people don't listen on Wikipedia? Cheers, --Plumbago 09:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Well I have to start somewhere! Peter.mash 18:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - true but what attracted you to this article out of the 1.6 Million or so on Wikipedia especially given the esoteric nature of the subject. Given that in good faith there is probably a high interest in this specific subject do you have any views on if the stance of dead FRS can be added to the list ? Please use the article talk page here.Ttiotsw 22:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as OR by synthesis. And a can of worms: are we to have lists or categories for every pairwise combination of characteristics? List of popes by whether they are left-handed, right-handed, or ambidextrous? List of cheeses by color? Ok, maybe that's a strawman, but there needs to be some argument why this particular combination of categories is both notable and sourcable. And by sourcable, I mean a reliable source for the notability of the subject of the list, not so much individual sources for the individual list members. —David Eppstein 02:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment The idea that you can only have a list if the list has been mentioned in a reliable source is, I think, mistaken. By the criteria proposed by the deleters here this list is "blatant OR" and should be deleted, but it's a featured list. FRSs who comment on science and religion often do so as "X FRS" as do organisations like the Faraday Institute and the British Humanist Association when listing their supporters, and there are about 104k ghits. Most comment on Dawkins and Polkinghorne mentions their FRS status. See also Dawkins citation noted above. NBeale 06:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment but the two lists are not comparable as, for example, the Ohio county names are not then grouped by say potato production. I am happy to have a list of FRS who have mentioned religion (probably all have in their careers so fail to see what this would add) but the WP:OR synthesis is to then group them by religious belief or worldview and also stretching the limit as to what is deemed a religion by adding what are clearly not deemed to be religions by authorities to the list, namely "atheist". Ttiotsw 07:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise proposal What about a "List of FRSs who public endorse theistic or atheistic organisations" which is pretty much what this list is in fact? NBeale 12:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Simple answer: No. Snalwibma 12:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It might not meet your objection but it seems to meet all the others. NBeale 13:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. No it doesn't. Snalwibma 14:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Another answer: No. I object to the simplistic view on the relationship between science and religion that list will imply. I object to the idea of using people in this way, ignoring their nuanced views on the matter. How does counting heads help us improve the quality of the discourse on religion when it entirely trivializes the matter? Has somebody argued that the large number of FSRs who publicly endorse theistic organizations is relevant, then that person should be cited saying so on our article about religion and science. We don't need to create new primary source material to contribute to this debate. --Merzul 14:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

And how do you propose to define a "theistic or atheistic organisation", and how do you define "endorse"? - but this is getting really silly, so I'll stop adding comments. Bye! Snalwibma 14:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm. I agree that the religion and science contains the underlying debate, and is ultimately where any such conclusions should reside. This article includes several "x% of scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of deities" statements, including a qualification of leading scientists based on their membership of a national organisation. Whether this is a good thing is open to debate (and I take it that you think it isn't, based on your above comment?) but similar information - using a different scientific academy - would seem to be equally relevant.--hajjiwallah 02:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It might be relevant if someone else had already done a survey and there was a reliable source that we could cite for the results. But if we are trying to put together bits of information from here and there to carry out, in effect, our own survey, that is a (poorly-designed) research project of our own, which is forbidden by NOR. As David Eppstein says below, if the article (or list) is trying to derive that kind information for the purpose you describe, it just confirms how much its construction is an exercise in original research. Metamagician3000 06:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My position is that WP should not be usable as a source for other people to say that x% of FRS's are religious, or atheists, or whatever. Because if a WP article were the best source for such a factoid, that article would clearly be original research. —David Eppstein 03:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think this is the reason for the creation of this list. Or, rather, not so much to create a list for percentage purposes, but more to say "hey - look at all these non-atheist [sic] scientists!". Classic argument from authority stuff. As such, both POV and OR. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments (a) the inferences that people may draw from properly refed facts are not a reason for declaring the article POV. (b) A simple List of Christian FRSs must be OK because there is already a List of Jewish FRSs so if this article is deleted all that happens is that the handful of public atheists get removed - is that what you really want? (c) Obviously this list says nothing about the % of FRSs who are Christian/Atheist whatever - no doubt many FRSs not on this list have private views on the subject. (d) This list is no more OR than any other list that has not already been published elsewhere, consequently if this is list is OR then so are almost all the other WikiPedia lists. NBeale 14:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

While I don't personally think the List of Jewish FRSs was a very good idea for a list, it has survived a rather weakly argued AfD. I guess if you had started this as a simple list of Christian FRSs, at least my objections would no longer apply. And I think most people wouldn't mind, except if you somehow manage to include a very subtle attack on a certain "militant atheist" :P Funny how we have to go through AfDs before these things become compliant. If I may refer to some of you aptly named friends, why don't you think-it-through before you create a page, instead of thinking-it-through during the AfD? ;) --Merzul 19:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. Main reasons to delete are POV concerns and the lack of a sufficient reason for such a list to exist -- that is, there is nothing inherently encyclopaedic about such a list. The fact of public assertion of a religious stance is certainly encyclopaedic and that information should be included in each individual's article. I also think some category or list identifying religious position could be encyclopaedic, though I'd have to think about any specific case; it's just that restricting this to FRSs is too specific. Mike Christie (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The notion that this information is important to be presented in this manner is original synthesis, violation of WP:SYN. The list appears to be a violation of WP:POINT as well, as the author points out the purpose of the list is "dispelling popular misconceptions".[16] NBeale, you have a blog. Please use it. That's the appropriate outlet for your POV. — coel acan — 14:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I don't think this list is unsalvageably original research. If it truly only lists individuals who have made public their religious stance, it is inherently attributable. As it currently stands, however, it violates WP:BLP (only one source when dozens of persons are listed). I was surprised to discover that List of Fellows of the Royal Society is not yet an article. If it ever becomes one, perhaps religion could be noted there (although there is probably more important information that could be included, such as dates of birth and death, nationality, subject specialisation, year of election as a Fellow, and so on). -- Black Falcon 20:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was AfD withdrawn by nominator. Newyorkbrad 01:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timothy Noah

This was previously nominated here, and was speedy kept for less than valid reasons. Still fails WP:NOTE. Look at the refs, all the sources are himself talking about himself. NPR picked up the story at one point, but this is only a blurb leading to his colomn again. Fails "multiple independent sources". Done nothing notable besides blast Wikipedia for notability. Let's have a good discussion about this before Noah finds out and screws Wikipedia process up again. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 12:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawing nom now that someone actually stopped whining 'but he is notable' and dug up some sources. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 01:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: AfD should not be used to prod for sourcing. When someone or something is obviously notable, it's probably better to just tag it and be patient. It is less disruptive, and avoids unnecessary whining. Dhaluza 01:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep per . . . myself in the last discussion. · j e r s y k o talk · 12:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep and urge considering another snowball speedy. Our article could frankly be stronger, but Noah is a well-known columnist who has written memorably for many years on major subjects for a number of prominent publications. Beyond that, although I am sure this is a good-faith nomination and not a WP:POINT violation, there comes a point where seeking to delete a prominent but harmless article like this one goes beyond obeisance to process and risks putting Wikipedia in a position close to self-parody. Newyorkbrad 13:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Prominent? The problems are grounded in the fact that the source for those statements about where he worked are from the author himself! The entire article has not a single source independent of the author, or even a single degree beyond close relation. This is the crux of the problem. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: "The crux of the problem"? I don't think there is a problem. Newyorkbrad 15:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how much newspapers fact-check their biographies, but surely the fact that the bios are published on Slate and Washington Monthly websites means they don't contain obviously false information, and that corrections are made whenever it's pointed out that something is incorrect. Clearly the sources could be stronger, but the bios have to count for something? --Interiot 15:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they do, but the point is its on the site he works for. So its not really a source independent of himself. It's not like someone found his worthy enough for a bio. Sorry if I wasn't clear. :) Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that really just a vicious circle though? A writer for undoubtedly notable news sources and opinion journals cannot be notable if his work is published in sources that he is employed by? That's an overextension of notability as a deletion criterion, in my view. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

But Slate and Washington Monthly won't publish the bios of their head of computer maintenance or their receptionist, self-written or not. So it is at least marginally independent. Slate and WM publish bios on its public figures, and I think we should too. --Interiot 16:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Jersyko -- disallowing a bio from the author's publisher is going too far. We would accept the author's writings as reliable because the publisher provides editorial oversight. The same should apply to the bio. Dhaluza 23:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fine, we'll count that as a source. But whether or not it demonstrates that he's notable, point is the article doesn't by just linking to his columns. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 22:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to Slate (magazine). No, the article really couldn't be much stronger (short of removing the unsourced bits), because there aren't any independent sources to write from. If this is speedy kept, I will be going to DRV with it this time where they will undoubtedly send it back here, so think about it a bit before wasting everyone's time. Recury 13:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Newyorkbrad. --Interiot 14:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless multiple reliable sources can be found to independently confirm notability. The nom raises a valid point, all the references appear to be him writing about himself; there needs to be independent references outside of Slate. — Krimpet (talk/review) 15:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Please see my post below, with links to several appearances on CNN, NPR, and PBS which would suggest that those well-established, independent, mainstream media organizations consider Timothy Noah to be an expert in his field. Tvoz | talk 23:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep per Newyorkbrad. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep Although he does not appear to pass WP:BIO, a guideline (I haven't checked for sources recently though), he is notable, so WP:IAR, a policy. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. I agree with Newyorkbrad, this should be speedy-kept and further attempts to delete regarded as trolling/vandalism. Tim Noah may be lesser-known to the wide public than TV pundits, but Slate's punditry is influential on other journalists and political insiders. He's a prominent practitioner of his trade, and author or editor of multiple books, etc. Auros 22:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, since I'm essentially being called a troll, methinks I should defend meself... As for speedy keep, the previuos AfD was improperly closed... you might want to see WP:SK for criteria, but essentially you can only speedy keep if there is an obvious consensus, the editor is a vandal, or the nom has been withdrawn. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 23:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with David Fuchs on the substance of this debate, but I agree with him in that there shouldn't be a snowball here (and there probably shouldn't have been one before), fwiw. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I also want to be on record that I never called David Fuchs a troll or anything approximating a troll, although I still think that this particular AfD nomination falls somewhere between POINTful and pointless. Newyorkbrad 23:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep for the record, and I would say equally if he had opposite political views. DGG 08:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - Timothy Noah is a well-known journalist: Senior/contributing writer for two major, influential publications with impressive past resume; winner of two prestigious awards in his field; has appeared as a media/journalism expert and commentator on PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer, CNN's Reliable Sources, WNYC-NPR's Brian Lehrer Show, CNN's International Correspondents, NPR's Day to Day, and likely others; is widely quoted by supporters and opponents alike, for example: here, here, and dozens of other places. This seems to me to be an open-and-shut case for keeping the article, and the fact that it has been re-nominated for deletion suggests to me that there is something going on here that has nothing to do with the subject's notability. I don't care what his politics are, and I especially don't care what he has written about Wikipedia. Last time I looked those were not criteria for keep or delete. If an article about Timothy Noah can be deleted, I fear for the future of the project. When I have a moment I'll add these references to the piece - but they were trivially easy to find in a 10 minute session on Google, and there are many others there, plus I expect many others not picked up on Google - so, again, I question the motives here. Tvoz | talk 22:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say 'whoop de do, yes of course I'm an evil republican hur hur' but I'll state again this has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the fact that if it's not sourced, it meets deletion criteria. "When I have a moment I'll add these references to the piece"- that's all jolly good, but I've been to many an AfD where those who cried 'keep' never got around to doing the sourcing i.e. MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT (of the author) REFERENCES! Hate to yell, but everyone's running around this, and if the AfD fails this time, if six months comes around and it still hasn't improved, it definitely will get deleted then. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 23:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Although that hypothetical won't happen, the statement in your last sentence is not true: there is no way this article could or would or should be deleted, as the subject's notability is, as it always has been, beyond peradventure; and at this point there are overtones of arguing for the sake of arguing, which should stop. Newyorkbrad 23:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you've had that experience, but I didn't say that there are references out there in the ether that I'll at some point locate and post, I actually posted them here a few minutes ago. And I intend to post them in the article - or anyone can. But do these references satisfy your concerns regarding "multiple independent of the author" indications of the man's notability? And if so, when they are posted to the article will you withdraw your request for deletion? I have no dog in this fight - I wasn't involved in the last round, so I'm not defending my own position here - I just see a request for deletion of an article about someone I've heard of (as opposed to the many, many, many articles that survive about which I have never heard), so my attention was piqued. I understand that the references have to actually be in the article, but I would like a reading from you and others if these references would turn delete into keep for any of you, and if not, why not. Tvoz | talk 23:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Doesn't anyone appreciate the irony that even if he was not notable before the previous nomination, the article he wrote about his WP bio being nominated for non-notability now makes him even more notable? Dhaluza 23:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been mentioned in passing on the article talkpage and elsewhere, although his notability is hardly dependent on that recent development. Newyorkbrad 23:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I found the moment, and posted five tv/radio appearances. Tvoz | talk 00:44, 29 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 11:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amajada

There appears to be no references findable for this creature. The article fails WP:ATT. PROD was removed without any improvement. Whpq 19:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - This seems to be something made up one day. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete; nonsense --Mhking 15:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete Looks like a joke to me. Acalamari 18:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:NFT. Bobanny 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete which is something I rarely say.DGG 08:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete, in fact, I did so, then undeleted because I'm not sure you can speedily delete articles if the PROD has been contested... oh well, if someone else tags it for speedy, no problems. – Riana ^ঋ 10:42, 24 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. Please discuss merge options on the appropriate talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amy (demon)

This article is of no consequence. It covers a subject matter that is, if not entirely fictional, of really no consequence. We have no need for this kind of thing on Wikipedia. The article is writtenn well enough to become convincing to the passerby, but "president of hell"?! Just delete this thing. Deepdesertfreman 23:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"President of hell"? Well, someone's got to do it.... Anyway, this is just one article of 72 for each demon listed in Goetia and it has more sources than most of the others. Maybe this would be a case for an annotated list for all of them? --Tikiwont 16:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:ATT and definitely fails WP:BULLSHIT. RGTraynor 16:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge, I hope you guys are not voting for delete merely because of a goofy phrase in the article, which is due to clumsy writing. It appears Amy has appeared in Pseudomonarchia Daemonum, see http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/weyer.htm and search for Amy. Whether this character deserves its own article is debatable, it's proably best to just merge all the demons into one article, ie List of demons in Goetia. hateless 18:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
'Delete' Possibly merge - sort out list of demons as a whole (see comments below). Non-notable spirit of darkness. Yes, he/she gets a mention in Pseudomonarchia Daemonum but so do 68 other demons. If you've ever read any of these Renaissance demonologies you'll know these things tend to be jam-packed with the names of petty devils. I mean, it's worth having an article on Mephistopheles, say, but I think Amy probably fails WP:BIO. Beelzebubcruft. --Folantin 18:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

*Delete, either a hoax or a typo. On checking the Pseudomonarchia Daemonum, there is no Amy there - the 58th demon is "Vapula, is a great duke and strong". There is an "Aym" in there, which this could be a typo for ("Aym commeth foorth with three heads, the first like a serpent, the second like a man, the third like a cat", but nothing to suggest that s/he is the "president of hell"). - Iridescenti 19:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Actually, I believe Amy is there as Demon No.61. --Folantin 19:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Doh! (slaps head) Still weak delete though, unless the others are to get entries as well - I can't imagine anyone ever searching for "Amy" in this context. - Iridescenti 19:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Strong delete~~. The given feminine name (see Amy for info) doesn't match up to what this would be, so while it's a long shot (!), I call WP:BOLLOCKS. --Dennisthe2 22:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- You do realize that my previous comment and Tikiwont's comments pretty well establish this as not a hoax, right? hateless 22:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Well, I do take exception, as she's taking my stepmother's job, sir. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 00:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  - OK, I just re-read your note. Hateless, please clarify: is Goetia a fictional realm, or...? --Dennisthe2 00:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Goetia's an archaic word for making pacts with demons (as opposed to the devil himself) - eg the Devil might want your eternal soul in exchange for riches, but Amy would only want a small part of your soul in exchange for light housekeeping chores. Oversimplifying but you get the picture. - Iridescenti 02:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, that's out of my realm. Vote retract, I abstain from a vote. --Dennisthe2 15:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom Garcia-Fons 23:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a sock-puppet, whose only edits have been today, to a string of AfDs. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge - The nomination is essentially an "I've never heard of it" argument. I do believe that the list of stubs related to demons has gotten a bit excessive, but this is valid, verified information (and fairly well known in the circles familiar with the references cited) and should not simply be deleted. I think Demons in Goetia could be an alternative in the event of a merge, which would allow for slightly more information (such as is contained in this stub) to be provided above a mere list. Such a list, by the way, would be superfluous, since the list is already there in the Goetia article, which I assume those who voted for deletion based on WP:BOLLOCKS and the like seem to have missed. To single out one of these listed and sourced 72 for deletion doesn't seem reasonable. ◄Zahakiel ► 03:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
keep or merge We cant merge all of the demons, because a few are quite notable in their own right. The ones that have attracted less modern attention do not really justify articles, ass there is not that much to say, although there technically are sources. So I agree with the solution by Zahakiel, with separate articles when appropriate. DGG 08:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment This is probably the best solution. We need to sort out what to do with the Goetia list of demons as a whole rather than piecemeal like this. Some of the spirits listed such as Astaroth and Belial occur frequently elsewhere in Western culture, many of the others only appear in Johann Weyer's book. This needs to be treated like fiction, with the significant names having their own articles and the rest being catalogued on a single page as "Minor demons in goetia" (or whatever). --Folantin 08:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. My suggestion would be to have a list that treats all of them briefly in the context of Goetia, using {{details}} links to point to the full articles on those with independent notability. —Cel ithemis 11:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge - into list. Nothing here that asserts individual notability, but a list of these demons looks appropriate. Though I'm not sure WP:BIO is the right thing to talk about here...that guideline is for people, you know...but individually Amy probably does not pass WP:N. So listify. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - For the people voting to merge or listify, note that this list already exists in the Goetia article, and there's a fair amount of information on each of the 72 that just collapsing into a single article would make it very long. My "keep or merge" vote above was holding out "merge" as a distant second choice to keeping, and after further consideraiton I really do not think that is the best solution. IF they are merged, several names are still going to need their own articles (possibly this one as well) for the amount of information provided, but that is a topic for a talk page (e.g., the Goetia talk area) not an AfD discussion on one of the 72. Folantin's idea of having an article "Minor Demons in Goetia" would probably work for cleaning up the ones that are merely stubs and not mentioned anywhere else, but again this would need to be discussed on a talk page somewhere else, not here. ◄Zahakiel ► 18:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete or Merge - I think it would be best to shove this into another article/list until some sources (i.e. not online demon libraries with the apparent intent to market their products) and it doesn't fail WP:CB. Until then, I still vote delete. Deepdesertfreman 03:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC) (clarification... I am casting my actual vote here. The above opinion was to spark debate. Don't count as second vote)

Comment - Since you are the one who nominated the article for deletion, that is already an implied "delete" vote. I am curious what "products" you are talking about here, though; and as for the WP:CB statement, that is still just an "I've never heard of it" argument; the topic is one of a set of subjects in a number of non-trivial sources (not just "online" lists, but historically significant documents about mysticism, pacts and so on) that are mentioned in the article already. ◄Zahakiel ► 15:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Some solution should be devised for all 72 of the "demons" in Ars Goetia, probably including a wee bit of merging. Think of this as one card out of a deck. Would we address all cards in the deck simultaneously or pick them off one at a time? -- Black Falcon 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TOC, Lean, Six Sigma Methodology

Non-notable theory supported only by literature written by the author of the theory. The article makes no attempt to explain the theory - just that it is effective. Explaining the theory in the article would require an amount of detail inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Thus, the article basically serves as a promotion for a non-notable theory - a form of non-commercial spam. Nposs 02:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, vehemently, like the Holy Vehm would do. This is "referenced" crypto-spam, complete bollocks, and not written in plain English. Prose like this:

The results were statistically analyzed for significance between the three methodologies. Lean and Six Sigma were identified as viable continuous improvement methodologies. The success of each methodology was determined by their aggregate contribution to verifiable financial savings as a result of process improvement projects. These savings were validated with the organization plant controllers and senior management.

is a crime against humanity. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - unreferenced, and highly suspect spam. --Haemo 00:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - no referenced assertion of notability, probably OR as well. Ac@osr 17:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Delete - useful information for CPI users —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.64.98.230 (talk) 23:36, 26 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. Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Menachem Z. Rosensaft

This article is advertising, and the subject does not meet the notability standard. Delete This article comes off as blatant advertising for the subject. Further, the subject does not appear to meet WP:NOT, as despite many citations in the article, none seem to point to stories about the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumanji123 (talk • contribs) 2007/03/23 13:40:37 — Jumanji123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Speedy keep. This is clearly a bad-faith nomination by a supposedly new User whose only other edit is to place a "speedy delete" template on the same article. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Justification? Mel - Did you read the article? It's obvious advertising, and despite citation of numerous Op-Eds by the subject, there doesn't seem to be a single news article cited about the subject, as per WP:NOT. Jumanji123 14:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)— Jumanji123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- - There's no need to make this about the nominator when making it about the article will result in a sure keep. Milto LOL pia 14:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I haven't made it about the nominator, but the nominator is relevant (he's not even entitled to have his voice counted in the AfD, as he has too few edits and has been here for too short a time. It's a single-use account, and it's pretty clear what that use is. It's also clear that it disguises some other, more regular editor; it's probable that he's also first-time editor Scooterm, below. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
delete. Agree with Jumanji123- we should not allow Wiki to be used for self promotion. There is no objective reason why this is notable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooterm (talk • contribs) — Scooterm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - wow, lots of sources. Very verifiable by all this independent third-party coverage, and it certainly didn't come off as advertising in the least when I skimmed it. Milto LOL pia 14:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- But What Sources? Miltopia - Anyone can write or get quoted in a lot of articles, but the notability standard, WP:NOT, is entirely clear that the subject of a WikiPedia article must be the subject, not simply a person quoted, of articles in multiple, independent sources. There are tons of people who don't meet the standard who would be notable if being quoted in multiple articles, or being the author of them, became the source of notability. Jumanji123 14:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)— Jumanji123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  - Several of the sources appear to be about him, and being quoted that many times in higher publications certainly makes you notable, even if it doesn't say so in the policy. Milto LOL pia 14:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Which sources "appear to be about him," and how do you know? If being quoted that many times makes you notable, how many stock analysts, school board members, PR people, etc., who'd never get an article written about them would count? Jumanji123 19:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Obvious keep. Rosensaft is a notable individual (I had heard of him before this AFd) and the article is well sourced. I do agree with the tag on the article, though, which says it needs to be wikified. I would go further and say it reads like a press release right now. But that is not a reason to delete it. Jeffpw 14:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- How many other people you've heard of should be included? That doesn't speak at all to notability, per WP:NOT.
Keep I think 33 reliable and verifiable sources goes a long way to demonstrating notability. Alansohn 17:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Cleanup. Certainly Keep but is way too long. SYSS Mouse 17:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- There are tons of people in this world who have that many quotations, but who've never been the subject of an article. There's a reason why that's the WP:NOT standard. Quote machines are a much more common appearance in the media than subjects of stories, and that's why it's a reasonable notability standard. Jumanji123 19:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep lots of references in reliable sources, and a quick Google Books search comes up with plenty of citations (55 book mentions total). Seems notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but citations of what? He's never actually been the subject of any of these citations. Jumanji123 19:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Wikify Per all the above, the subject of the article seems notable - the article is just a bit unreadable. Keep the notable subject, clean up the dense article - and thank the person who brought it to everyone's attention. (Although it probably shouldn't have been nominated for deletion in this case - just cleanup - it's always good to try to improve the encyclopedia.) --TheOtherBob 18:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still not seeing anyone claim that he's the subject of multiple, verifiable stories. Jumanji123 19:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You are a single-purpose account created solely to nominate this article for deletion. I suppose you have the right to do that, but your obsession with the subject is becoming concerning. Newyorkbrad 19:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because this is the first thing that caught my eye. You can't dispute the argument I'm putting forth here. Either the WP:NOT standard means something or it doesn't. I happen to be expert in this area, and if Rosensaft is notable, so are hundreds of others of similar credentials who don't have people writing really long articles that by virtue of their comprehensiveness seem to reach notability, when they don't. Jumanji123 19:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're an expert, as you claim to be, perhaps you might like to tell us who you are and what your credentials are. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you'd like to make this about me, instead of the objective fact that this article doesn't meet the standard of WP:NOT. I'm not going to relinquish my anonymity here, and it shouldn't be compulsory on me to do so in order to note this simple fact, which no one has disputed. Jumanji123 20:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I dispute it, and adhere to my earlier comments. Newyorkbrad 20:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How and where do you dispute it? What are the mutiple, reliable sources about him, as per WP:NOT? Jumanji123 21:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This article has multiple references cited, perhaps an excessive number of references, and I am now seriously concerned regarding the nature of your seeming obsession with having it deleted. Newyorkbrad 21:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you choose to remain anonymous then you can't also choose to lean on supposed "expert" status in votes or debates. It doesn't work that way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not leaning on it. I continue to maintain that this article should be deleted for failure to cohere with WP:NOT, and that alone. The plain fact is that the subject of this article is indistinguishable from numerous other quote machines who don't merit an entry because of WP:NOT, with the sole redeeming fact (in the eyes of some) being that someone very concerned with promoting the subject created a lengthy article citing his many quotations. Jumanji123 21:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep per all the above, should never have been nominated. - Iridescenti 19:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep, cites tons of reliable independent sources, clearly passes WP:ATT and WP:BIO. — Krimpet (talk/review) 20:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep article is well-sourced, clearly meets WP:BIO and WP:ATT. What part of WP:NOT does this violate? Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Cites lots of references to reliable sources Garcia-Fons 23:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Only edits have been today, to a string of AfDs. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - clearly meet WP:BIO and WP:ATT. Silly nomination. --Haemo 00:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep obviously meets the N and VS requirements. I do not think the nomination (or its support) was in bad faith--I think that the excessive length of the article, and the exceptional detail and long quotations made it appear like a number of real autobio spam, and possibly the actual content wasn't really perceived. I am being a charitable as possible about this. DGG 08:28, 24 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 11:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Winter

Delete Un-referenced, un-notable rubbish. Greatestrowerever 13:04, 23 March 2007 (GMT)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Self-promotion of someone not worth promoting. (And training in Education - words fail me.) Emeraude 14:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. WP:VSCA. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete not-notable; seems to be related to the article Jamaican Lemonade, which is also up for deletion. Acalamari 18:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom Robbielatchford 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, not notable except for Jamaican Lemonade, which will soon be gone as WP:NFT. Just looked at WP:VSCA, that's funny, I hadn't seen it before! --Seattle Skier (talk) 07:10, 24 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 11:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jamaican Lemonade

Delete Un-refernced, non-notable Greatestrowerever 13:10, 23 March 2007 (GMT)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Self-promotion of something not worth promoting. Emeraude 14:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete; non-notable drink --Mhking 15:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete not-notable; seems to be related to the article Ben Winter, which is also up for deletion. Acalamari 18:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NFT. --Seattle Skier (talk) 07:06, 24 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of U.S. box office bombs

Delete Unsourced, original research. Most of the budget numbers appear to come from IMDB, where they clearly say "estimated" beside the number. AlistairMcMillan 14:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Err ... how do you figure that that these numbers come from IMDB? Multiple sources are given for the numbers, none of which are from IMDB, and if "estimated" numbers are prima facie unencyclopedic, much US Census demographic info would be out the window on Wikipedia. I don't see any POV involved, the article is sourced, the basic premise is a well known one, and this is no more original research than me cribbing hockey stats from hockeydb.com to put in player articles. (Besides which it was eerie realizing that I had paid to see four of the movies on that list.) RGTraynor 16:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the budget numbers for the films starting with "A", I think six out of the nine match the figures listed at IMDB exactly. And aside from Slither, none of the other budget figures are sourced. AlistairMcMillan 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And it isn't the fact that they are estimated that makes them unencyclopedic. It is the fact that they are estimated by IMDB that makes them unencyclopedic. AlistairMcMillan 16:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The article specifically cites these references: [17] [18] [19]; there is nothing in WP:ATT requiring a footnote on every single number when they all are sourced with a general reference, and doing so would look impossibly cluttered. And ... erm, if the various industry sources agree, isn't that a good thing? That's like claiming I got demographic information from the World Book Almanac just because it happens to match with the information I got from the US Census website, and furthermore inferring that there was something fishy about it. As to that, IMDB is a good bit more reliable than Wikipedia ... RGTraynor 16:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you say with any certainty that the figures are all sourced from those links? And was that last bit about IMDB a joke? At least some of Wikipedia is sourced, who knows where the info on IMDB comes from. AlistairMcMillan 16:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Starting to sound a bit strident there. If, for instance, you have reason to believe that some of those numbers are not sourced from the sources given, kindly present your evidence. As far as IMDB goes, it's the acknowledged industry standard, with a paid editorial staff, taking its financial sources from the studios and Variety. RGTraynor 17:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Lets start with the first film on the list. This article says "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" had a budget of "$40,000,000":

* The The Adventures of Baron Munchausen article says $46.6 million

* IMDB says $46,630,000

* BoxOfficeMojo says $46.63 million

* TheNumbers says nothing about the budget.

So, where does this List article get the budget number? AlistairMcMillan 17:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a huge stretch to suggest that BoxOfficeMojo, the explicit reference given in the article, might very well be the source. So the numbers don't square? Correct it then; that's what we come to Wikipedia to do, correct typos and errors we find. Myself, given that the article is over three years old and has had many editors, I wouldn't venture to suggest when or by whom that particular figure was added, and in any event this is a discussion better suited for the article's talk page. RGTraynor 18:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment The list would actually be ok if we were given some evidence for why films like Waterworld were considered bombs. Making less than the budget doesn't necessarily mean the film is a bomb. Usedup 16:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete; arbitrary, violates WP:NOR --Mhking 16:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep; certainly not arbitrary, a box office bomb makes at the box office less than the cost of the film. As simple as that. --FateClub 18:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Original research, listcruft. Artw 18:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really, it is an accepted term, seeBox office bomb. This would be a list of films that fit the term. --FateClub 19:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If only the definition of "box office bomb" in the article of the same name was referenced... AlistairMcMillan 21:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are now seven links referencing the name, including ones from the Washington Post, Cineaste Magazine, Fox News, the Associated Press and the Wikitionary article. Those links I got from the first page worth of Google hits; the second one includes one from producer Joss Whedon, cinema review umbrella website rottentomatoes.com, netscape.com's front-end headlines, and the official website for the Razzies. Can we just agree that this well-known term means what it actually means, or do we need to hammer through another half-dozen reliable sources for nothing more than the sake of argument? RGTraynor 13:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep, however the article needs to have a source given regarding the definition of "bomb" otherwise it could be interpreted as Original Research if the article just out and says "a film is considered a bomb if it is etc etc". 23skidoo 19:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Or a link to Box office bomb --FateClub 19:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete This has the same problems as the deleted List of military routs; "bomb" like "rout" is too arbitrary and subjective, and there are far too many potential members for this list, making a comprehensive or even representative list impossible. Djcastel 20:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The term isn't in the least degree subjective or arbitrary: did the film fail to recoup its budget? Since budgetary and box office figures are only generally available for films released through major distributors, the list is certainly finite and a representative one (demonstrably) possible. RGTraynor 13:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Without reliable sources (and "estimated" budgets from IMDB are not reliable) how do you determine whether a film failed to recoup its budget? AlistairMcMillan 21:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There are reliable souces, such as film news sources, entertainment news sources and business news sources. --FateClub 19:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep: I double-checked these numbers with www.boxofficemojo.com and they check out. As for this claim that they numbers come from IMDB, this is simply not true. Deleting this article simply because populist editors are mad that some of their favorite films are on this list is POV and flies in the face of Wiki's objectivity. The reason why some people here want to delete this page is because they think it's too negative. What's next? Are we supposed to delete the Nazi wiki page because it puts Germany in a negative light? Should we delete the penis wiki page because it might offend conservative people? Sorry... but box office bombs/flops are a known phenomena in the world of the moviegoing public. It deserves research like anything else in the world. Deleting this page is simply censorship from people who don't like to face the brutal reality that some business enterprises, like movies, are failures. It's not a moral judgment but a financial reality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.9.103.143 (talk • contribs) 07:06, March 25, 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep; This is ((for the most part)) based on box office earnings and an overall consensus. Films like Waterworld and The Island ((for example)) are considered "bombs" both in gross and reception.

And who gains from this article ((other than wikipedians?)) Imho, there is no, there is no POV, enough evidience is provided and 100% of the flims listed here are on dozens of sites listing "officlal" box office "bombs." other than IMDB! User:Wickedxjade 11:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I have heard two issues that are relevant for deletion: (1) the source of the figures, and (2) the arbitrary inclusion threshold. 1: So, we should make sure the figures are correct and source them. I see no reason to believe that this cannot be achieved. 2: A box office failure is one that fails to recoup expenses. What makes one movie a bomb and another merely a failure may be a bit subjective, but it seems like the list could just set an arbitrary threshold, like "Gross < 30% of budget, or Gross less than budget by at least $10 million" that would pretty much accurately sum up the contents. Exceptions could be included if they were described in sources as bombs. Yes, this article needs some cleanup, but it's interesting, it's relevant, it's an appropriate topic, and it's a good start. No real reason to delete here. Mango juice^talk 20:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"...it seems like the list could just set an arbitrary threshold..." Are you serious? So basically you want to create an article "List of films that Wikipedia thinks qualify as U.S. box office bombs"? Please read WP:ATT. AlistairMcMillan 20:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That would not be necessary, there are many souces that describe such Box Office Bombs. --FateClub 19:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep but Fix- Seems to me that there should be an article explaining what a box office bomb is, but don't put a list, because that can be considered one person's opinion, and not very encyclopedia like.

There is an article that explains what a box office bomb is and we are not voting to delete it, only to delete the list of U.S. box office bombs, according to the general-accepted definition, thus not a matter of a wikipedia user's opinion but rather of the experts on the subject. --FateClub 01:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please cite the "generally accepted definition". AlistairMcMillan 03:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been done many times over, or was before you "edited" out every source given in the Box office bombs article. It is acting in extremely poor faith to demand a definition, then to demand the definition be sourced, then to edit out every source demonstrating that the term is in vogue and demanding all over again that the term be sourced. At the least this is now in violation of WP:POINT. RGTraynor 09:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please point to the cite that defines "box office bomb". None of your cites do. They give examples of box office bombs, but that isn't the same as a definition. AlistairMcMillan 13:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Studios expect that a film's "domestic" (which the film industry defines as the United States and Canada)-- as well as the overseas-- box office gross will exceed production costs. If it recoups this cost, then it can be considered a success; otherwise, if it fails by a significant margin (usually 10% short or more), then it is often referred to as a box office bomb" --FateClub 16:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Beyond which this is getting tendentious. There comes a point in most AfDs where the debate has run its course. This is one. You've failed to even elicit a majority for your view, never mind a consensus to delete. Continuing to hammer that no list can be held valid unless it is based on a rigidly formulaic definition (a POV refuted, as I've mentioned elsewhere, by the numerous racially-based lists) has failed to spur an avalanche of "OMG, you're right, I must change my vote!" responses. In your shoes, I'd consider losing gracefully and moving on. RGTraynor 17:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny. I'm assuming you are aware that that eBay page is a mirror of a Wikipedia article. One that was deleted about six months ago. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films generating losses AlistairMcMillan 17:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as a formal definition goes I am having trouble finding one. However, all sources assume the term is already understoond as being applied to a money-losing film such as "for a film to lose money" (Yahoo), which is the industry and commonly accepted definition.
The term is not original research, the nominator's second of two arguments. The term is used widely, for example by The Michigan Daily, The Chicago Tribune, Yale Daily News and CNN as well as in specialized sites such as RottenTomatoes.com and BoxOfficeMojo.com.
A Box Office Bomb is of major importance, not only in the lives of the film stars but also in the performance of big studios and their parent companies such as News Corp and Disney. --FateClub 19:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying the term is original research. If I thought the term was original research I'd have nominated the "Box office bomb" article for deletion. This list of films is original research. We are taking the budget and revenue figures, comparing them and saying "these films are bombs". We aren't referencing other people that say these films are bombs, Wikipedia is saying that. Therefore original research. AlistairMcMillan 19:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case we got sidetracked in the previous thread. If the industry definition of Box Office Bomb is a money-losing film and it is generally understood (as all these sources would suggest) then this is a list of films that fit the industry definition of Box Office Bomb or the generally accepted definition of Box Office Bomb (which is in fact the same, in any case). Then such list is not original research, as it would be if the list included non-money losing films. --FateClub 20:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I expect that very few lists on Wikipedia work that way; a POV-ridden opinion poll doesn't magically cease to be one just because someone who wasn't on Wikipedia made it up. I'd much rather take a list compiled from factual, reliable sources ... like this one. That being said, Mr. McMillan's interpretation of WP:NOR is completely in error, if a common mistake. "Original research" as policy defines it is not "anything an editor compiles." The specific criteria valid here is "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." A money-losing movie is value-neutral, and the facts presented are attributed to reputable sources. RGTraynor 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I certainly agree, most figures lack sources and that is the issue, and one that most of us (if not all) agree upon. Then a {[fact}} should be added instead of getting rid of the entire article. As this is valuable information (for the industry and from the financial point of view). --FateClub 20:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And you think there is no difference between "money-losing movie" and "box office bomb"? AlistairMcMillan 20:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not what I think, but what the industry, the general population and financial experts have determined what it is. --FateClub 21:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete The list itself is clearly original research - it gives an analysis beyond mathematical calculations and logical deduction. The calculation of the percentage is logic, but stating a picture is a box office bomb because of that is not. Therefore, every entry in this list must have a source explicitly stating that the picture was a box office bomb. I suggest that some valiant editors with knowledge of the subject add references to as many entries as possible, and delete the others. If no entries are sourced, delete the article. --User:Krator (t c) 20:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If "no entries are sourced, delete the article"? Well Mad City is sourced as well as the entire "A" section. I think we are confusing the term original research, Box Office Bomb is not a term made up by a wikipedian, neither is the criteria of inclusion. --FateClub 21:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No one has ever said the term is original research. Creating a list of films based solely on comparing budget and revenue is original research. AlistairMcMillan 23:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How does that difer on how other Wikipedia lists have been created? --FateClub 23:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:ATT. AlistairMcMillan 23:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I will do so, a bit every day until I read it all. Now could you answer the question, please? --FateClub 23:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I would love to answer your question but I just don't know what to say. I'm sure I've said it already a number of times. Most "List of" articles aren't based on an editor comparing two data points and drawing a conclusion from them. And any that are should either be deleted, or be re-written so that they are just presenting conclusions drawn by someone else, who we can cite. AlistairMcMillan 03:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Aha ... now there's the rub. Fair enough. Would you mind explaining to us what conclusion you fancy the creator of this article has drawn? Other than, of course, that the films listed all lost money, but that's no more "original research" than claiming that (X-2X) results in a number lower than X. RGTraynor 13:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That "The Adventures of Baron Münchhausen", "The Adventures of Pluto Nash", "The Alamo", "Alexander", etc are all "US box office bombs". We are saying all these films are bombs because "revenue < budget". That is our analysis. AlistairMcMillan 15:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no other conclusion to take, it is not profound analysis, just revenue < budget. Otherwise, most lists, for example List of Americans would be original research, place of birth = America. That is indeed a comparison. In fact all lists would be original reseach under that premise, other than the ones that are verbatim copies (such as Forbes list of billionaires). If that is the case, then nominate all those articles as a group, including Lists of Irish-Americans. There is no reference with the already produced list in question, wikipedians put it together by comparing country of origin = Ireland, it's all about comparisons. That is our analysis. And how about List of computer system manufacturers, analysis: Product manufactured = computer systems. And List of prizes, medals, and awards for women in science, analysis: Gender of awardee = female. --FateClub 16:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. I've already made that argument to little effect. RGTraynor 17:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So if a film costs $5,000,000 to make and only takes in $4,999,999 then it is a "bomb"? How about if it only takes in $4,000,000, or $3,500,000? Is it still a bomb then? AlistairMcMillan 18:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm done; life's too short. We've made our arguments, you've made yours, you're not convincing us of a thing and plainly we're convincing you of nothing. I'm quite comfy with leaving this for the closing admin to sort out without any more back-and-forth. RGTraynor 18:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Compiling a list is not considered OR typically. We have many lists like this. They are valuable and interesting. ike9898 15:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The article is clearly sourced. "Listcruft" is an argument I won't even bother to counter. As for OR, this list is no more original research than a list of integers smaller than 50. The list may be incomplete, but it is not OR. RGTraynor's definition and arguments are convincing. -- Black Falcon 21:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People and Characters Known for their Teeth, List of people and fictional characters with famous head hair and List of fictional stutterers

Trivia, original research, not a meaningful grouping, and not encyclopedic. >Radiant< 14:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. None of this information could possibly be verified. --Cyrus Andiron ^t/_c 14:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. I created the fictional stutterer one, but only to remove the stuff from another article. Garion96 (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Fails WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:ATT, with no WP:RS. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per nom and above ... this is even testing the borders of "silly". Stuff like this makes me scratch my less than famous head. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete all. You've got to be kidding. - Iridescenti 19:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per WP:DUMB. Bobanny 20:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete all Oh dear. Croxley 20:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
D-D-D-D-D-D-Delete all, folks! A clear example of indiscriminate information. — Krimpet (talk/review) 21:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This is, am, was, and are Deleted JuJube 00:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete a.s.a.p.Dr bab 00:13, 25 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remote Administrator

Delete Yet another developer of remote administration software (Special:Contributions/Famatech) creating an entry on Wikipedia to advertise their software. AlistairMcMillan 14:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Where did you find advertisement-like text in the article? I can't see it. Radmin was created in 1999 just like VNC so I think it deserved to have an article on wikipedia. Or maybe you think we should delete article about VNC also? --Famatech 16:50, 27 March 2007 (GMT+3)

Strong Keep! I created the article stub. I don't work for Famatech, and I have no vested interest in it. This piece of software is notable for comparing favorably to other remote access solutions in terms of features, and having won a large number of awards. I don't know what their user count is, but it's way more than 873K on Download.com, because (1) it only counts the new version that's been out for 6 weeks, while the product has been out since 1999, and (2) many users would obtain the client elsewhere, especially in large corporate environments. Also note that their Web-site is 2nd most popular in Alexa.com's Remote Access category. If this article gets deleted, it will be further evidence of Wikipedia bias for not letting proprietary software compete on its merits. -AlexLibman 19:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If over 800,000 people have download this software in six week it should be no difficulty to point us to a few legitimate third-party reviews of the product then. Things that we can actually use to determine notability. AlistairMcMillan 19:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, shoot, man, if it's that notable, then stick the information in the article! Note, these must be verifiable and from reliable sources. --Dennisthe2 22:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that almost all of the "awards" are either from professional rating services or software archives. Whether the download counts or archive ratings can be gamed or not would have to be established. AlistairMcMillan 23:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, unless AlexLibman can meet the requirements as above. --Dennisthe2 22:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's not my holy war. Let someone else do it. I've wasted enough time on this already. --AlexLibman 23:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Dennisthe2 02:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I've already violated Wikipedia policy on conflict of interest twice, but I've edited the article again. Now it's absolutely clean and unprejudiced. Why to deprive people of their right to find some info about Radmin? --Eugene Lisovskiy 14:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep it Guys, I work for Famatech. My name is Eugene Lisovskiy and I didn't create this article from the beginning (AlexLibman did as already mentioned above). All I want is to improve this article according to wikipedia guidelines. As you can see I don't hide from publicity (as I have user account named Famatech) and I'm not intended to make an advertisement from this article. Just give me some time because it's a hard work to make a good article. By now there are no advertisement texts in this article. PS: I'm a Radmin user also and I have a higher technical education so I do know how to make a good article. Also I can ask for assistance the creator of Radmin - Dmitry Znosko: he knows Radmin better than any other man. --Famatech 16:21, 27 March 2007 (GMT+3)

Please read our policy on conflict of interest. AlistairMcMillan 13:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. As I already mentioned Famatech didn't create this article, thus we are not interested in any kind of advertising. I do believe that a short summary information about Radmin should be presented and no matter who edit this article. It's my opinion. --Eugene Lisovskiy 13:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The awards are a step in the right direction, but what's ideally needed is something like an article about the software in a professionally edited journal that describes the software. If there have been no such articles it's a lot harder to establish notability. The awards don't do it for me; I've been involved in too much product and service marketing to believe those kinds of things really establish notability. My own company has a stack of awards and local newspaper coverage, and we're not notable. Mike Christie (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep! Radmin is great and has huge notability - there is nobody in IT that knows what VNC is and has not heard of or used Radmin. The article has NPOV and imo, this debate has become lost. If the article has been suitably edited then the deletion tag should be removed. - The debate should be on what edits are required to keep the article not whether its pure notability is enough to have an article per se. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.22.93.33 (talk • contribs) 18:37, March 31, 2007 (UTC) — 82.22.93.33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IM+

Delete Yet another software developer creating pages to advertise their products. AlistairMcMillan 14:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following pages that were created by the same editor:

AlistairMcMillan 14:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete; violates WP:SPAM --Mhking 15:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete all – I believe these articles were added primarily to promote the project. Other than a single editor, there have been no other substantial contributors. After two months, the notability question remains unanswered, although the primary editor attempted to remove at least one of the tags without offering improvements to the article. Because notability has not been established with respect to the WP:SOFTWARE criteria and I believe there is some type of conflict of interest with the primary editor, I support deletion. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete all three. Looks like spam. --Seattle Skier (talk) 07:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as it's not yet a suitable subject for wikipedia. Mr. Berry 23:18, 25 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. WjBscribe 07:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus Freak Hideout

non notable music review website. Originally created by a 16 year old on angelfire. No actual notability. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 14:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - spam. -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 15:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Keep per 3M163. Lots of wikipedia articles link to this one (more than 100). -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 19:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Note that I started this article for full disclosure. The site an independent reviewer of Contemporary Christian Music CDs, artist news. The website is frequently used as source by WikiProject Contemporary Christian Music. I understand that you feel that notable is not asserted. Maybe other WikiProject members could help with asserting notability. I left a message on the WikiProject's talk page pointing to this AfD and a related one. Are you satisfied that Wikipedia:Verifiability is met? One thing that I don't see your point about the website starting on Angelfire. What's wrong with a website that started on Angelfire growing into a major player? I am in NO WAY related to the website. Royalbroil^T : C 15:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, fails WP:ATT, WP:WEB. There's nothing wrong with a website starting on Angelfire evolving into a major player, as long as it actually has. There is no sign that this is the case. Of the sources given, one is a broken link, one is a blog post, and the other three are on self-postable link pages. The site carries a poor Alexa rank of #109,654, and has only 121 unique Google hits [20], including Wiki mirrors, its own site and blog posts. We need some reliable sourcing of notability. RGTraynor 16:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that I wikified the name per the naming convention used at All Music Guide, etc. I find 32,000 hits using "www.jesusfreakhideout.com". I do realize the google hits is not a reason to keep or delete before anyone comments to that effect. [21] Royalbroil^T : C 18:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Similarly (whilst I don't want to persist in the Google hits fallacy), there are 41,200 hits for Jesusfreakhideout.com. --3M163//Complete Geek 21:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)~~ Actually, that's only 24 unique, so please ignore my previous comment... --3M163//Complete Geek 21:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete non-notable --Mhking 15:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Comment (edit conflict) I consider there to be three main professional Christian music reviewing parties: Christian Music Today, Cross Rhythms, and Jesus Freak Hideout... it is, AFAIK, strongly notable inside Christian music. Niche-marketed products such as Christian music are generally unlikely to be reviewed by the mainstream/"secular" media (with notable band exceptions, including Switchfoot, underOATH, and the more explicitly Christian Delirious?); should the guidelines for notability at least reflect this fact? Please correct me if I'm understanding incorrectly... (For the record, I am generally vehemently opposed to the partially self-imposed segregation between so-called "Christian" and "secular" music, but for some reason, I'm defending it here anyway...) One last edit: JFH doesn't only do music reviews, but meh... --3M163//Complete Geek 18:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, per RB and MMM163/CG. Tom e r ^talk 23:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep JFH is a major web site for doumenting subculture relating to Christian Music. Though it began as a non-notable Angelfire based web site it has evolved into an exteremely important organization in this field. All Music Guide started as an un-notable gopher based site; this argument ins't about origin but place in it's own world - that is what denotes actual notability. If it were a magazine (Similar to HM Magazine or Cross Rhythms its notability would probably go unquestioned. Simple searching currenly produces 174 results linking out of Wikipedia to the site and a total of about 162 mentions within (Google). As far as the reliability of the site, it's no Angelfire. It has been used as a primary source by writing the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music, a volume which emcompasses all of CCM, from the Jesus Movement until its publishing, and all musical styles. (full citaton: Powell, Mark Allan (2002). Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music, First printing, Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 14. ISBN 1-56563-679-1. ). Material from the site is scoured by CM Wired, which is a Google News - like news aggregator for Christian Music. JFH and other sites (perhaps The Phantom Toolbooth, 145 links out) are largely representative of the online presence of Christian Music. This is not a "cruft" article; it does not fail WP:V and probably (through Powell) meets point 3 of WP:WEB. Further, it provides information that is not readily available - for instance that it was once controlled by a record label, an indication of possible bias. Dan, the CowMan 06:32, 28 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 11:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Music Central

non notable christian music site. Could be speedied, as it makes no assertion of notability. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 14:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete This is blatant commercial advertising and should be deleted. Greatestrowerever 15:04, 23 March 2007 (GMT)
Delete per WP:Spam. -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 15:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete; violates WP:SPAM --Mhking 15:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete: fails WP:WEB, probably WP:SPAM, definitely WP:ATT. RGTraynor 16:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment without voting For full disclosure, I started this article. I am NOT IN ANY WAY associated with this website and I am NOT A SPAMMER. I was the second member of WikiProject Contemporary Christian Music. I was trying to write articles for what I believe are some of the common references for the WikiProject.

See below ~~I have started a discussion on the WikiProject's talk page to encourage WikiProject discussion on this topic. Please do not speedy delete to allow for participants of the WikiProject to comment.~~ Royalbroil^T : C 18:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest Delete - not as spam, but simply as non-notable. The Alexa ranking and google information I'm not sure would be reliable for the purpose - those are side notes. I'm just not seeing anything reliable for notability that can be verified. --Dennisthe2 22:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not speedy. Although it may fall under WP:CSD#A7, please respect Royalbroil's request for time to possibly fix that. Assume good faith that this user will make an effort to come up with something. If it does get deleted, it can wait five days. As to the actual keeping or deletion, I abstain. — coel acan — 04:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I marked for speedy delete as author. I ask an admin to speedy delete the article and close this AfD. A lack of interest from WikiProject lead me to believe that I probably created an article that isn't needed. I probably gave greater weight to the importance of the website than it deserves. It is short and can easily be restored later if the WikiProject decides to restore it. I'll take a mulligan on this one. Please consider that this is the poorest article that I have ever created. It took me over an hour of searching to find this little. It is difficult to find reliable sources for any Christian website. I won't back down on the Jesus Freak Hideout AfD, as I am certain that reliable reference needs to remain. Royalbroil^T : C 23:55, 24 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 11:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Westgreen Blvd.

Aricle about a random street. -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 14:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete; non-notable roadway --Mhking 15:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a non-notable roadway further failing WP:V and WP:RS. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per discussion. --Dennisthe2 22:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as it's not yet a suitable subject for wikipedia. Mr. Berry 23:22, 25 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. Rlevse 15:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drop off

Minor mountain biking term. Entirety of article can be merged into Bicycling terminology Citicat 15:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So merge/redirect to Bicycling terminology. Doesn't require an AfD. --W.marsh 18:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect as it's not yet a suitable subject for wikipedia. Mr. Berry 23:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge per nom. Seems about the same level of quality as the rest of the items in the terminology article.--Kubigula (talk) 22:43, 29 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 →Ollie (talk • contribs) 23:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ann J Wilson

Article is a non-notable person, and already was deleted under the name of Ann Jane Wilson a few days ago. Nyttend 15:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete; violates WP:BIO --Mhking 15:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete, fails WP:ATT, WP:HOAX. Heaven knows why, but take a look at that posted "Times" jpg. It is very blatantly and clumsily doctored. Even without the doctoring, the subject is otherwise insignificant, dead over a century, and her sole claim to fame was that she was (in some small English village) accused of murdering her infant and acquitted. RGTraynor 16:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete as per RGTraynor. - Iridescenti 19:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete G4 (repost) per the nom, recommend salting. Image of The Times appears to be photoshopped by my naked eye - that font is Courier New. --Dennisthe2 22:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment <nerd mode>The Times back then didn't carry news stories on the front page anyway - the front page was always full-page advertizing at that time.</nerd mode> - Iridescenti 00:58, 24 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 as club/organisation with no assertion of notability (CSD A7). WjBscribe 07:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rysa

Non-notable community group Delete Mhking 15:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as it's not yet a suitable subject for wikipedia. Mr. Berry 23:23, 25 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 11:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby Benedicto

Aside from being "the number 1 debater in Asia", this person has not asserted notability outside of those. Been prodded and proposed to be speedy-deleted but were all contested. --Howard the Duck 15:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Also, this article, and [stub article], are the only ones that the original author has created. I won't be surprised if this article turns up to be an autobiographical entry. --- Tito Pao 15:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above, fails WP:ATT, WP:COI. Only 115 Google hits [22], some of which are broken links, and almost all of which are either Wiki mirrors or blog posts. RGTraynor 15:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete; per nomination --Mhking 15:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as it's not yet a suitable subject for wikipedia. Mr. Berry 23:24, 25 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 11:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ghanshyam thori

Just look at the article. Mr.K. (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability. That being said, it's generally considered a good idea for AfD nominators to give their reasons for doing so, and on anything other than a blatant Speedy I would have voted Keep pending those reasons. If you have the time to file an AfD, you have the time to type all of two extra sentences explaining why. RGTraynor 15:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Some how I do explained why. This article is terrible at the first sight. Just look at the article, I said. Mr.K. (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That is no explanation that invokes any policies or guidelines under which this article is eligible to be deleted. "This article is terrible" isn't a factor. RGTraynor 22:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete; violates WP:BIO --Mhking 15:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, this is somebody's mini-CV, not an encyclopedia article. --Seattle Skier (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as it's not yet a suitable subject for wikipedia. Mr. Berry 23:24, 25 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 redirect. There is no mergeable information, and the article has a problematic history, so combining the two strongest arguments seems like the best course of action. --Core desat 02:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McCracken Junior High School

This is an article about a run-of-the-mill middle school, it's essentially a phone book entry, claiming no sort of notability. I have prodded, it was de-prodded by an anon. Delete Mak (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete: No assertion of notability, no sourcing. RGTraynor 15:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete; non-notable --Mhking 15:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as wholly non-notable with a 0/10 WP:BEEFSTEW. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable --Nymetsfan 16:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Spartanburg County School District No. 7. Existing article provides no information beyond directory. Review of web site and Google search does not find any distinguishing characteristics at this point to demonstrate notability. Alansohn 17:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not-notable. Acalamari 18:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 18:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per Alansohn. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Choose Life Notability will be established as soon as students, faculty, parents begin editing. It is a new entry - let's give it time to grow... Dusibello 15:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: If - and I do emphasize if - students and parents can actually establish notability, they can always recreate the article. It is, however, far more likely that just like almost every other junior high school in existence, it isn't notable. RGTraynor 18:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect or Delete—no notability or sources. Past experience has made it clear that articles on non-notable schools are far more likely to become vandalism magnets than magically turn into useful articles, so Dusibello's special pleading fails to persuade. Xtifr _tälk 20:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per Alansohn. Slightly more informative than a "directory entry" even discounting the fluff in the middle section, but this would still be best served as a redir to the Spartanburg County School District No. 7 page. RFerreira 04:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per the above. --Myles Long 05:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per Alansohn. Xarr 16:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per Alansohn. Why on earth should someone have to recreate the work that's already gone into this? If redirected, with suitable material moved, it saves everyone time better spent elsewhere. Noroton 20:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment see what we mean? Recent edit. Mak (talk) 19:36, 27 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 11:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oyster Festival (disambiguation)

replaced by general topic page on oyster festival; the term is not actually ambiguous Mangoe 15:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete this seems like a noncontroversial deletion to me. I don't see how it hurts anything at all, and it certainly makes it easier for readers. Good work Mangoe, and thanks, but I think a more streamlined deletion route would work better. Noroton 18:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per Noroton. Not much to discuss. Bobanny 21:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Noroton's commentary. I'll defer the speedy to somebody else - what could we do a speedy on? --Dennisthe2 22:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I see Mangoe's point about the lack of ambiguity: individual oyster festivals are typically named "xxxxx Oyster Festival", not simply "Oyster Festival". Also, for what it's worth, I write as the originator of the Oyster Festival (disambiguation) page.--A bit iffy 08:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as it's not realy a needed page. Mr. Berry 23:24, 25 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. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 23:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Owen Byrne (2nd nomination)

This fails WP:BIO. First nomination resulted in a delete vote. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete as recreation and tagged as such. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:53, 24 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Gorodetzky

this guy is less notable than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owen Byrne and he was already deleted once. diggcruft, plain and simple Misterdiscreet 16:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable, and not even a complete sentence. Bobanny 20:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable. GregorB 14:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Digg. Mr. Berry 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:21, 28 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 11:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fritzlein's Arimaa Material Evaluator

This personal concoction isn't notable enough. -- Dissident (Talk) 16:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - there is only one Google hit on this outside of Wikipedia, and it is on the Arimaa website for a download. Mangoe 17:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NFT. Bobanny 19:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete as it's not suitable subject for wikipedia. Mr. Berry 23:27, 25 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explicit (rapper)

Recreation. If not then for its seemingly low notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xplicit Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 16:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - per possible recreation of deleted material under new name. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 16:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No speedy, since I'm pretty sure this is not a recreation. The debate referenced above does not appear to be about the same person as is the subject of this article. However, as stated by Lajbi, this person still does not appear to be notable. Mwelch 19:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. Note the blue links for his yet-to-be-released stuff misleadingly go to different articles. Bobanny 19:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
STRONG DELETE - not notable and probably self-promotional. Ward3001 22:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete since this page fails the "who gives a shit?" test. Mr. Berry 23:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep I am one of the people that worked on this page, and I have never heard of the the "Xplicit" mentioned above. Explicit from Sac, the artist that this page refers to, is currently really hot in northern cali. I have a greater concern though, being that underground hip hop is greatly under represented on wikipedia, I was planning on starting pages for several more underground artists, some more popular and some less popular than Explicit, and was hoping that others would follow suit. T-Nutty, Loki, First Degree, Young Droop, C-Lim etc...all these artists have moved 50,000+ units and are not just kids with demos...they are notable if you are familiar with the scene and it is easy to verify. But the impression I'm getting is that it would be a waste of my time. You all seem to be far more familiar with the rules of wikipedia than I...so you tell me. LoloBounce 00:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP, Explicit passes the notabilty requirements easily. I just now saw the deletion tag, I am pressed for time tonight but will be referencing as much as possible tomorrow. I would hate to see this page go. 70.168.68.40 04:04, 28 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 and cleanup. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race and crime

This page has so many cleanup tags it's not even funny. Not encyclopedic. POV. Not factual. Misleading. Lack of context. Lack of verification. Rewrite from scratch. To sum it up this appears to be original research and tending towards racism. >Radiant< 16:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom and WP:NOR. There is an overpowering reek of soap drifting from this POV nightmare. I'd rate the chances of this ever being a decent page at just about zero. --Folantin 17:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and clean up, it is certainly an encyclopedic topic and subject of study of criminology. --FateClub 17:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, whether this is a viable topic for WP is debatable. This is not the kind of topic where grow and expand can comply with WP:NPOV, it's either well-researched and exhaustive or nothing at all. hateless 17:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete content and redirect to Anthropological criminology. This article cherry picks to make a racist point and doesn't reflect credible criminiological treatments of the subject; there's nothing worth salvaging here. Note that the actual topic of the article is nothing more than a correlation, which says little about the actual relationship between race and crime. Bobanny 19:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Anthropological criminology doesn't seem to be about a current subject. If so, it would be an inappropriate redirect. The subject of the article is an academic subject and notable.Noroton 02:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep and clean up, add counter points and other information. Ulairix 23:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and clean up this sad, sick article. I think I have to vote this way, but we're an encyclopedia and the subject itself is notable and, in theory, could be written without animus and actual racism. There simply are differences in crime rates by race (as well as by sex, age, ethnicity and just about every other way you could chop up a population; and other subjects besides crime could also be looked at that way). This article will always have to fight off the racists and the politically correct people. I guess you just can't avoid it. Nature of the Wikipedia beast. What a chore. I'm going to delete the part about Jews and North Africans not being "white". Ugh! Noroton 02:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and clean up. Notable topic; execrable article. csloat 05:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Bobanny (although I agree with Noroton that Anthropological criminology is not an ideal fit). POV/racist undertones throughout here, there isn't even a mention of the most obvious alternative explanation: poverty, related to both race and crime. The subject could be interesting if done right, but the article needs to be completely wiped and started over from scratch, which I might encourage. The only thing worth saving here is the title, delete everything else. Jakerforever 13:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Well, no consensus so far on whether to delete or not, but seems a strong consensus that everything but the title is crap. If anyone's up for re-writing it, you might want to check out American Renaissance (magazine) and these clowns (guess what color?): Jared Taylor, J. Philippe Rushton, and Steve Sailer for some of the context lacking in this article and as a jumping off point. Bobanny 15:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have been trying to come up with an alternative merge suggestion...I'm surprised that the subject was not handed elsewhere in some (better) way. As an alternative proposal, perhaps the page could just be defered in favor of Racial profiling, which I think is the essence of the article here proposed for deleetion, that minorities are more likely to be involved in crime, although the racial profiling article does a much better job. If you would allow me one rant, in this (in my opinion racist) article, there is no mention of say, white-collar crime, which is almost exclusively committed by caucasians, and argueably has a much greater per-crime impact on society (I'm white myself, by the way). Jakerforever 13:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per arguments above. Normally I would vote keep in this instance. The article itself is important, but a collection of statistics implying whitey is best is not helpful, and should not be used as a basis for this article. Redirect per Bobanny as there is nothing to salvage from the current one. mceder (u t c) 07:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep with massive cleanup - Wikipedia is not bowdlerized. Like it or not this topic is brought up often in the real world, regardless of how much distaste one may feel for even considering such a comparison. There is plenty of information out there on this topic, but the current revision reflects information that is either cherry-picked or from fringe sources. The POV of the article is definitely slanted, as almost every statistic is compared to the corresponding for "White" people. 90% of the current content needs to be thrown out, which would normally lead us to delete or merge the article. The problem is that a) Wikipedia is not censored so we can't really salt it, and b) if we delete it some racist hack will just re-create it, probably with even worse sources. (As it is some of the sources are quite respectable, just summarized shoddily) A far better solution would be for some intelligent, well-reasoning editors to take an interest in this page and turn it into an unbiased, complete, speculation and conclusion free article. I'm willing to chip in a bit, but it'll definitely take several editors working together to make this article what it should be. On the positive side, it will likely turn into a good (if controversial) article. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 09:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Yukichigai. Joie de Vivre 19:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the racist stuff can or should be purged in a re-write, since that's part of the subject's significance. I remember when J. Philippe Rushton - a professor at a mainstream Canadian university - came out with his book. He was quickly and decisively denounced by other academics for using dubious methodology and scientifically invalid interpretations of the data (things like ignoring that variations were greater within his racial categories than across categories, which signifies that the racial categories were arbitrary). Normal criminologists deal with race as a sociological, not biological, phenomenon, which leads to something quite different than the contents of this article, but the biological determinism is still an aspect that merits encyclopedic treatment because the racists don't always stay on the fringes where they belong. Also, racial profiling is something quite different, and is more about law enforcement than criminology. Bobanny 05:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't that the sources are "racist", it's that many of them fail WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. The rest of the "racist" content seems to be WP:OR, or runs afoul of WP:NPOV by comparing every other race to whites. Like I said before, Wikipedia is not censored; nothing will be removed on the basis of it being racist, just on whether or not it meets WP:V, WP:NOR, and other policy. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that anyone's proposing censorship. I also don't think whoever does a rewrite needs to use what's already in the article as a starting point at all (per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR). However, the racist element here probably shouldn't be excluded as an irrelevant fringe perspective because it periodically sparks controversy and gets mainstream coverage see here, for example. On a practical note, dealing with the racist perspective encyclopedically would also make it easier to protect the article from it being highjacked with original research (inappropriate edits are more likely to be reverted in articles where the standards have been set high by proper citations, NPOV, etc.) I'm not arguing that the racist perspective should necessarily take up much space in the article; it'll ultimately take a bit of research to determine what the rewritten article should consist of and in what proportions. Bobanny 19:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

comment - I'd love to see people volunteer to take this article over and clean it up, as it's great for Wikipedia to encourage learning about all sides of the topic. However, I think it'll always be a permanent magnet for POV complaints and re-editing that adds new OR and SOAPBOX violations - you'd need an army putting this article on their watchlists forever to keep it safe. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
keep - I gave a cursory look at the article and every single statement made has been attributed with an outside link. No OR or POV jumped out, nor did I see fact tags. I'm sorry, but while perhaps refutations and counter-statistics could be added, I don't see why this article has to be deleted, except maybe that people find it distasteful. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply - The POV issue is a type of systematic sampling bias, in that all statistics are specifically compared to "Whites", using them as a sort of control group and making this article so that it reads from "the white point of view". The article also notably omits certain statistics, such as the arrest vs. conviction rates of certain races, and implicitly directs the reader to draw conclusions concerning the general "lawfulness" of certain races. POV-pushing doesn't have to "jump" out at you to be present. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The relationship between racial origin and involvement in the criminal justice system is a notable subject discussed by persons from all shades of the political spectrum in many countries. Wikipedia should maintain an article in regard to it. The solution to POV in to add/alter content. In regard to fringe sources I list here most of those contained within the article: U.S. Department of Justice · Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics, New York Times, The Telegraph, The Independent, The Home Office,Research Branch Correctional Service of Canada, New Zealand Department of Corrections and Australian Bureau of Statistics. Romper 21:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This is undoubtedly a valid article topic, although I don't think lumping together statistics from various countries (not to mention continents) was a good idea. The nom provides 7 reasons to delete, one of which (not encyclopedic) is overly vague. 3 others are obviously inaccurate descriptions of the article (not factual, lack of context, lack of verification). That leaves: POV (inclusive of "misleading"), original research, and attack page. This is not a blatant attack page, so that can be dropped as well. The fact that sources exist in most cases, inclusive of this one, means this is not original research (perhaps incomplete research). There is no "unique synthesis"--it's simply a poorly- or insufficiently-performed synthesis. That leaves only POV, which I have never before supported as a reason to delete an article. This time, I will make an exception. This article was clearly created with a POV agenda (for instance, it doesn't even mention that perceived racial effects are significantly reduced after controlling for socioeconomic status). There are more than enough available reliable sources about the relationship between race and crime (government records and scholarly articles) to write a good article but no effort was made to incorporate them. -- Black Falcon 21:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep as per WP:SNOW Gnan garra 12:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New South Wales Rural Fire Service

Basically a long laundry list of what kinds of equipment they possess, what their legislative authority is, etc. It's just about everything about the NSWRFS except an encyclopedic treatise of what they actually are, and also rather lacking in sources, and arguably, notability. >Radiant< 17:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - article quality is a terrible reason to delete, and the subject is notable enough, IMO. Consider improving this instead. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment This article is part of a complex of articles about various aspects of this fire department. There are almost no links to them from outside. THe notability level is low in my opinion. Mangoe 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep, organization covers an entire Australian state, notability is reasonably clear. The article has a lot of unencyclopedic information, though. Subarticles such as Brigades of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service are very clearly non-notable. See Category:New South Wales Rural Fire Service for more. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, largest fire service in the world, responsible for 90% of New South Wales - that's notable. Needs work, but not deletable based on lack of notability. Bobanny 21:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Highly notable organisation with 600 Google News Archive references [23]. Its former director Phil Koperburg is notable in his own right and is likely to be a member of parliament by the end of tonight. Capitalistroadster 01:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep Not notable? Pull your head out of your arse. DXRAW 03:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, how is this not notable? It could use improvement, but taking it to AfD seems a rather excessive and knee-jerk response. Lankiveil 04:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC).
Keep, article quality is no reason for deletion. Seems to be suffering from too many tags, cleanup and improve ...maelgwn talk 06:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per DXRAW, sanction nominator for this idiocy. Rebecca 08:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Half-hearted and dubious reasoning in the nomination, this is clearly notable. AfD is not cleanup, and that's all this article needs. --Canley 13:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - the nominator is an administrator on Wikipedia, and should know better. The RFS is one of the most notable institutions in Australia - we hear about it every summer. When will people stop using AfDs as a cleanup resource? JRG 23:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - An vitally important part of the the New South Wales rural community with many thousands of volunteers. Clearly notable.--Mattinbgn/ ^talk 03:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep needs work, but clearly notable and should not have been nominated.--cj | talk 04:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Snowy keep and speedy close. Clearly notable, needs cleanup. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:23, 25 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. --Wafulz 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sunil Ganguly

Indian musician who fails WP:BIO for lack of depth in published sources. Tagged for notability since Nov. No response to request in Feb on Notice board for India-related topics. There's no reason to keep him. Is there? Mereda 17:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 17:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete: and redirect name to Sunil Gangopadhyay (the poet). The musician is non-notable. --Ragib 17:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS Weak Keep. It seems that he released five albumns on HMV, which consisted of instrumental versions of popular Bollywood songs. The guy passes WP:MUSIC because he has >2 albums with a notable record company. His name is listed among the notable musicians on some sites[24][25]. I could find his mention among notable musicians on some forums, blogs and mailing list (eg.[26][27] etc.). Although the reliable sources are very few[28], and I'm not fully convinced about notability, I'd give a benefit of doubt here. utcursch | talk 13:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - KNM ^Talk 02:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Notable enough [29]. John Vandenberg 12:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Noted in The Tribune and expand[30].Baka man 19:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment John Vandenberg's find is a good 200-word review. I'd guess it's unlikely anything new is going to be written (died 1999, according to Bakaman's source) and there's still not much depth in reliable secondary sources to add to the primary facts of his records. It's closer though. Mereda 07:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete and redirect per Raqib. Hornplease 15:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

keep per utcursch - benefit of doubt being, I don't know if you'll find many latin-alphabet sources writing about a Bengali musician. The sources given above do assert his notability. My opinion is also based on a concern that reliance on latin-alphabet sources for non-European topics (maybe because of lack of Bengali english-language contributors here?) could create a Western bias in en.wikipedia. Can we prove that he's not notable on his home turf? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep: per utcursch --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 18:02, 31 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 11:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mick Barnett

non-notable vanity page Sarcasticidealist 18:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable. Possible an article on the company could demonstrate notability, but the owner? Nah, just a vanity page. Bobanny 21:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Obvious delete as vanity and non-notable --Miskwito 22:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as it's not yet a suitable subject for wikipedia. Mr. Berry 23:31, 25 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 11:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LaPret

LaPret (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) refers.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Wafulz 20:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Across The Sky

nn christian rock band. Does not meet WP:BAND ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Yet another non-notable christian band. This is getting tedious. Bobanny 19:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing really notable about them. Though they did sound pretty good when I heard them once. -Hoekenheef 02:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as it's not yet a suitable subject for wikipedia. Mr. Berry 23:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep After research addiong content and noting the criteria. I really beleive they are minor but notable. There are randomn little things all over wiki-world. Look if this is a knowledge base then let it be. I would no longer call this article a stub. This is not a garage band they had a deal with a major Christian Label and sold mid market for their genre even peaking at number 5 on the Christian Charts. I disagree with the previous posts. But there is a wikiproject on going for CCM and other Christian music. Personally I detest Christian Pop culture but it and it's compnents IE Bands make an impact on society. I say keep. But expand the article. BTW -- I think they were Dove award nominees (CCM Grammy equiv.). I'll have to check that though. M-BMor 23:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)M-BMor 11:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

   * Update I added the Dove Award info to the site. I went to the CCM Project 
     page to look at formatting. There are issues here. But I think with some 
     editing this could be a salvagable article just need some time.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by M-BMor (talk • contribs) 10:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

    * Update 2 Point by Point on criteria WP:BAND
      # Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. Yes Christian Charts 2003 (need to verify)

Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. (not sure -- doubt it)
Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,3 reported in reliable sources.4 YES toured with Micheal W. Smith and Mercy Me (both major multi platinum artists) and toured in Australia New Zeland and South America
Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). No just one on a major Christian Label.
Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. In christian pop culture hard to define but no as of now.
Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. No
Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury award. Was nominated for a Dove Award (Christian Music Industry Grammies)
Has won or placed in a major music competition. Only Dove Awards Not a competition.
Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.) No
Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. Air 1 National Christian Radio (need to get good verification)
Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network Same as above.

66.18.136.113 06:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)SOME STATS REGARDING ACROSS THE SKY TO HELP DETERMINE IF THEY ARE "NOTABLE"

- Song "Found by You" peaked at #5 on the AC Christian charts in the U.S. (source: CRW, R&R), additionally the songs "Broken World" and "Give it all Away" were released as singles and received airplay both here in the states and radio stations in Australia, Canada, South America, and Europe

- Across the Sky received a 2004 GMA Dove Award Nomination for New Artist of the Year

- Their music was featured in WOW Hits 2003 or 2004 (Certified Platinum)

- Their song "Everywhere She Goes" was featured in the first season of "One Tree Hill" on the WB network

- Additionally they toured extensively all over the U.S., were featured on a national tour and festivals and also travelled to Central and South America66.18.136.113 06:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

        * I just added a lot of material to the article. Needs cleanup. Haven't      
          plugged all the sources into intext citations yet but they are listed 
          in references.
           M-BMor 16:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

        * I did some editing and added some other info. The article is now more than a stub  but could still use some flushing out.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.101.179.35 (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

        * After some work I've requested that the ProjecPage for Contemporary Christian Music Re-assess this page. I think some of the content added has stregthened the areguement for "notability"

I would agree with the decision to ask the wikiproject page to look at it again. The content has been vastly expanded ... alomost to the extent it can be with this topic with out running on. Some tweeking needs to be done. But it is not your typical stub anymore.M-BMor 11:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - per User:M-BMor and expansion since Mar 23. Confirmed Dove Award nomination, international tour, radio charts, meets WP:BAND. Needs cleanup. Dan, the CowMan 06:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Major award nominations (Dove Awards are the Grammys of Christian music), international tour. Royalbroil^T : C 18:32, 30 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 11:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3 the God Way

non notable christian rap. Does not meet WP:BAND ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 20:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
STRONG DELETE - not notable; probably self-promotional. Ward3001 21:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete does not meet notability standards. —Ocatecir ^Talk 06:02, 26 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. Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tiger Inn

Insufficiently notable student eating club. Delete. (Do not merge, as there's no notable merge information.) --Nlu (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Club notable for its motivation for Sally Frank, who would be notable if anyone took the time to create a page regarding her feminist legal crusade. The case redlinked in this article is actually a very important one in Princeton and Ivy League history. In short, Princeton has eating clubs (cross between frats and dining halls). Some of them are selective in membership. Sally Frank brought suit against selective all male clubs. Eventually they became co-ed. This club was a rowdy bastion of testosterone during my days at Princeton. This club, Sally Frank and the case referenced in this article are all notable.TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Concur with TonyTheTiger that there should be an entry on the matters he mentions. Separate articles on all 11 (originally 19) eating clubs might be a bit much, though. Newyorkbrad 19:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. to Tony: Great username!
Merge into Frank v. Ivy Club assuming the latter gets written. The club is just a footnote to the court case. Mangoe 20:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep; notability is established. dcandeto 20:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This club is notable and the article should be kept. If someone creates "Frank v. Ivy Club" someday, then we can think about merging it in. Until then, this should stay. Crypticfirefly 03:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Article could use improvement but I agree with dcandeto. Sirmob 03:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Despite the poor article, this club is more notable than many of the other 10 eating clubs which have (nicer) WP articles. --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep' there is probably a good case that these and similar sorts of organizations at colleges of major social significance like Yale and Harvard are worth keeping, because they are institutions affecting the careers of people who play a major role in some areas of american economic life --possibly to an even greater extent in some instances than the universities they are associated with. The relative notability of the various clubs varies with time. DGG 08:47, 24 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 11:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Riley Armstrong

non notable christian rock singer. Article is OR and unsourced. Does not meet WP:BAND ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete, along with Riley Armstrong (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). I wonder how his fans reacted when he changed his "look"? Bobanny 19:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as it's not yet a suitable subject for wikipedia. I mean, realy... who in the hell is making all these articles? Mr. Berry 23:33, 25 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Argyle Park

non notable christian rock band. does not meet WP:BAND, WP:A, ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, bundled with Misguided (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and Suspension of Disbelief (Argyle Park album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for non-notability. The band only played one live show. Bobanny 19:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Was signed to important indie record label Tooth & Nail whose record Define the Great Line hit Gold status and debuted at #1 on the mainstream charts. Xcryoftheafflictedx 03:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. One of the lower benchmarks on WP:MUSIC is that the band have released two or more albums on a major or significant indie label. With only one album on a notable indie label and one live show, there does not appear to be justification for an article, let alone three articles and a category.--Kubigula (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep I was unfamiliar with the band until I did some searching. Argyle Park has articles on All Music Guide [31], Yahoo [32], and WindowsMedia.com [33]. The three combine to meet the central criteria " subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable". One release on major indie label. There are several fan websites. Royalbroil^T : C 20:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The Yahoo and WM bios are copies of the Allmusic profile, which is itself derived from a band press release. You might have an argument that this is one published source, but I don't think it amounts to multiple sources. If the short bio were more of an actual review, I might agree as to notability when combined with the indie label album. However, I think it's all still too thin, especially when combined with the fact that they only ever played one live show.--Kubigula (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added another reliable source. Dan, the CowMan 03:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep - This article now meets "multiple non-trivial works" and points 4 and 5 of WP:MUSIC. Dan, the CowMan 03:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep per the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music source added by Dan, the CowMan. -- Black Falcon 22:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Constitarian Party

Seemingly nonsense. Also a possible copyvio, but editor claims it was the other way around. Before checking that out, it might be better to first decide if this article should stay or not. Garion96 (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per WP:NFT and WP:BALLS. Bobanny 18:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy, as this is nothing but, as they say in the UK, a party political broadcast. Pat Payne 18:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as it's not yet a suitable subject for wikipedia. Mr. Berry 23:33, 25 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 as unsourced and inherently biased. --Wafulz 20:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli home front in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Unsourced, POV, no links, poorly written, no response to talk page request for rewrite RolandR 18:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. IZAK 02:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete just poorly written POV version fork from 2006 Israel Lebanon conflict. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Never, in my life, have I seen so many "citeneeded" tags. That tells me the article is sure to become a battleground between pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian editors (as every blasted sentence has one). Eitherway, the lead certainly is POV and doesn't bode well for the rest of the article. Pat Payne 19:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. A very informative article. Needs editing, though. Some "editors" would place that "citeneeded" tag after every word! Garcia-Fons 22:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

An obvious sock-puppet, whose only edits have been today, to a string of AfDs. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the writer of that article, and I don't remember that I'v been registered in the name "Garcia-Fons". Regarding the article, don't accuse me in anything. I'v only translated that article from the article about the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict in the Hebrew Wikipedia. My only mistake is that I didn't translated from there the list of reasons to the opposition to the operation, which is:

The action of the IDF is not proportional in front of kidnapping of two soldiers.
The amount of civil killing in Lebanon - over about 300 civilians after a week, and over 600 after about 4 weeks - is not moral.
The IDF is harming in Lebanese civilian economic infrastructure and nearly doesn't succeed to harm in Hezbollah.
The harming in civilian population was meant to create pressure against Hezbollah. In practice, polls in Lebanon are testifying that the actions of the IDF actually increased the support in Hezbollah by the population.
The prime minister of Lebanon promised that the Lebanese army will spread out in the border with Israel, in return to cease-fire.
The war is reminding the 1982 Lebanon War which is considered as a mistake in the eyes of many.
After the battles, Israel [in the source: the IDF (translator's remark)] will be have to negotiate about the soldiers which are held by Hezbollah from the same position.
The pictures of the innocent deads had increased the anger about Israel in the world and increased actions against Jewish and Israeli targets around the world.

And two more things: this is an article about the Israeli home front, and Hezbollah is not the most admired organization in Israel. And once I read in the Hebrew Wikipedia that most of the articles that dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict (or was it the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?) in the English Wikipedia have a point of view against Israel, then this article is not the English Wikipedia's only problem. Hjbhuvghgg 16:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Amazing! Hjbhuvghgg admits that he translated this from the Hebrew wikipedia (very poorly, in my opinion), but decided to leave out any criticism of the war. Could there possibly be any more conclusive proof of a deliberate POV edit?RolandR 17:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you want that I will put this list in the article, or this is also need a citation of sources? Hjbhuvghgg 15:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

comment 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict has numerous sub-articles. We should know that this article relates to which part of the main article to recognize it as a one of its sub-article. I can't answer this question at present.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete - Look at all those disclaimer banners! And all those "Citation Needed" tags! On a subject as controversial as the Israeli/Arab conflict, we need to be very careful to maintain NPOV. And that means deleting unsourced material like this. Utterly fails WP:V and WP:RS. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete — For such a tiny part of the world, this area generates an entirely disproportional amount of content. The whole 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict subject tree needs a good trimming with heavy shears, as do many of the other Arab-Israeli topics. This is just too much detail. — RJH (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
~~keep and rewrite~~ could be a good article if sourced, but one should tag the page with unsourced before just deleting.--Sefringle 02:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The page has already been tagged with unsourced for three weeks, and nobody has attempted to provide any sources. RolandR 18:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, delete--Sefringle 03:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep per User:Sefringle. IZAK 03:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(. . . who has now changed his opinion to "Delete") RolandR 08:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as unsourced. Resurgent insurgent 02:08, 30 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 11:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karen Alexander

This seems to be an autobiography. Not only is that strongly discouraged, but in no way does the subject satisfy notability criteria, just because some of her poems have been published on a minor press. Lampman 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Alf^Photoman 19:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Does not assert any form of notability and provides no appropriate sources. Might also want to nominate Alexandra Cain as she appears to be of similar notability. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete along with Alexandra Cain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Notice that the blue links to her work don't take you to articles about her work. Non-notable. Bobanny 19:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete the only link that takes you anywhere, and that goes to her site as a private investigator. Very post-modern. Johnbod 19:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless some references to second party non-trivial coverage are added to the article Alf^Photoman 23:23, 23 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 11:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nominal GDP stock index

Contested prod. This is a non-notable term, with no references except to a user's blog. --El on ka 18:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable, will not pass WP:ATT. Only 4 ghits, the Wikipedia article and 3 on one blog. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 20:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Term with little usage. - PoliticalJunkie 21:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as it's not yet a suitable subject for wikipedia. Mr. Berry 23:33, 25 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 Millcreek Township School District. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walnut Creek Middle School (Millcreek, PA)

Non notable middle school, except for existing. I would have CSD'd or PROD'ed but they likely would have been contested by the author, since they removed an invalid db- tag. Author was told prior to starting article about notability. See [34]. MECU≈talk 19:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as failing WP:N and WP:ATT. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 20:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep based on new sources, but remove the following sections: Typical Schedule (completely pointless), Facuily and Staff (Wikipedia is not a directory), and Layout of School (unless it can be sourced and is especially relevant). Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 19:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 01:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Then I suggest you delete Central High School (Erie, Pennsylvania), Harbor Creek School District, William Allen High School, Louis E. Dieruff High School, Emmaus High School, Parkland High School (Allentown, Pennsylvania) , and Whitehall High School (Pennsylvania). None of these schools are notable either. you wikipedians can be cruel sometimes. Ttttrrrreeeeyyyyyy 03:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, we can be. Keep cool.Noroton 05:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  - The other schools mentioned are all high schools and one school district. This is a middle school. There is a difference (so I'm told) Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 18:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete and the editor above me should view WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Just because other schools are crap and here just means we haven't got around to deleting them yet ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Swatjester, please be civil. Anyone can call anything "crap" including the parts of Wikipedia you like. All we have to do is act like grownups to participate here. Noroton 05:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep Delete~~ Abstain (see comment below) ~~because it's not a bad article.~~Noroton 05:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I try to be open to school articles that are new, I have to admit that Ttttrrrreeeeyyyyyy has convinced me in the deletion discussion for East Middle School that I should probably revise upward my standards, so I favor deletion, at least for this school. I'm just going to withdraw from this one. Noroton 00:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC) (edit with crossed out words and new comment Noroton 21:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC) )

The article does demonstrate a commendable lack of snobbery , including the janitor as well as the teachers. But as for the school, it just isn't notable. I admit that some middle schools might be.

Delete on this one, though. DGG 08:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you ever have an article you created up for deletion? It's so much fun when they joke about it. Especially when you're new.Noroton 20:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

comment Just to show I'm fair, I looked at the other articles mentioned. They are high schools, not middle schools, they almost of them have a significant number of prominent alumni, significant athletic accomplishments, and interesting events in their history--and the articles were very well written. I have a few doubts about 2 of the articles, but I would !vote to keep them all. Allentown seems blessed with good high schools. There are differences between different schools, and if we are going to discuss this intelligently we should pay attention to each individual article. DGG 08:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Walnut Creek Middle School in Michigan is not notable.-Ttttrrrreeeeyyyyyy 21:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Stewart Middle School (Norristown, Pennsylvania) not notableTtttrrrreeeeyyyyyy 21:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The argument that other articles exist that are similar in nature (in this case, a middle school) is not a reason for keeping this article. Just because one university professor is notable and deserves an article doesn't mean all university professors do. If you feel these other articles you are mentioning aren't notable, then nominate them for deletion as well. It is every editor's charge to cleanup and improve Wikipedia. But please, don't do it with the reason "this middle school article got deleted so this one should too." --MECU≈talk 23:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:N. There is no consensus at Wikipedia that even high schools are or are not inherently notable, as evidenced by the fact that high school AfDs are closed as "no consensus", "keep" or "delete" on a case by case basis. I think we can all agree that middle schools are generally less notable than high schools. Unless and until somebody properly demonstrates that this particular school is notable, this article should be deleted. --Butseriouslyfolks 00:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I'd call it "notable" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noroton (talk • contribs) 05:36, March 25, 2007 (UTC).
- Keep Tom Ridge was there... so it is notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ttttrrrreeeeyyyyyy (talk • contribs) 13:46, March 25, 2007 (UTC).
Delete per nom. Fails WP:N. Xarr 14:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. That a notable person attended a particular middle school does not per se make the school notable. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment I've added to the article. The S.E.W.E.R group received some coverage, particularly from the local newspaper (which doesn't allow free access to its old stories) but from organizations even outside Pennsylvania. Those who have already !voted might want to review the article again. I put the new section up high, but it can be moved. Noroton 19:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment This school has been very active in the community. I have added more info. IT IS NOTABLE. more notable than some high schools...Ttttrrrreeeeyyyyyy 22:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment I would suggest removing the following sections: Typical Schedule (completely pointless), Facuily and Staff (Wikipedia is not a directory), and About the School (at least make it sound more relevant ie.get rid of info about lockers, windows, "designed as a middle school") Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Done --Ttttrrrreeeeyyyyyy 00:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to the Millcreek Township School District page as WP:LOCAL and similar guidelines suggest. Redirects are cheap, use them. RFerreira 05:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge and then redirect to the Millcreek Township School District as suggested above, too much data to just perform a straight redirect though. Burntsauce 20:19, 29 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, default to keep. --Wafulz 20:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sami A. Aldeeb

~~Article about a non notable lawyer.~~ -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 22:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep High google hit, now the article looks already better but it still needs more clean up and references. -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 17:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable, could be anyone. Probably not a real person Keep, as bought to my attention by Alf below, the page just needs a serious makeover.Fethroesforia 22:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment is a real person see here Alf^Photoman 22:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Being a real person doesn't make him notable engouh to be on wikipedia. -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 22:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep, the article is completely unsourced and in dire need of work. Under present circumstances it would fail WP:A, WP:BIO and WP:ATT . On the other hand the article does not do justice to the subject either. Alf^Photoman 23:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment When I looked at the article, it was sourced in the sense that it includes a link to the man's personal webpage, which at least on cursory review appears to verify the information in the article. This is at least sufficiently sourced that one need not worry that the guy is going to be angry with Wikipedia for passing on misinformation about him. Also, while I don't have time to go looking for third-party verification right now, what about WP:PROF? He certainly seems to be well-published in English and French. Crypticfirefly 03:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete no reliable sources are provided to prove notability.--Sefringle 04:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Penwhale

Weak keep, article needs wikified. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a failure of WP:BIO - it lacks the basic third-party RS necessary. Tewfik^Talk 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I would be inclined to keep if the journals indeed can be verified to be notable, Tewfik^Talk 03:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep but improve. There is a clear claim of notability here under WP:PROF, and based on the information available about this person, it seems likely that that can be verified with third party sources. Crypticfirefly 03:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep I do not know very much about French academic publishers, but I recognize some of them as well known and reputable. I notice also 7 books in Arabic, though I cannot tell if they are translations. His career as a human rights lawyer seems notable as well. DGG 09:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
delete fails notability--Sefringle 03:32, 27 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 Rama's Arrow [35]. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 22:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 385 gang

Non notable group. The original prod was removed by an anon, who gave was I assume was the reason on the talk page: "ive heard they are a problem down there. nasty violence." Regardless of what this anon has apparently heard, a google search for "385 gang" (in quotes) and Naples, Florida, produces 0 hits and a search of the of the Naples Daily News also produces 0 hits. If they aren't even getting local press coverage, then this isn't a notable gang. Natalie 20:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Seems to be some kind of mix between Category:Fictional gangs and WP:NFT. Bobanny 20:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete; the article is about a group of people but does not assert the notability of the subject. Vectro 20:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete unreferenced, unverifiable, and reeks of hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete A7 (club). So tagged. The name is puzzling, as many gangs base their names on area codes - and AC385 is for the state of Utah. --Dennisthe2 21:23, 23 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 per being unencyclopedic. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References to John Coltrane in popular culture

Delete - an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every time Coltrane is name-checked in a song or on a TV show. Strongly oppose the idea of merging any of this back into the main Coltrane article. Otto4711 23:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. An incommplete list (they forgot Birdland by The Manhattan Transfer, for one, which is even more significant than some of those songs), and a list that could never, ever hope to be complete. --Dennisthe2 23:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete I considered nominating this before, but now it's here delete it. Croxley 02:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete indiscriminate list, woefully incomplete and of no interest beyond trivia. Pascal.Tesson 23:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Someone please create WikiTrivia, and we could transwiki all of these nonsense trivia pages there.Dr bab 00:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Holy God, I'm trying to create a transit wiki. That too?! =^_^= --Dennisthe2 19:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete This page is just a way of keeping pointless trivia off the main Coltrane page -- Better just to monitor that page and remove the more obscure referencesEditor437 05:22, 28 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CRN Solutions

Unsourced, about a "certified partner" company. Peter O. (Talk) 23:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete no notability demonstrated. Google turns up 39 unique hits (in English) [36] and even some of these are irrelevant. Google isn't the proof of everything but for a tech company, that's abysmally low and there's no sign of third-party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 23:36, 24 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 per WP:NOT. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural depictions of Ella Fitzgerald

Delete - indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every time someone says the words "Ella Fitzgerald" in a movie or on TV. Strongly oppose merging any of this to the main Fitzgerald article. Otto4711 23:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - this list was originally moved from the main Ella article, and I believe it is useful in showing how Fitzgerald's image has been constructed through popular culture. I also agree with this point, User_talk:Otto4711#Proposal_to_delete_.22popular_culture.22_articles the article really does help fill up rubbish from Ella's main article, tidbits that fans will only put back in :) Gareth E Kegg 00:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Then the people who edit Ella's article should delete the items instead of turning them into someone else's problem by making a worthless pop culture article. If better in this article then the main article is the best or the only reason for keeping this sort of article, then the article ought to go. And what exactly does "In the American sitcom 3rd Rock from the Sun, Sally Solomon orders a pizza with extra 'Mozzarella Fitzgerald'." and "In the sitcom The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Will's grandmother is mistaken for Ella Fitzgerald by an over-eager photographer." to offer two examples from the list, tell us anything about Fitzgerald or her image? Otto4711 01:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

And what makes something worthless pop culture? Cinema was worthless pop culture 100 years ago. By the late twentieth century it had become a topic of serious scholarly study. It actually took a doctoral dissertation to list all occurrences of Joan of Arc in film and unfortunately many of those early depictions are lost forever because, as worthless pop culture, no one had bothered to preserve them. The featured list about Joan of Arc has plenty of examples that would be equally vulnerable to ridicule if one were so inclined. These lists are in part sociological documents that answer the questions Does this person persist as a cultural figure or has her memory faded into obscurity? In what venues and media do these references appear? And how is she remembered? A biographer or a media historian would ask these questions and Wikipedia is ideally suited to document these occurrences before they - like the celluloid of a century ago - crumble into obscurity. Durova^Charge! 03:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

March 2007 (UTC)

"Worhtless" modifies the entire phrase "pop culture article." The pop culture may or may not be worthless. The article most certainly is. Otto4711 16:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, an indiscriminate list of vague puns on "Ella Fitzgerald" on sitcoms and such. Trivia should be integrated into the main article, tossing out questionable items like these, instead of being left to collect and rot in a separate article. — Krimpet (talk/review) 01:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete One of the poorer popular culture lists. Croxley 02:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Gareth E. Kegg argues that the article "is useful in showing how Fitzgerald's image has been constructed through popular culture." but I wonder whether we're reading the same article! The list is bare and presents absolutely no context or critical commentary that might make it ever so slightly encyclopedic. Pascal.Tesson 23:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep An article of this sort is a featured list: Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. I'm willing to allow this thing a stay of execution and see if it can perhaps reach some level of encyclopedic quality. If I saw a terrible article on a subject that perhaps deserved an article I wouldn't vote delete and that's what I'm doing here. Quadzilla99 01:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep As the editor who created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc I'll speak up for this type of list. One of the main values of having this sort of thing is as a resource for parents and teachers who want to introduce a historical topic to young people without putting them to sleep. Ella Fitzgerald was one of the foremost vocalists in jazz history. A Simpsons cartoon may inspire curiosity about her in the same way many adults got their first introduction to Richard Wagner from a Bugs Bunny cartoon called What's Opera, Doc? or from the soundtrack to Apocalypse Now. Don't jettison this type of information. Improve on it. Durova^Charge! 13:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I find it impossible to believe that a single person in the world ever will develop any curiosity over who Ella Fitzgerald was because Lisa Simpson said "Ella Fitzjello." There is no comparison between the Joan of Arc list and this list and quite frankly you do your work on that list a grave disservice by embracing the comparison. Otto4711 18:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you doubt the curiousity of children! It can take a little thing like that to spark their curiousty, and such things give them something to identify with, rather than the machinations of Ella's meeting Chick Webb. It has to be accepted that although wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it also comes top of any google search that kids will do for Ella or Frank etc Gareth E Kegg 10:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia needs more defined rules for dealing with "popular culture references" sections. Bartleby 13:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
delete - the article begins by stating "This is a list of depictions in popular culture of the jazz singer, Ella Fitzgerald", but lists absolutely no depictions of Ella Fitzgerald - just puns on her name and vague references. I think a real article on "depictions in popular culture of the jazz singer Ella Fitzgerald" would be great for Wikipedia, but this article is not that - instead it seems like indiscriminate information. I also think Pascal.Tesson makes a good point above. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm confused, you're saying the subject deserves an article, but the article is terrible (granted) so the article should be deleted? That doesn't make sense to me. Quadzilla99 02:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 best keep arguments are based on a single journal whose very existence is in question. If anyone wants to merge parts into Sonnet, let me know and I will make them available. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sonnet studies

Article appears to violate WP:OR and WP:NEO. Google returns only 4 hits for "sonnetology" (other than WP pages worked on by article's originator), none of which supports the notion that s. is a recognized "branch of literary criticism and literary theory." Term is also absent from the OED and other dictionaries available to me. Deor 23:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Is idiot plot found in your dictionaries? What about Islomania? Blobject? Sheeple? Plutoed? Speculative poetry? The answer is of course NO, yet I don't notice anyone trying to delete these articles as you are trying to do with this one... --WassermannNYC 01:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be named "Sonnet studies," not Sonnetology. I'm going to move it now. However, can you help me to move the category as well to Category:Sonnet studies? Sonnet studies has approx. 650,000 hits per your 'Google forumlae'. Please see my TP for more info. --WassermannNYC 00:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Note that WassermannNYC is the creator of the article in question. This attempt to short-circuit the AfD process by moving the article smacks of lack of good faith, and I continue to support my nom under the new article name. What's more, I get only 124 Google hits for "sonnet studies," and most are irrelevant to the text of this article. There might be a usable category here but not a usable article. Deor 00:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Exceptionally weak keep in that there seems (from Google) to be a "Journal of Sonnet Studies". Claiming that the renamed term gets 650000 Ghits is disingenuous, since a search using quote marks (to make certain that the only results actually deal with such a field, and not someone who might be "reading sonnets as part of my studies in Elizabethan society") only nets 117 raw hits. Additionally, not only was the page moved but the AfD notice was removed, which is a very sneaky thing to do. Given that the journal doesn't seem to exist (which was something I didn't notice during my research, compromised as it was by the need to restore the AfD notice), I'm now inclining towards delete as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Granted that there is a "Journal of Sonnet Studies" -- apparently unpublished as yet and issuing a Call for Papers -- it's still not a widely used term. What can be written about "sonnet studies" that couldn't better be covered in sonnet? Unless a good case is made for the article's separate existence, delete. —Cel ithemis 01:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep under the new name. The title of a journal is generally sufficient evidence fort the term being accepted. (not a mention in a journal, or the title of one article, but the title of a journal--it implies that numerous others will be able to tell what it includes).

Looking at the article on Sonnet, the lede paragraph defines the study of sonnets as Sonnet studies (though earlier it had sonnetology), and sonnetology is the category, with a request to change to sonnet studies pending. However, both terms were introduced by the same ed. so the question is whether either of the terms is independent of WNYC. I think they are on the basis that the editor of the Journal is Laura Manuel from Boston University.(not the same person--see WassermannNYC's user page) I do not think the change of name is in bad faith--I think it is a change induced by discovering that there was a proposed journal with a different title. I want to check tomorrow to see if there is another name used in the field. DGG 10:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The question is, Is the name of the proposed journal evidence that "sonnet studies" is the name of a recognized discipline, or merely evidence that studies are written about sonnets? There's a journal called Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies; does that mean there should be a WP article with that title in addition to all the articles about Greek, Roman, and Byzantine history? Deor 13:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep or merge to sonnet. It should not surprised anyone that the very anti-modern field of literary criticism generates few Google hits. The question is really "is there evidence that this terminology is in use". If the "Journal of Sonnet Studies" indeed exists, the answer seems to be yes and we should keep the article either in itself or at least as a redirect to sonnet. Pascal.Tesson 23:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
KEEP -- "Sonnet studies" is a valid field. Whole books have been written about sonnets and sonneteers, and some colleges/universities have classes specifically on sonnets (for English majors and the like). --WassermannNYC 00:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- There's a difference, though, between a class on sonnets (or even books about sonnets) and an entire field about sonnets. When I did my undergraduate degree, for example, there were a number of semester-long classes I took which were part of a larger field, rather than being parts of their own individual field. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  - I still don't understand why you continue to pursue this deletion Deor when the article in question (Sonnetology) HAS been deleted and replaced with the valid Sonnet studies (also note that Category:Sonnetology is in the process of being renamed to Category:Sonnet studies). To be honest, it seems that your actions rather than my initial mistake "smacks of lack of good faith." --WassermannNYC 00:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Also, NO ONE seems to have any problems with Category:Sonneteers -- why the targeting of this part of the field and not another? It makes no sense... --WassermannNYC 00:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
      - In response to both claims: Firstly, the article in question has not "been deleted". You moved it. The AfD was not created saying "There should not be an article called 'Sonnetology'", but rather "the contents of this article (whatever it may be called) are not valid as an article". That's why the removal of the AfD notice was a problem, incidentally. Secondly, the fact that the category has not been deleted is only of borderline relevance (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, for example). Personally, I have no objection to a category which says "The people contained here wrote sonnets". What I do have an objection to is an article claiming that the study of sonnets is a field unto itself, which appears not to be the case. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that this article would have NEVER been nominated for deletion if it had been originally named Sonnet studies (as it should have been) instead of sonnetology as it was -- Deor's whole premise for deletion was that the former NAME of the article (Sonnetology) wasn't to be found in his dictionary or in web searches. --WassermannNYC 01:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. Deor responded (after the renaming) that there was still little or no evidence that "sonnet studies" is a recognised field either. It's got orders of magnitude more hits than "sonnetology" ever did, but there's still no real evidence that it's caught on academically. Had it been created under its current title, I'd suggest that it would have eventually found its way here as well. Perhaps not as rapidly, since the name is less unusual-looking, but if the content were as it is now, I'd be surprised if it didn't turn up. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

- (edit conflict) Again, though, what is there to say about sonnet studies as a discipline? There are courses and books about Decadence, but we don't have a separate article on Decadence studies; we simply have an article about the Decadent movement. There are journals called Dreiser Studies and Cather Studies, but it would make little sense to have a Dreiser studies article separate from Theodore Dreiser. From what I've seen so far, it seems to make equally little sense to cover sonnet studies separately from the article on sonnets. Until a field of study reaches a point where you can talk about its significance as a discpline -- like, say, Women's studies -- a separate article can be little more than a glorified dictionary definiton. —Cel ithemis 00:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sonnet studies is indeed a discipline, just look at all the topics currently found in Category:Sonnetology (soon to be renamed to Category:Sonnet studies). We need a topic heading and/or category to group those 30+ topics related to sonnets and sonnet studies; otherwise they are just scattered about with no real central idea (or 'discipline,' AKA sonnet studies) grouping them together. --WassermannNYC 01:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

- - With respect, there's yet to be any real proof provided that there is a "central idea or discipline" under which they can be grouped. They all relate broadly to sonnets, yes, but there's no indication (aside from unsubstantiated claims) that there is a field unto itself which covers all these things. It would make sense if there is, but that's not the object of the exercise here. I can see the logic in having a category for "concepts relating to sonnets" separate from a category for "sonnets themselves", but that's not always a principle followed in other categorisation schemes. Additionally, there's no rule against having such a category scheme but doing away with the article on the field which would notionally cover one category. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That could simply be renamed to Category:Sonnets. —Cel ithemis 01:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No -- that category (which I intend to create eventually) would obviously be reserved for ACTUAL sonnets (or books of sonnets) such as Sonnets from the Portuguese or Sonnets to Orpheus, or individual sonnets such as "Ozymandias" or Shakespeare's Sonnet 154. It's a vast field, this sonnet studies; this is why we need these categories and articles, in order to try and organize it all. --WassermannNYC 01:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there is a need for Category:Sonnet studies, then, if only for lack of anything better to call it. Categorization on Wikipedia isn't something I deal with much, so I'll leave that question to others; it's not something that needs to be decided here in any case. What I'm still not seeing is any indication that sonnet studies needs an article. I searched Google Scholar and a couple of humanities databases and could not find even a single paper discussing "sonnet studies" as a field. The closest was a book review using "Sonnet studies", capitalized, to refer to criticism of Shakespeare's sonnets -- seemingly a nonce term. Can you point me to some sources that do discuss sonnet studies as a field? —Cel ithemis 02:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I find it interesting that the field of Sonnet studies seems to have traction on these pages while Category:Women writers lacks traction on CfD. I'd like to see the articles and categories better built out quickly before they are justified. Most of these are unreferenced stubs. A Musing (formerly Sam) 14:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Merge any relevant info with sonnet. The article merely tells us that people study sonnets, which is a true but utterly banal observation. I'm not sure there's any such subject as "Sonnet Studies" - and is writing sonnets really known by the technical term "sonnetizing"? Pointless page, fails WP:ATT. --Folantin 12:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, "sonnetizing" is a real term -- do you ever bother looking stuff up that isn't found on Wikipedia? Judging by your edit history, it looks like your a professional Wiki-deletionist to me...so why do you care if it's deleted or not? Or how can you comment on this article if you know nothing about the field? What all do you know about sonnets; if you don't know much (as I suspect), what makes you qualified to call for the page's deletion? Please look to Category:Sonnet studies to learn that it is a fairly wide field for such a specific sub-set of the larger subject of poetry. I also don't understand why this article was targeted for deletion when MANY more obscure terms/concepts/fields exist en masse over at the Glossary of poetry terms of List of literary terms pages. --WassermannNYC 13:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Nice try with the ad hominems and the garbled logic. In fact I know quite a lot about the sonnet but I've never come across the term "Sonnet studies" or "Sonnetology" ("sonnetizing" is a jocular or archaic term). It would help if this page actually had sources or references. It would also help if there was any point to it. At the moment it is virtually content-free and completely unnecessary when we already have a vastly superior article on the Sonnet. --Folantin 15:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - quite simply, because it's unsourced. WP:ATT is policy, and this is not an acceptable state of affairs. Keep if an only if someone provides some references that show that this really is a valid encyclopedic individual topic. The burden of responsibility for finding those references is on those who wish to keep this, not the other way around. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just added quite a few references and key texts in the field of sonnet studies. I hope that this is enough to keep it from getting deleted. --WassermannNYC 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - unsourced, dicdef, no content. Also, if we're going to play the ad hominem game, why hasn't the author added sources or proof to the article in the five days since the nom was opened, rather than argue with people who have already voted? MSJapan 17:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just added quite a few references and key texts in the field of sonnet studies. I hope that this is enough to keep it from getting deleted. --WassermannNYC 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The references are certainly about sonnets, I'll say that much. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately none of them prove that there is any such subject as "Sonnet studies", merely that people have studied sonnets - which isn't the same thing. --Folantin 10:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thought as much. I just didn't have access to a library today. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't need a library -- just click the ISBN #'s to check out the book(s). Some of those books focus directly on the actual history of the sonnet as a poetic form, while others focus on very specific sonnet topics (i.e. sonnets in the 19th century or in Shakespeare's era, etc).

delete - Google Scholar only seems to give 2 occurrences of "sonnet" and "studies" next to each other. Certainly doesn't seem to be notable yet. Give this journal a few review cycles, and the term will likely be more notable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment -- You people seem to think that ALL information is already found on the Internet. Well, it isn't, and the 'Google formulae' currently used to 'establish notability' here on Wikipedia is a broken and ridiculous 'system' if there ever was one. --WassermannNYC 05:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Article contains almost no information not found in sonnet. The references are not used in the article to source the existence and notability of the field. A discussion of critical views of sonnets, their place in literary and poetic theory, and so forth, would be appropriate in sonnet; if such a section grows unwieldy it can be split again then. Mike Christie (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment -- in addition to all of the books that I've just added to the article, it looks like you all neglected to notice the following info in the sonnet article:

...Richard Vallance publishes the Canadian quarterly journal Sonnetto Poesia (ISSN 1705-452) which is dedicated to the sonnet, villanelle, and quatrain forms, as well as the monthly Vallance Review on historical and contemporary sonneteers. Michael R. Burch publishes The HyperTexts and there are sonnets from well-known poets on his site. William Baer has also recently published 150 Contemporary Sonnets (University of Evansville Press 2005).

Despite my references and plus these journals, it still looks like this article will son be deleted, so I suppose that I'll start transferring some of the data from this doomed article to the sonnet page. --WassermannNYC 20:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to reassert the observation that this article would have never even been nominated for deletion if it had been named correctly in the beginning. --WassermannNYC 20:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I doubt it. Even those references you've added are related to "the study of sonnets" as against "sonnet studies". Had the article been named differently in the beginning, it may well have taken longer to find its way here, but given the lack of support for the field as a separate endeavour of study, it would've been here eventually. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, "the study of sonnets" and "sonnet studies" are obviously the same thing, right?! I'm not following you here...it doesn't matter much though because I'm basically transferring the data from this article to the main sonnet article because this one is doomed. Now, however, I'm more concerned that the category will now be targeted and subsequently deleted. If this happens I'll have to create a List of sonnet related topics or something to that effect in order to avoid data loss. --WassermannNYC 05:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"the study of sonnets" and "sonnet studies" are obviously the same thing, right?!. Not necessarily. Someone writing a biography of Shakespeare would naturally study his sonnets and presumably some of the other ones written at the same time, but that wouldn't mean that they were participating in "sonnet studies", would it? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:09, 30 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. John254 22:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Red Army (band)

Sources include the BBC website, reliable source. It wasn't originally listed when I added the deletion notice Rysin3 20:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe this articl;e should remain. I will continue to improve it, there are more references to cite, and the ones I have given are good (in my opinion). The BBC website is a good example of this. It is my belief that this tag should be removed.--The Red Army Band 20:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep.This article now has plenty of worthy citations, is well written and relates to other wikipedia pages (Cornish Music, Dalla).--The Red Army Band 21:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

~~Delete.~~Keep. With the release of only two singles so far, this band does not meet notability criteria for music, not to mention it probably fails Conflict of interest and Autobiography. The references are mostly self-published and what aren't are trivial. I would suggest the article be written later after the band is more fully established and more notable. Cricket02 21:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I change my vote to Keep as more reliable references have come to light. I did clean up and removed any links that were self-published/spam/adverts/blogs that are not considered reliable sources, but there are still plenty of reliable sources to consider this group to be influential in the local area and culture. Also, the author argues that although the article is within the scope of an Autobiography, it does not fail Neutral point of view, and I agree. Cricket02 02:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

~~Keep.~~*I would argue that it is written from a neutral viewpoint, and therefore not a conflict of interest. Also, the discography remains incomplete, as an album was released in 2005 (One Way Ticket). There are articles from the BBC, Radio Cornwall, and independent websites cited already, and the state of the artist is a large influence in the local area and culture, as can be seen from the wikipedia articles that already link to the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Red Army Band (talk • contribs) 21:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC).--The Red Army Band 21:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete as the band appears to fail WP:MUSIC at this time. When notability requirements are met the article may be recreated. --Dhartung | Talk 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The main point I believe them not to have failed WP: Music is "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city". They are the most prominant and wellknown anti-folk band in Cornwall, and lead the movement with bands on the local scene. They also have toured in England "at least a medium sized country", and therefore I argue do not fail this criteria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Red Army Band (talk • contribs) 22:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC).--The Red Army Band 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
delete nn. Come back in a year. `'mikka 22:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I find the comment "come back in a year" frustrating. The artist in question have been around since 2004 (that's three years now) and the references I have cited list from a range of times. True, the impending release of their new album in the summwe will elevate their notability, but the article can just be edited then surely?--The Red Army Band 22:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Strongly referenced, including an interview by BBC. Article needs to be cleaned up, but should stay. LastChanceToBe 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep: The article's got good references, is better written than many articles and pertains to a band who are somewhat more significant than certain others with Wikipedia articles. It'll likely be improved further soon, as will the band's real-world profile (inevitable after recent developments) and therefore should be kept. Benphillips 23:03, 13 February 2007 (GMT)

Keep - Good job on cleaning it up :-) Rysin3 16:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Also see Philip Burley Just a heads up, guys, there is also a new stub article someone created about Philip Burley, one of the members of the band. Obviously the results of this afd should also probably be applied to that article. I'd recommend adding it to this afd nomination. (Note: Even if the band article is kept, as it currently appears might happen, the Philip Burley article might still be a good candidate for merger into the band's article.) Dugwiki 23:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The article that has been added so far on Philip Burley appears to me to be biographical and fairly irrelevent to that of the bands page. I suggest it is not merged therefore, unless subsequent editing deams it similar to the bands page.--The Red Army Band 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep multiple verifiable sources Catchpole 09:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Fear of Flying (novel). KrakatoaKatie 02:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zipless fuck

Dictdef and neologism. SeizureDog 21:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep reads like a dicdef, but it asserts the notability, and there are links to support it ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep as an iconic feminist/sex-positive phrase from the 1970s. 205 Google Books results, 37 Google Scholar hits, even 57 Google News Archive hits, considering most newspapers will not print the second word. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why not merge it into Fear of Flying (novel) then? It could use the extra text, as it's quite a stub atm.--SeizureDog 06:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Either keep or merge with Fear of Flying (novel). This term clearly achieved substantial currency in some circles. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Fear of Flying (novel) per multiple suggestions. Otto4711 21:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect, the term has achieved a fairly high level of notability because of the novel, so it's a reasonable search term, but I doubt that there's enough independent research on the topic to justify a standalone article. Xtifr _tälk 21:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
merget and redirect to Fear of Flying (novel) per above. Mr. Berry 23:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete nonsense--Sefringle 02:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Fear of Flying (novel) per above. --Richard 05:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep as it is notable. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:24, 27 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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Ann Sheehy

[edit] Past life healing

[edit] Ben Bitdiddle

[edit] Ski patrol radio frequencies

[edit] Space cuba

[edit] Working Class Rock Star (film)

[edit] Amanda Lexx

[edit] Somanorth

[edit] Shaun Ward

[edit] Scottsdale Gun Club

[edit] The 25 Most Controversial Movies Ever

[edit] List of final appearances in Marvel Comics publications

[edit] Canadian Telework Association

[edit] ZZZap! The Live Action Series

[edit] List of origins in Marvel Comics publications

[edit] Tripanocil

[edit] Alexis DeVell

[edit] Monica Cameron

[edit] Tiffani DiGivanni

[edit] The Dark History of Uchiha: The Bloodline of Tengu

[edit] List of Escape Magazine contents

[edit] Simony Diamond

[edit] List of Monthly H manga

[edit] Mary Anne

[edit] List of comics with vampires

[edit] Nina Ferrari

[edit] List of Marvel Comics endearments

[edit] Xiulian

[edit] Baird Judson

[edit] Leslie Flint

[edit] Phosphagen (dietary supplement)

[edit] Judy Singer

[edit] 1-san

[edit] Battle Pike

[edit] Tales of a Spida

[edit] Armstrong Rhinofloor

[edit] Northern California-Southern California rivalry

[edit] Professor Burp's Bubbleworks

[edit] Good Thing and Bad Thing

[edit] The Camels

[edit] Ruddleston

[edit] Allen Maier

[edit] Dmitry Kuzmin

[edit] Clockwork Droids

[edit] Hard Edge Core

[edit] Intricate Unit

[edit] Hannah Hobley

[edit] Break.com

[edit] Gxportal

[edit] Mister Iraq and related articles

[edit] List of types of clothing

[edit] Thalia festiny

[edit] Buddha and the Seven Ascended Masters vs. Godzilla

[edit] Catalina Cruz

[edit] Tia Bella

[edit] Skyy Black (porn star)

[edit] Dharam Jit Jigyasu

[edit] Anastasia Christ

[edit] Otherwize

[edit] Michael Emin Salla

[edit] Scientists warning against anthropogenic global warming

[edit] Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon

[edit] Neighbour Jones

[edit] D.O.C. (Lost)

[edit] A Bigger Bang Tour set lists

[edit] Islam and pork

[edit] Mick Garvey

[edit] List of FRSs with public religious stances

[edit] Timothy Noah

[edit] Amajada

[edit] Amy (demon)

[edit] TOC, Lean, Six Sigma Methodology

[edit] Menachem Z. Rosensaft

[edit] Ben Winter

[edit] Jamaican Lemonade

[edit] List of U.S. box office bombs

[edit] People and Characters Known for their Teeth, List of people and fictional characters with famous head hair and List of fictional stutterers