Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 30

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eagle (fictional U.S. state)

Eagle (fictional U.S. state) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Mostly original research, no out-of-universe notability. ShadowHalo 17:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and merge whatever can be sourced into List of fictional U.S. states. PubliusFL 17:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  It looks like all the non-OR is already there. "Eagle State is the state in which Fairview, the primary place of action for the ABC television series Desperate Housewives, is located. Its exact location is not known." ShadowHalo 17:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  I know, that was a pre-emptive strike in case someone comes back and says "look, this source says that license plates in Desperate Housewives say 'Eagle State'!" ;-) PubliusFL 17:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Current articles exist where this information is pertinent, this is nothing that will or can ever be improved above a stub, that would put paid to that. RGTraynor 20:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons above, esp as all the non-OR is already at List of fictional states. Cricketgirl 22:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and unnecessary. — Wenli 22:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect either to List of fictional U.S. states or Desperate Housewives (which should also have the information there, if it isn't already). FrozenPurpleCube 23:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  Comment I don't think many people are likely to type in "Eagle (fictional U.S. state)", but if this is deleted Eagle State (currently a redirect to this article) should definitely be redirected to one of the two articles you mention. That's something people are likely to search for. PubliusFL 23:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Never can tell what people will type, and redirects are cheap. And yes Eagle State should also be changed. FrozenPurpleCube 23:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Desperate Housewives. Not original research per IMDB, otherwise delete category:Fictional U.S. states because if there will be no articles for the fictional states then the category is not necessary. --FateClub 23:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, we know that the name of the state is Eagle. But this is still OR: "The state's name is likely born out of not wanting to use a specific state or in order to not have blank license plates, like many movies and TV shows tend to do." ShadowHalo 01:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  Then adding a {{fact}} wherever it is appropriate would be of more benefit rather than deleting the entire article. How is it supposed to grow or to be improved if whatever portion that does not fit the guidelines cause the article to be deleted. --FateClub 01:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  Because there's no evidence of any non-trivial coverage (stating that Eagle is the name of the state is trivial) or out-of-universe notability. If an article can't demonstrate this, then there's no reason for it to exist. ShadowHalo 01:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  Which would be the case of all but 2 articles (Houston and Springfield) in the category:Fictional U.S. states and most of if not all future inclusions. --FateClub 01:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  Please see Wikipedia:Pokémon test. If other articles don't meet notability guidelines, then they should be deleted, not used as a reason to keep other articles that don't meet notability guidelines. ShadowHalo 01:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  I see your point, I am changing my opinion to redirect. Cheers, --FateClub 01:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Fictional state. Herostratus 16:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. We already have List of fictional U.S. states (sorry for the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS reference.) ^contygugsa295_talk 05:26, 4 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. NawlinWiki 15:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Storey

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

NN with the main contrib being only a likely WP:COI/WP:AUTO violation by Srstorey (talk · contribs). There are some incoming links, but they all seem to refer to an old boxer, the wrong person. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 22:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Does this person even exist? The only IMDB entry for "Sam Storey" is for an assistant art director, not an actor. Herostratus 14:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This is either a pure hoax or a substitution of the word "star" for "extra". I even checked the extended acting list at imdb for a few of the individual films and bubkis.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's interesting to see the progression from speedy to prod to AFD to a relisted AFD. What's next, DRV? I should hope not. YechielMan 02:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above; article is also extremely short. --HubHikari 04:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete since there is a consensus that this is a hoax and false autobiography, and block article creator. The chance that someone who had "starred" (even in small roles) on "Charmed", "Lost", "Heroes", and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", all of which have significant fandoms, could have no acting credits listed at the IMDb is roughly zero. The debate can be closed now since it this is a relist and the discussion is unanimous. --Metropolitan90 05:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Mardavich 07:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's highly unlikely that someone with a speaking part in multiple high-profile films and television shows would not have these credits listed on IMDB or anywhere else online. Unverifiable and possibly hoax. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with everybody on the hoax idea. All of those TV shows and Movies are highly popular among the same group. Teenagers. The chances of one actor being in many highly popular teenage shows, yet no data to support it, is very low indeed. Also, if he has "starred" in so many TV shows and films, then why isn't there data on exactly what parts he plays? No citations, stub, and it seems this guy only exists as an old boxer. Delete indeed. @ YechielMan: This has been through that many deletion stages? Odd. Avatarfan6666 15:29, 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 all. WjBscribe 16:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University College JCR First Year Representative

University College JCR First Year Representative (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not sufficiently notable in my view. Casper Gutman 22:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason: I just don't believe it will be possible to develop JCR committee posts into encyclopaedic articles. There isn't an article about the Univ. JCR itself, for goodness' sake!

University College JCR OUSU-NUS Officer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

University College JCR President (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

University College JCR Secretary (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

University College JCR Services Czar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

University College JCR Vice-President/Treasurer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

University College JCR Welfare Officers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Casper Gutman 23:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All - extremely NN. Possibly could've been speedied. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all, per EliminatorJR. On the verge of speedy delete. Tim.bounceback ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. Descriptions of the existence of positions at a specific university organization of one (albeit very prominent) university. This is a blackhole.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All Speedy if possible. No matter what the university, this is too specific for articles.DGG 03:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete All Fails WP:N. Chevinki 05:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All Most seem to be stubs, and too specific. If they stay, at least merge them all into one article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avatarfan6666 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:44, 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 10:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richmond Hill (band)

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

The article does not assert notability per the guidelines in WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 23:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see why this article would be deleted. The band has been on several large scale tours, won a major national contest, and is scheduled to record at one of the best studios in the country as a result (West49/Much Music Battle Of The Bands: http://megawattstudios.com/ the studio has recorded canadian bands Sloan, The Trews, etc etc) and they even played the Canadian Open Skateboarding kick off party ( http://www.west49music.com/news.jsp?newsId=3114 or http://www.punknews.org/article/19726 ). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.224.249.72 (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - No assertion of notability, fails WP:MUSIC. I live in Nova Scotia and have not heard about this band. --Bryson 01:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - They have no albums out and are unsigned; checking Google finds very few hits about them. They might technically qualify under WP:Band for having toured and having won an award, but with so little buzz, I'm inclined to say let's wait for the album to come out, at least. Brianyoumans 01:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:MUSIC says that their East Coast Music Awards performance and music competition win are notable enough. Please don't start making up your own rules. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No non-trivial (simply a notation of who's on the bill at a particular event is trivial coverage) independent secondary sources offered to establish notability. Mwelch 01:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If the event happens to be a top billing (as in main band listing) in a country's biggest venue or musical festival, I tend to disagree with that. (Not that that's the case here). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If a band is prominent enough to have top billing at the country's biggest venue or musical festival, I dare say there will be some secondary coverage of said band out there beyond only a simple listing of them as being billed at said festival. Mwelch 17:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as per above. Ford MF 05:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - also fails WP:MOS, including WP:MOS#Contractions. --Spebi 06:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • {{sofixit}}. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep "performed at 2006 East Coast Music Awards" and winning a major music competition is enough claim of notability per WP:MUSIC. I'll dig up some sources if that's what it takes to save the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The article says they made an appearance at the show not that they won anything. -Nv8200p talk 12:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

They won the November 2005 MuchMusic/West 49 Battle of the Bands, and while both are very notable I have no idea how major the actual competition is since googling it returns this article. Also, I have had trouble finding independent reliable sources about the band. –Pomte 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral: From WP:MUSIC: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." People are asserting here that performing in this "East Coast Music Awards" deal and winning this "Battle of the Bands" thing qualify. Could we have from someone knowledgeable some reason to believe that these are in fact "major" music competitions? There are a lot of blind assumptions flying about, the more so in that this is the band's sole claim to notability, so far. RGTraynor 20:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't count as neutral, but I did look at the West49 contest info, what I could find, and I thought it looked sort of lame. The contest consisted of a series of podcasts, where people were supposed to vote on the best band of each set, and then there was a champions podcast to pick the overall winner. The problem was, it looks like the contest was supposed to last a year, but ended up dragging on for about 2 years. And finding info about it on the web was not that easy; it doesn't seem to have gotten very much publicity. I can't really say how much publicity it got in Canada, not being in Canada myself, but it didn't look like a lot. And it hasn't gotten them signed. On the whole, it was certainly something, but I think it was decidedly less than a "major award". Brianyoumans 21:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:MUSIC and Wikipedia is not Myspace.  ~Steptrip 00:14, 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 Redirect to University of the Aegean article. No notability outside of being affiliated with the university. Cúchullain ^t/c 04:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MyAegean

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

Non-notable website, does not meet WP:WEB. Leuko 23:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to have some more info please, if you like, for the fact that this article-page has been noted for "speedy-deletion". There is a small talk on my user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yannisap referring on the article. Please inform me more for any policy changes that may have changed, since the creation of the original page, which is on Wikipedia for some time. This is about a non-profit student effort that is supported and integrated with University of the Aegean, Greece. Please contact me for more info! Yannisap 00:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and see if it develops and gets better sourcing. This is a little off the beaten track for us, and I think it deserves a chance to develo- , with help. DGG 06:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me more on how to contribute more and help! Can you guide me a bit? I have already entered some more info, and I'd like to find and "connect" the content to more wiki articles, for the new content-info I've entered. What else can be done, or to be mentioned as well? thnx in advance! Yannisap 09:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not connections with other WP articles that is primarily needed, though that is desirable. What is primarily needed is references from third-party independent published sources discussing the work of the organization. For articles like this, relevant professional magazines, online or print , do nicely, as do statements in official university or government sources--but not from the U. of the Aegean, and not blogs. Your fourth external link is a good one, from http://www.chiosnews.com, a local news source. (and since it is in Greek, it will help readers evaluate it if you translate a key phrase or two.)DGG 02:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanx a lot for your details, I think I am getting somehow on the idea... I will try to translate some references on the above article... And I will try to put some more info... Well most of our references are from local media, usually newspapers, but since it was not in English, I thought it wouldn't be good to mention it. Is is good to submit references on specific efforts and/or events that we have done and they have been published as a reference on several news papers? As an example, we have taken some interviews from several people, that we have also sent on local media to re-publish as well, or use it as they want. On the other hand, there are some newspapers that have no web presence, or send their issues by mail in PDF format. Can I upload a specific page, of reference, or screenshots of them? Thank you again and I'm looking forward for a responce! Yannisap 03:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. However I've seen it done with a our school club GUG where it was redirected into the school article. --CyclePat 00:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't get it -- this is an intranet (or, to be finicky, an extranet) for a multi-campus school. Inherently non-notable. --Dhartung | Talk 02:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• with all due respect dhartung (and I don't mean that sarcastically, I don't want to come off too terse) nothing is "inherently" non-notable. Anything with multiple reliable third party sources is, by definition, notable. Wintermut3 05:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, anything with such sources is inherently verifiable. The sources need to establish something noteworthy about the subject too. Mere existence is not enough. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hello again friends. With all my due respect too, I must notice that is not an "intranet" article. I don't know how to express it as the culture here in Greece may somehow differ; our effort/initiative, has been a scheme that refers to the University, but its open way on contributing (anyone has the ability to register on it as a member) has given the opportunity on hight school students to learn more about student life on the Uni, to find some info about the classes, as well as we have started to develop ways on inter-action between other student communities around Greece, to achieve a huger network of people, that would be able to inform about the live and activities on Greek academic life... There are people from all around Greece (and alumni students from Aegean Uni, from around the world) that visit and participate. This idea hasn't been achieved in Greece in any other form, and the "connection" idea is even unique, not for University of the Aegean only but in general here. I don't know if I have helped in some way to express the feeling of this effort. People here are not very used to (student) communities and with our effort we try also to do our best, specially by motivating people that are less interested or less experienced in web and computer stuff! (unfortunately, there are many that are not interested or they're even against computers, as they can't find their way or understand the opportunities...) (sorry for the huge text and my English) Yannisap 11:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• I prefer a merge into the University of the Aegean. Notability outside the university might be questioned, but within the university, it's clearly notable.- Mgm|^(talk) 11:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non notable ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep References in Greek newspapers, it seems. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 19:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Could be further developed xC | ☎ 20:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Merge & Delete: For pity's sake, this is a university's private, proprietary intranet system. Damn near every university around has one. Are those mentions anything more than trivial? RGTraynor 20:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dear friend RGTraynor, I am sorry for being such a "pain in the ass", but I assume that you haven't got the base idea for this effort. I understand why you say this is an intranet system, but I believe if you could read Greek and surf on it for a while, you could immediately understand that myAegean is not only this. It's not even this, as there are bulleting boards on the departments, based on Email posts mainingly, and the central one on: http://www.aegean.gr/aegean/greek/events/default.htm. Almost every uni has one of these information systems, but, in fact, in Greece, this is not a default service/condition. So "my" is not a part of all these. And in addition, in myAegean, we are focusing on a community that drives a form of evolution, and tries, using the IT to develop actions, to inform, to bring ways and ideas into action and, in fact, bring a new situation here, as some things are not so known or "by default". Especially on Greek countryside... Sorry again for my flooding... Yours faithfully. 195.251.152.18 21:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing notable or unique apart of few big words and generic phrases. Pavel Vozenilek 06:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, we will try to do our best even the article stays in Wikipedia or not. I promise you dear friend Pavel Vozenilek, with all my respect, that what I say is not "big words" or "generic phrases". Even if the article goes for deletion, we will not stop our efforts, because we have a vision and some principles that we are to defend. Maybe it's not the time so good now, because we are still on the beginning. If it wasn't a true effort, we wouldn't mind to be in Wikipedia. But we feel that we have a place here. I can't persuade you and I know it, because the matter is typical. We need references, but references that are somehow difficult to achieve, because it needs some hard work and time, specially time. I hope some day we will return here and have them all. Because our effort is not "big words", but big actions. I know this because we have worked hard without any great help from others. And we all feel an enthusiasm for all this. Thank you all in advance, I will not write again so much. I will stop here and just leave it to the evolution. I am just sad. Thank you all, all you that gave some of your precious time to take notice on this. Greetings from Greece! You are all welcome here any time! (and maybe we can show you more on what we do)

• The AfD process on Wikipedia is about decision whether given text does belong here or does not. It is about the text and nothing else. Pavel Vozenilek 18:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• OK, so the text needs more development.. I understood that there is 1 major thing we need: references from outside the Uni, and references that shows sth worthy to mention. In addition, if there would be a part of a paper/essay, that refers to myAegean, this would also be good. Am I right on this? I am looking forward to get some more info and to submit it here too. There are also people that work on their diplomas on "Social Networks", that refer to "myAegean", I think. Well, thank you again and if there is sth that I didn't understand well, please let me know! Yours faithfully and hope to go on! 62.1.144.83 19:35, 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 16:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baruch Pesach Mendelson

Baruch Pesach Mendelson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This google search shows that he has 18 ghits. While the lead might seem impressive to the uninitiated, reading "a Rebbe at the Marsha Stern Talmudical Academy" what this means is "a teacher at a high school. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 21:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for the reasons expessed. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 21:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. Tim.bounceback ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 00:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Generic Politician 00:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. Fails WP:N.--Bryson 01:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I know Rabbi Mendelson personally. Seriously, I was a camper when he was an adult staffer/visitor at Mogen Av, and I see him around on the Yeshiva University campus. I'm amused that someone loved and revered him so much as to create a Wikipedia article for him. Now, taking off my real-life hat and putting on my nerd hat, he fails the notability criteria. YechielMan 02:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:N.--HubHikari 07:35, 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. Shimeru 07:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sw!ms

Sw!ms (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability not asserted, established, or sourced per WP:MUSIC. Declined speedy. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, though it is borderline. Three released albums though only one seems to have any significance. Their link to An Albatross and their festival appearances, plus (possibly) three albums leads me to want to give the benefit of the doubt. Mallanox 19:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Re-direct - No assertion of notability, fails WP:MUSIC.--Bryson 01:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC). re-direct per Mgm.--Bryson 03:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Non notable. 2 albums and one EP, from local Scranton labels. They sound pretty good to me, but I don't think they need an article. Brianyoumans 01:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:MUSIC musician criterion number 5. "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". - Mgm|^(talk) 11:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It is also possible to simply mention the side project in the main article, as is already the case. Brianyoumans 22:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability and reliable sources. I have concerns about the notability of An Albatross as well. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 16:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all other delete nominations. BlackBear 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. — Wenli 22:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't believe An Albatross is notable enough to justify this article according to WP:MUSIC's criterion 5. Poeloq 09:23, 2 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 keep. John Reaves (talk) 04:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calthorpe clinic

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

This article has had notability and orphan tags sitting on it for a month now. Delete unless it's proven that this neighborhood health clinic is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. szyslak (t, c) 20:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Clinic. Herostratus 14:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a reason for deletion or are you suggesting the Mayo Clinic should go too? Please elaborate. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't seem very notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tim.bounceback (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
• Delete - No assertion of notability, fails WP:N.--Bryson 00:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The article states it was the first clinic outside London to provide abortions. That is an assertion of notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep if sources can be found. It would appear that "the first abortion provider to open a clinic outside London in 1969." was historically notable.DGG 03:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A quick look in LexisNexis shows this clinic was the main subject of multiple news articles over the last 4 years. I beleive an indepth investigation from Wikipedia:Newspapers and magazines request service is a good idea before considering deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please simply add what you have to the article. DGG 01:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As soon as I get access to LexisNexis again I will see what I can do. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:39, 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 three online links were trivial with the only one with UKR as the main subject being a two line blog entry. One (potential) non-trivial source doesn't suffice. --Wafulz 05:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK Resistance

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

Article about a UK based video game blog. A previous article was deleted a year ago via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Resistance. A new article was written, and speedily deleted for failing WP:WEB. Speedy deletion was overturned at deletion review. This is a technical nomination, I have no opinion. GRBerry 00:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - No assertion of notability, fails WP:WEB.--Bryson 00:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notability sufficiently asserted, I think. Ford MF 06:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The mentions are not just in passing, the Edge (magazine) reference actually precedes an interview with UK:R on the death of the Dreamcast because it is described as where "Europe's Sega cognoscenti gathered to discuss the burning issues of the day". This asserts more notability than most of the undeleteable webcomic dreck on Wikipedia. - hahnchen 11:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The links I clicked on only mentioned the website in passing and were trivial, which means at most we have one non-trivial source which doesn't meet WP:WEB which needs multiple, non-trivial works about the subject. Chevinki 17:20, 2 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. What a joke. American-centric Wiki deletes something because people in the US don't 'get it'.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The University Computer Club

The University Computer Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Initially prodded for deletion as a non-notable club, the original concern was:If there is a cite for actually being the first [organised personal computer user group in the world], then it should be kept. An additional reference was added here and the prod tag removed; however, I believe it is a primary source that really doesn't satisfy the original prod concern. A quick search yielded no secondary sources to support the claims of notability in the article. UnfriendlyFire 00:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for speciousness. It claims to be the first organised personal computer user group in the world, yet there is no verification given for this claim. Additionally, the term 'personal computer' may not have been in use in 1974, at the club's inception, as the MITS Altair 8800 of 1975 is arguably the world's first true PC. Eddie.willers 05:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I won't vote, because I haven't looked for sources, but this is clearly a case that I believe shows the importance of sources. Sources related to the subject are entirely acceptable, but not to determine notability (establishing if they are indeed the first). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• DavydMadeley: I think the person personal is a misnomer. The club was founded in 1974, as its own records will attest. The first computer owned by the club was an Alpha Micro AM1000, but before that the club was formed to get time on the University's PDP-6 (the first PDP-6 sold outside of DEC: http://www.ultimate.com/phil/pdp10/pdp6-serials). The club has had a long and rich history in Western Australian computing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.56.15.217 (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2007. — 203.56.15.217 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• We haven't as yet found good sources to back the claim to be the first personal computer club in the world. However, we have evidence of the club's significant contribution to the Western Australian computing community from 1974 - extremely early for a computing club, and before computing facilities were available to the public - onwards. Our silver jubilee award and other documentation as to club projects on do exist and could be scanned to provide veracity as to the club's significance. After such efforts would the article be suited for inclusion, or should we just back this article up and move it to another site? I also take issue with the club history not being "credible", as it was prepared at the club's expense by an academic, albeit one with association to the club. Grahame 17:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Grahame, unfortunately he is not independent in this matter, regardless of his credibility in his own field. It is primary sourced material which cannot lend weight to claims regarding notability. It would be original research to review sufficient Computer Club histories to categorically say, this one is the oldest one remaining in existence. If someone independent of this club does that research then we have independent works which establish notability.Garrie 04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:ATT. No independent sources given, no sources for their claims. RGTraynor 20:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no nontrivial independent reliable sources. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Lack of independent sources. Unfortunately - the clubs' own records don't lend weight to notability, independent coverage does. Garrie 04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Garrie 04:39, 3 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 redirect to Tampa, Florida. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Monroe Middle School

James Monroe Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable middle school, no assertion of notability, very little content. DoorsAjar 01:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep solely because I think consensus a while back was to keep public schools because their government sites were seen as verifiable. gren グレン 02:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The consensus has only been for high schools, and they don't always make it. I'm personally inclined to support middle school articles that have good information in them. I think there's actually a consensus beginning to form to dump articles that look like this one.Noroton 17:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as is usual for this type of article. (With apologies to Grenavitar, I generally vote to delete middle schools unless they claim to be more than just another middle school, and sometimes even then.) YechielMan 02:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Question This article is obviously a stub. Is it the intention to do away with stubs for school articles--there are a few thousand others. Is it further the intention to do away with stubbs altogether? If not, why should we remove the ones for schools particularly? If wer do vote to delete this one there are many more to go, and I suppose they could best be bnominated county by county (obviously not including the ones that have deveoped articles). DGG 03:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Feel free to nominate any school articles (or any article in general) that isn't notable. Schools are not exempt from this. TJ Spyke 03:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I will automatically support any deletion of a K-8 non-high school [self-edit after seeing DGG's comments below] school article at least a month old and with only a few lines of information in it. They should all go into school district articles. I'm sympathetic to well-meaning editors who are trying to produce good articles and may not know how. But I'm coming around to thinking we should be merciless with the rest. Noroton 17:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC) (self edit as shown above Noroton 13:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC))

If we are to do this, we should do this fairly and in groups, and with consideration for any articles that may have been worked on by the students. In general I support stubs, but for topics such as this where most of the articles will inevitably be stubs,i agree it makes more sense to simply include them in a list until the articles can be written. I'd go for K-9, not just 8.

Delete DGG 23:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm fine with stubs, school stubs included, as long as they pass WP:ATT. I have a problem with stubs that do not show notability, regardless of the category. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No notability asserted (and, no, schools are NOT inherently notable). This isn't even a directory, just saying where the school is and its school colors? TJ Spyke 03:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to larger school district. Schools are not inherently notable. WP risks becoming a directory otherwise. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect into school district. It can be spun out when it gets substance beyond stub level. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to its respective school district. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 16:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non notable middle school ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and let it be restarted when someone has the ability or motivation to create a proper school article. Drop the spoonful of information here into a school district article, if it exists; if not, wave good-bye. Noroton 17:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, no assertion of notability, fails WP:ATT. The article itself hasn't been touched in over a year, which tends to shoot down the notion that it's ever likely to be improved. Furthermore, a look at the contribution list of the creator shows the creation of well over a hundred of these stub school articles over the course of two weeks in January and February of 2006, many of which haven't been touched since and which strike me as a likely source of many more AfDs. I don't think we should be carpetbombed with stub articles for every non-notable middle school in the entire Tampa Bay area, myself. RGTraynor 20:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's a shame. I really think substubs like that devalue WP. Yes, anybody and everybody can add articles, but does it have to look like it? --Butseriouslyfolks 06:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:ATT or WP:N, whichever way that masturbatory poll is going at the moment. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to respective school district (or locality) per WP:LOCAL and school guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 03:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, don't bother merge/redirecting. Fails to make any attempt at establishing notability.--Wizardman 12:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to school district or what have you. Saying "don't bother redirecting" defies our longstanding redirection guidelines. Redirects are cheap and exist for a reason, use them. RFerreira 08:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to school district per WP:LOCAL.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:38, 4 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.--Húsönd 01:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electric Fantasy

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

Typical nonnotable band. I'd prod it, but it's been edited a lot so I feel that's not quite fair. YechielMan 01:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing here meeting WP:BAND (nor after perusing their website). Just the barest assertion taking it out of speedy range.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't meet any WP:BAND criteria (the latest news section makes me think someone is using wikipedia as a free webhost). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Resurgent insurgent 13:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete, no assertion of notability, could be speedied. NawlinWiki 15:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per everything said above. — Wenli 22:50, 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 no consensus. John Reaves (talk) 05:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish settlement

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

Simply a POV Fork of Cyprus dispute. The title of the article might be original research, the content contains two paragraphs about the property disputes in the Cyprus dispute, however not clear how they qualify under "Turkish settlement". Delete, and merge (if possible) any meaningful content to Cyprus dispute. Baristarim 01:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as nominator. Baristarim 01:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because it's a clear POV fork. The parent article has problems, too, but that's not for this discussion. YechielMan 02:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable subject that acquires a topic of its own. --Mardavich 07:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I invite any of the keep voters to point to the use of "Turkish settlement" in referring to the Cyprus dispute - otherwise it is nothing but original research. Baristarim 21:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. The Turkish settlement is one of the top issues of the Cyprus dispute, but not only. I would go for a redirect to a subheading with the same title within the Cyprus dispute article, but until then... NikoSilver 12:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It might be notable, but it is a fork.. Baristarim 21:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I fail to see the POV of the title. Settlers and settlements do exist. And I do know that there is a series of decisions by the European Court of Human Rights vindicating Greek-Cypriot citizens having lost their property. And the fact that the government of the Republic of Cyprus accepts in the not-occupied territoty of Cyprus Turkish-Cypriots but not settlers who came to Cyprus later proves their existence.--Yannismarou 12:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• And when there is a recommendation by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe named Colonisation by Turkish settlers of the occupied part of Cyprus ... well ... I don't think that anybody here can question notability.
  

Let's see some of what this Recommendation says: "It is a well-established fact that the demographic structure of the island has been continuously modified since its de facto partition in 1974, as a result of the deliberate policies of the Turkish Cypriot administration and Turkey. Despite the lack of consensus on the exact figures, all parties concerned admit that Turkish nationals have since been systematically arriving in the northern part of the island. According to reliable estimates, their number currently totals 115 000." "The settlers come mainly from the region of Anatolia, one of the least developed regions of Turkey. Their customs and traditions differ significantly from those present in Cyprus. These differences are the main cause of the tensions and dissatisfaction of the indigenous Turkish Cypriot population, who tend to view the settlers as a foreign element" "In particular, the Assembly expresses its concern at the continuous outflow of the indigenous Turkish Cypriot population from the northern part of the island. Their number decreased from 118 000 in 1974 to an estimated 87 600 in 2001. In consequence, the settlers outnumber the indigenous Turkish Cypriot population in the northern part." "In the light of the information available, the Assembly cannot accept the claims that the majority of arriving Turkish nationals are seasonal workers or former inhabitants who had left the island before 1974. Therefore it condemns the policy of “naturalisation” designed to encourage new arrivals which was introduced by the Turkish Cypriot administration with the full support of the Government of Turkey."

I think that this very important political document could also prompt the further improvement of this notable article.--Yannismarou 12:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a WP:FORK - merge any meaningful content to Cyprus dispute. What is going on guys? Baristarim 21:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. If there can be a comprehensive page detailing Israeli Settlements, why not Turkish ones? Chesdovi 13:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Yannismarou. This TR POV pushing is outrageous; these settlements do exist, denying that would like denying the Chinese settlements in Tibet and the Israeli settlements in the West Bank etc. [due to edit conflict]: Thanks to Chesdovi for also raising the issue.--Domitius 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. I can't think of a single non-politically motive for suggesting deletion. As Domitius said those events are factual, someone who wants to remove them can only have a biased agenda. Miskin 02:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the rhetoric to a minimum please and watch for NPA. "Israeli settlements" are commonly used in English by major news organizations. I invite any of the keep voters to point to the use of "Turkish settlement" in referring to the Cyprus dispute - otherwise it is nothing but original research and part of a lame pie-throwing contest; likes of which, I had thought, were over already between Turkish and Greek users. Baristarim 21:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Another political documents treating the issue of Turkish settlers: RESOLUTION 10.3.1988 of the European Parliament: "Expects the Foreign Ministers meeting in political cooperation simultaneously to put pressure on the Turkish government, which is linked to the EEC by an association agreement and is an applicant for membership, to draw up a precise timetable for the withdrawal of its troops, in accordance with the proposals made by the UN SecretaryGeneral, and that of the Turkish settlers ..."
• I would also like to remind everybody here that the issue of settlers was the main reason the Greek Cypriot side and the Republic of Cyprus rejected the Annan Plan. See this report by Associated Press.--Yannismarou 13:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Settlers" NOT "Turkish settlements" - WP:OR is clearly at issue for the title. It is not clear what the title implies, nor what its usage is. "Israeli settlements" are commonly used in English by major news organizations. I invite any of the keep voters to point to the use of "Turkish settlement" in referring to the Cyprus dispute - otherwise it is nothing but original research and part of a lame pie-throwing contest; likes of which, I had thought, were over already between Turkish and Greek users. Nobody is stopping anyone from developping the Cyprus dispute. Baristarim 21:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. This is a part of Cyprus dispute, i'd ask kindly that the editors do not introduce yet another pov ridden and controversial article which is covered somewhere else. --A.Garnet 14:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Obviously the resolutions above are also "POV ridden" and "contrversial". Well, after deleting the article, we'll also get rid of them.--Yannismarou 15:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to the state of this article. The sources can be applied somewhere else. --A.Garnet 15:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, then name me the "POV ridden" claims of the article. Although I believe that the resolutions I mentioned above are more harsh than the article itself towards the phainomenon of Turkish settlement.--Yannismarou 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The article first makes the claim that "Turkish settlements are communities established by Turkey", as if Turkey is somehow the Ottoman Empire passing a decree to establish overseas colonies. The use of word colonisation again portrays Turkey as orchestrating the movement of Turkish migrants. Turkey does not decide who goes to Cyprus, many Turks go to work over summer in the tourist season and return. Those who do stay are required to have a work permit. But this article does not seem concerned with these details, only in portraying Turkey in a certain light. Furthermore, the article says "such settlements currently exist..." as if this is a common phenomena regarding Turkey, when in fact this an aspect specifically related to the Cyprus problem. These are problems within a few lines, I dont expect this article to get better as it grows in size, but rather become another ugly Cyprus article. --A.Garnet 17:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Responses to your arguments:

• The settlers are coming from Turkey. Tyrkey allows them to settle in Northern Cyprus by allowing them to go there. If Turkey wanted to impede this phainomenon, it would have done it. Therefore, Turkey may not be Ottoman Empire, but it is a sovereign state tolerating this situation, and showing no will to reverse it. I thus believe that the verb "established" pictures with characteristic accuracy the present situation. After all, if it was not Turkey that "established" the settlement, then why are the Parliamentary Assembly and the European Parliament asking Turkey, in particular, to resolve the problem. I'm afraid, Garnet, that once again your problem is not with the article, but with the clear and sound resolutions of European Organizations and with the publications of UN. And, unfortunately, I can't help with that problem.
• The noun "colonisation" is again a NPOV term, also used by the Parliamentary Assembly of the COuncil of Europe. Unless you think, of course, that the great majority of this Parliament, and, therefore, the great majority of the population of Europe are biased against Turkey in this particular issue. But again this is your personal belief and impression. Official documents matter, and official documents of international organization are crystal clear about the ongoing colonisation of occupied Cyprus by Turkey.
• I fail to understand your third point. It would be helpful if you could be a bit more clear and specific, so that I can give an accurate answer. Such settlements do exist in Northern Cyprus, their existence is confirmed by all the international organizations, and it is Turkey which is held responsible for their existence. What is exactly your problem here?--Yannismarou 09:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

We do not base articles on parliamentary or any political resolution. This is an encylopedia, we create academic articles based on scholarly research. Resolutions are fine for expressing support for one point of view, but they should not be the basis of any article. To be honest though Yannis, I have given up caring, this article will stay, it will be poor and ugly like a lot of other Cyprus related articles and that will be that. --A.Garnet 10:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

We search all available verifiable sources. That is why we also search news reports, which are not strictly part of what you call "scholarly research".--Yannismarou 11:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete pov fork ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Great idea for an article; needs expanding. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 20:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I would like to closing administrator to note that - of the keep votes (as of now) one is from the creator of the article (User:Chesdovi), and the rest from Greek users who have engaged on many occasions in edit-warring and disputes with Turkish users, me included. I really had thought that at least for the TR-GR users this was over, but I was wrong. Article's title is WP:OR, and a FORK - merge any meaningful content to Cyprus dispute and develop the content there - what is the big deal, really? Baristarim 21:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment So what are Turkish settlements, anywhere in Cyprus, where there is a Turkish flag? Then I don't think there are that many. deniz^T_C 23:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So, there is are no Turkish settlements anywhere but where the Turkish flag is flown? No Turkish settlements in Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, Albania, or anywhere else, right? Carlossuarez46 23:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The picture on the page was some mosque with a Turkish flag (in Cyprus). I thought it was related to settlements, maybe it's not. So, then what are these settlements? In those Balkan countries we might have some "ghetto"s where Turkish people live and have lived for many hundred years (by the way, are they still called settlers?) Are the Turkish settlements in Cyprus ghettos of people from Turkey? I would rather guess that they would blend in, spread kinda uniformly among the 'original' Turkish Cypriots, not build some ghettos. Are they house by house, like any house owned by a settler is a settlement? What about the students? I think the first sentence of the article might be wrong, it should read "after the invasion" not "established by Turkey". I don't think Turkey established any ghettos there. deniz^T_C 00:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Settlements aren't necessarily inhabited by "settlers" in the sense of migrants. I assume you live in a settlement, which the United Nations uses to refer to any inhabited place. See the long discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) and its talk page. Since "Turkish" is both a nationality (you can have a Turkish passport and be of e.g. Greek, Armenian, Arab, Jewish, or Kurdish ethnicity) and an ethnicity (you can be ethnically Turkish and hold e.g., a Bosnian, Russian, or US passport), the use of Turkish to modify settlement in the context of Cyprus could well mean settlements in Cyprus inhabited by people of Turkish ethnicity or with Turkish passports. Based on the sources, these groups largely overlap anyway. Carlossuarez46 01:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I am sorry, but that would be our own interpretation as to what it means. Wikipedia transmits knowledge that exists: it is not a place to interpret information: No-one has been able to show where in the English language "Turkish settlement(s)" is used when referring to the Cyprus dispute, and especially not in the major news media - no such sources have been brought. Please see WP:OR - not to mention Fork issues with Cyprus dispute + Most common name policy. Baristarim 01:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, there is no need to have two separate POV names for the same territory. --FateClub 23:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but perhaps rename to Turkish settlement in Cyprus per the above and the deletionists seem to be pushing a POV. Carlossuarez46 23:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you explain how it is not a fork of Cyprus dispute and also produce any major news media release mentioning the expression "Turkish settlement"? "Israeli settlements" are regularly used by every news organization in the world, however this is not and poses WP:OR problems, on top of WP:fork.. And deletionists seem to pushing what POV precisely? (as of now) of the five delete votes, three were from non-Turks and two from Turks, am I missing something? Baristarim 01:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, do not redirect, it is too generic term. Pavel Vozenilek 06:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete;Must.^{T C} 07:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC).. Per nomination.
• Update. I expanded and cited the article. The first section needs the editing of editors with better sources to Turkish and Turkish-Cypriot sources, whom I invite to contribute. As far as the title is concerned, personally I believe that a renaming like the one proposed above by Carlossuarez46 (Turkish settlement in Cyprus or Turkish settlers in Cyprus) would be nice.--Yannismarou 12:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete see below Rename to Turkish settlers in Cyprus (if it's only about the new immigrants) or Redirect to TRNC (if 'settlers' before 1974 will also be included) or . Basically clarify the definition first. deniz^T_C 20:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Pavel (term is too vague and ambiguous) and merge whatever information is relevant into the appropriate articles. Khorshid 04:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is a fact that settlements do exist in Northern Cyprus and by deleting this article would not chnage anything. It is very informtive about the topic. Although there might be some POV in the article it should be fixed, but not delete the whole article. ROOB323 09:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can be give me a name of these "settlements" in Northern Cyprus if they are such a fact? If you people are going to draw connotations with Israeli settlements i.e. the creation of new towns and villages to accomodate settlers, then i'd like to know their names. --A.Garnet 09:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Usurping the homes and properties of the Greek Cypriots negated the need for that, wouldn't you agree? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that's rhetoric and such interpretations will simply stay ours. Nearly all impartial voters have agreed that this article was a fork, and it still hasn't been shown where in the English language the term "Turkish settlement" has been used - I can easily do a Google search for "Israel settlements", or in any major news agency's web-site and get hundreds of thousands of hits. None of the keep voters still hasn't been able to show news releases et al where such an expression is used - let alone bring sources per WP:ATT that show or name any of these "Turkish settlement". The title has WP:OR problems, and the article is a WP:FORK of Cyprus dispute. I don't get what the big deal is really, no-one is saying that the content should be deleted. However, you surely must see the OR and Fork problems of this article? Baristarim 16:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Rhetoric? Interpretations? You're not seriously denying that settlers were brought in from Turkey to alter the island's demographic balance after 1974, and occupy properties whose title deeds belong to Greek Cypriots? I simply can't fathom why the Turkish editors are getting their knickers into a knot over such petty semantics. Turkish settlement doesn't have to refer to specific locations - although it could well do - it is an also an abstract noun referring to the indisputable act of bringing in those settlers in the first place. Simple English, really. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not denying or confirming anything, however please bring sources per WP:ATT that attest to such a usage in the English language, otherwise it is WP:OR. Baristarim 16:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That Turkish settlement has taken place on Cyprus? You're kidding me, right? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That "Turkish settlement" as a term is used in the English language like "Israeli settlements" (which was the first line of argument and analogy by the keep voters) - if not, what the term means will be OR since Turkish settlement can also refer to Turkish neighborhoods in Berlin etc. Can you please bring per WP:ATT sources that attest that a) The term "Turkish settlement" is used in the English language and b) moreover, that there is an overwhelming concensus in the English language usage that it refers to the Cyprus dispute. You say "Israeli settlements" to any English language speaker, and they will understand what you are referring to, however you say "Turkish settlement" and they will not understand what you are talking about. Come on, prove me wrong: Bring sources per WP:ATT that attest to such a usage in English, and especially in the news media et al. I am sorry Kekrops, but please do not continue this conversation unless you can address the issues raised. All impartial users have agreed that this was a fork, and you still haven't produced any of the sources I asked for above. Baristarim 17:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I said, please do not assume bad faith Kekrops, I clearly said in my nom "merge if possible any content to Cyprus dispute" - nobody is asking for it to be "wiped off the face of the planet". I hope you understand what I am trying to say. Baristarim 17:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you can't understand the difference between a concrete and an abstract noun, that's your problem. The term is used almost ubiquitously in English, as attested by the sources provided on this page which you have dismissed. If you're denying that Turkish settlers/settlement is used in English, you must be getting pretty desperate. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Turkish settlement" is not used in English, definitely not when referring to the Cyprus dispute, then prove me wrong and bring me sources attesting to its usage in BBC, CNN et al reports - however you can easily find sources saying "Israeli settlements". I definitely know the difference between nouns, however WP:ATT clearly says that our knowledge is irrelevant. That usage has to be out there. Baristarim 17:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It already is out there. Yet again, you're trying to deny the undeniable. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? The search results at the BBC News website returns a whopping ZERO hits [1] And when searched not as a single term, it returns a whopping 26 hits, all referring to the "political settlement" [2]. I wonder who is "denying the undeniable". Even though I am Turkish, my primary language is English and I am telling you that the term "Turkish settlement" is not used in the English language. Btw, pls cut down on the straw man and rhetoric, it is not helpful to the debate. Baristarim 17:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

However, there are results for "Israeli settlement" [3] and "Israeli settlements" [4]. So I rest my case :) Baristarim 17:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If the article wants to discuss the composition of North Cyprus in terms of mainland Turks and their integration into Cyprus then that should be done under Demographics of Cyprus. That imo is the most npov way of doing it. --A.Garnet 17:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment For the benefit of those who cannot or will not understand that Turkish settlement means precisely the same thing as Turkish settlers, the only difference being that the former is an abstract noun denoting the latter which is a concrete noun, here is a Turkish source which has been quoted by Turkish editors on numerous occasions and which uses the term in all possible permutations: http://cyprus-conflict.net/volkan.htm. Enjoy. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  BBC News carries much more weight when it comes to establishing English usage than cyprus-conflict.net/volkan.htm. And BBC has never used it [5]. Give it up Kekrops, there is no way that you can prove that "Turkish settlement" is used in the English language, not the least when referring to the Cyprus dispute. Your claim that they mean the same thing is your own opinion, I respect that, but WP:ATT says that our opinions are not relevant - there has to be an established usage in the English language. I have brought extremely authoritive sources that attest that there is no such usage (see above). volkan.htm is not the same. Plus this article has WP:FORK issues on top of WP:OR, merge the content, what is the big deal? Baristarim 17:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  Nor has CNN. "Turkish%20settlement" - your persistence is astonishing Kekrops! :) There is no way that you can prove that "Turkish settlement" is not OR. Should I dig up more authoritive sources? Baristarim 17:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  Your persistence in failing to understand simple English grammar is what is truly astonishing here. If you seriously think your point is proven by a BBC or CNN site search, I rest my case. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  It is proven per WP:ATT that there is no such usage (since it was the first line of defense and analogy coming from the creator of the article and most of keep voters, that "Turkish settlement" was akin to "Israeli settlements" - which has been proven wrong by established English usage using WP:ATT). Plus this article still has Fork issues on top of OR. Merge it to Cyprus dispute.. Baristarim 18:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  If you really can't stomach the term Turkish settlement, you might like to consider instead Turkish colonisation, as per the Council of Europe document provided by User:Yannismarou. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  It is not a question of stomaching, it is a question of OR, NPOV and undue weight. All of this is covered under "Cyprus dispute" - nobody is stopping from including anything in that article, but that is the article suited for all that information. Thus, the Fork issue. Baristarim 18:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  The same could be said for Garnet's attempt to create a Cypriot Civil War article. Your concern for the sanctity of WP:FORK was not as ardent in that case, unfortunately. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You want to tell me what exactly is FORK about covering the disintegration of Cyprus before 74? --A.Garnet 18:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I will, once you tell me what is "fork" about covering the process by which an ethnically pure Turkish "state" was established in the north of Cyprus, namely by means of the expulsion of the Greek population and the massive influx of settlers from Turkey, or Turkish settlement if you will. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was not in Wikipedia when that article was created, so I don't know the story. Baristarim 18:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The story, Baris, is that the article I created was an attempt to plug a huge gap in the coverage of Cyprus related articles in that no detailed explanation was given of intercommunal violence from 63-74 which disintegrated the Republic. The issue in this article however, which barely adresses it, can be found in Turkish Invasion of Cyprus, Cypriot refugees, Cyprus, and Cyprus dispute. --A.Garnet 18:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The word settlement has two quite distinct meanings: (1) a community consisting of a number of dwellings; (2) the process of settling, as the result of migration. The title of the article is accordingly ambiguous. The disputed article as well as the present discussion appear to confuse the two meanings, whether accidentally or not. As defined in the lead of the article, the meaning is unambiguously (1), but in a curiously restricted sense. It is as if we were to have an article "Italian house" starting "An Italian house is a house built by Italians during World War I." Are settlements of Turks in Kos or Bulgaria then not Turkish settlements? Settlements of Turks on Cyprus have existed since the 16th century. In the remainder of the article, the meaning gradually shifts to (2). Although many Turks may have settled on the island after the partition, and the Republic of Turkey has not discouraged this, these migrants did not form new settlements, and no evidence is presented in the article that any communities were established by Turkey in Cyprus after the partition, nor do the cited sources support this contention. Thus, following the restricted definition of the lead, there are no Turkish settlements. The definition in the lead can be relaxed, of course, to refer to any Turkish communities, including those in existence on Cyprus at the time of the EOKA coup, but that defeats the whole purpose of the article, which would have to be completely rewritten to accommodate the new definition.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not at all versed on this subject, but your comment that "these migrants did not form new settlements" seems to be contradicted by a letter printed in the IHT: "Hundreds of illegal settlements have been established in occupied areas"Chesdovi 12:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Chesdovi, those are the letters of readers, you are aware of that, right? Please give the link to the article itself, if it is mentioned there. But you might be right a little bit, once I posted a comment on a Kurdish newspaper (?) website (I don't remember the website now, I found it through Yahoo! Alerts quite a while ago, it was the English version, I bookmarked it but then removed bookmark after like a week), they were bashing Erdoğan for a comment he made, in a few minutes the website was filled with anti-Turkish comments, I wrote something like Talabani said about the same thing, but my comment was not published, even though many other Turkey-bashing ones were published after that. So, having a comment there might reflect the opinion of the journalist as well, but that might be true only for that Kurdish website. deniz^T_C 15:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out that there is another opinion and of course the letter carries no weight! (Where is a list of "new" Turkish settlements on the web? Why are the Israeli ones so well documented?!!) Chesdovi 16:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, as WP:ATT states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Where is the reliable source for the statements in the lead?  --Lambiam^Talk 18:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Chesdovi, your opinion is more valuable to me than that reader's opinion is. I changed my vote to delete only, as the current lead claims things with no support and then the article deals with something else, apparently the article won't get better. I am worried it will be anything goes — anytime the editor feels like it. Now we even have the Turkish settle-ment, act of settling. deniz^T_C 21:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but rename if necessary. - Gilgamesh 02:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. So many settlers in the occupied area of Cyprus that outnumber the Turkish Cypriots Aristovoul0s 15:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Lambiam. On reading the title I honestly had never even considered the possibility of the concrete as opposed to the abstract meaning of "settlement", but as Lambiam rightly points out, the article thoroughly mixes the two up. In its present form it is ill-defined and muddled, and as such not a suitable sub-article for the main Cyprus conflict article - hence, it is a fork. Come back and write a new article on "Turkish settlement on Cyprus" (abstract!) when you've well thought out what the topic and its relation to the superordinate articles is going to be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:40, 5 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WMW Fowler

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

Article violates Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Article contains unsourced and poorly sourced claims. Article lacks notability. Masterpedia 01:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per my nomination. --Masterpedia 01:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep As none of the claims seem the least controversial, I do not see how the intent of BLP is violated.DGG 03:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Does not violate WP:BLP anyway, as Fowler died in 1977 [6]. He made the front page of The Times according to the Shropshire Star, and it sounds like Countryman's Cooking is a very notable, best-selling and widely covered book. --Canley 03:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs to be moved to W. M. W. Fowler though. --Peta 04:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you mean W.M.W. Fowler. TJ Spyke 07:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, and support move, as per Peta. Ford MF 06:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep He seems notable, needs to be move to W.M.W. Fowler though. TJ Spyke 07:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Nominator didn't explain how Fowler lacks notability and I don't see any claims that would violate WP:BLP or even BDP if it existed. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable as author of popular book, has source. NawlinWiki 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, sufficient notability. Agree on move as well. JavaTenor 18:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the commenters above, sufficient notability exists. What is BDP? Yamaguchi先生 03:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, 1) I agree article should be moved to W.M.W. Fowler and have done as suggested. 2) Fowler died in 1977 (as stated). 3) The information on the page was initially sourced from Fowlers own book which is referenced. Two further references have also been added that support the information. Jcwhizz 10:42, 2 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 10:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Audio Blueprint

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

They are a non-notable label without even their own website. The first hit on Google is discogs.com (which contains an entry for everything), and the second is Wikipedia. They don't seem to have signed any notable artists or groups; there is no reason for their inclusion. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 03:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

• Delete fails WP:CORP and WP:ATT. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 01:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Abeg92contribs 11:55, 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 Keep. Ianblair23 (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carlo Furletti

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

Article is about an insignificant secretary for an unimportant Shadow Minister for Multicultural Affairs. Masterpedia 01:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per my nomination. --Masterpedia 01:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Baristarim 01:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He was a member of parliament for 6 years. Article does need a lot of work. But his name gets a decent ammount of news results [7], suggesting he meets WP:N. --W.marsh 01:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Parliament of Victoria that is. Still, notable enough for me given the news results. --W.marsh 02:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:BIO. Member of provincial legislature and member of the Shadow Ministry in Victoria makes him notable enough. Capitalistroadster 02:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Needs cleanup, that's for sure. He was Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party in the Victorian Upper House, and held several shadow ministries himself (Ports, Natural Resources and Energy), so a bit more notable than the article makes out. I'm not sure you understand the meaning of Parliamentary Secretary (i.e. they're not a secretary in the "Mr Furletti, take a letter" sense of the word). --Canley 02:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: article needs improvement, but members of Parliament are notable.--Grahamec 03:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep All members of a national legislature are of course notable. But this seems to be the parliament of one of the provinical governments of Australia. I am not the least sure whether all members of a provincial (or US state) legislature are notable. This is a wider stretch than I've previously seen. (Assuming I am not totally wrong about the Govt. structure of Australia)DGG 03:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:BIO seems to expect that provincial (and U.S. state) legislators will be notable. The news hits seem to bear that out here. Mwelch 03:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - from WP:BIO Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures - that's pretty specific. Garrie 04:29, 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 No consensus, defaulting to keep. Shimeru 07:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manifest Limited

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

Appears to be an advert for a non-notable company. I've not speedied just in case there's a good reason to keep it, but at present there's nothing to suggest notability Iridescenti 17:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• weak keep Respectable sources. DGG 08:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Enough sources. Abeg92contribs 22:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 01:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I don't think we need articles on corporations that are essentially invisible to the general public, unless they are extremely significant in some way. As a marketing firm that assists businesses in marketing to businesses, in a single industry, this is not something we need in an encyclopedia. And we certainly don't need the Google Maps link showing where its office is... Brianyoumans 02:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't know who reads Wikipedia. We have plenty of articles that are not of interest to the general public but to a specific group of people. Your comment is not based on policy. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep--there are two totally respectable sources. If sourcing is enough for N, as is being widely claimed, then they are notable. (Though I consider client lists in such articles to be internal linkspam). DGG 03:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The list of clients helps establish the notability of the company. They wouldn't be half as notable if their clients were much smaller companies. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I recognize this, but it creates a problem in terms of the generation of linkspam. The only general solution I can think of is to list but not link. Agreed, this is not really much of a problem here, because only a few companies are listed. But some such articles have many more. Just mentioning it. DGG 00:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Article is little more than a press-release mission statement and a partial list of clients. There's no actual "article" here. Ford MF 06:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep based on sources. The mission statement is obvious for this type of company so it can be removed. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. While the company has several clients which are notable in their own right, the article seems rely rather heavily on name-dropping. As Brianyoumans' reply seems to suggest, it is important for the entity to have some sort of claim to fame. This second paragraph — which seems to provide some information about the company — reads like it was ripped from some sort of prospectus. Aarktica 19:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note to Iridescenti. When in doubt, please use the {{prod}} tag; if that approach fails, you can always bring it here. Aarktica 19:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I didn't prod it because I thought it was borderline enough to warrant a debate (the fact that it has four keep and three delete !votes seems to bear that out). If I was certain, I'd have db-spammed it. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:33, 4 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 10:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ankiro

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

Article is about a small company, with very few employees making a minor software product for a narrow customer base. If listed at least 10000 other small danish companies should listed as well.

• Delete, No external sources. Yawn. Abeg92contribs 22:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 01:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I wasn't able to find any sources of notability either. YechielMan 02:30, 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 merge, but someone with more knowledge about the subject, i.e. participants here, will have to do it. John Reaves (talk)

[edit] Tommy (comics)

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

As much as I am an X-Men fan, this article is necessarily of too little notibility even to fans of the X-books to merit a full Wikipedia article. Outside of her being the (debatable) first victim of the Mutant Massacre in Uncanny X-Men # 210, there is nothing else that would support a full article, as that issue and a handful of appearances on the animated series comprise the entire corpus of her existence in the Marvel Universe. Pat Payne 17:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep a merge into the Morlocks article might make sense, but looking at it almost all the others have articles and the number of them makes a merge unlikely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge this and other minor Morlock articles into a single List of Morlocks per WP:FICT. Not enough material to sustain a separate article but would work nicely as part of a character list. Otto4711 20:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 01:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- -- Ben 04:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. If she's not noteworthy enough for a separate page that doesn't mean the article should be deleted entirely. The nominator himself/herself doesn't appear to have considered merging. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per Otto4711. Could be useful to someone looking for information on Morlocks. Hewinsj 12:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge The list of Morlocks idea is a good one. - Denny 17:51, 4 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 deleted as CSD A7. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pine Castle Eagles Football Roster

Pine Castle Eagles Football Roster (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable high-school (American) football team. Not even clear that the content is verifiable. Pascal.Tesson 01:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete under {{db-group}}. No assertion of notability. Tagged as such.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete per nom and per above i am surprise it been on here as long it have beenOo7565 02:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• With thanks to the vandal who turned this into an attack page. Without him/her, it probably would've been here much longer. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, 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 10:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of professional wrestling finishing maneuvers

List of professional wrestling finishing maneuvers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nomination

• Listcruft List more suited to a Wrestling fansite. The individual wrestler articles overwhelmingly have details of the subject's signature moves making collective lists redundant.
  Checking [[Category:Professional_wrestlers_by_nationality]] country by country gave a total of 714 articles (which doesn't take into account uncategorised biographies) and given that often wrestlers have more than one "finishing move" and that new wrestler articles are created all the time, this list is shown to be clearly unmaintainable. </If the list was now 100% complete there would be in excess of 1000 lines - far too collossal. There is also the issue of complete lack of references/citations or even appropriate internal links.

Suriel1981 02:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per the fact that this is the only unnecessary wrestling moves article. There is no need for a repository of finishing moves, as the wrestler's individual articles store the names and descriptions. I also support deletion due to the fact that this article is completely unverified. -- The Hybrid 02:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The nominator exhausted all the points. I have nothing to add. YechielMan 02:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - another problem is that the listing of the moves is completely different from how they are listed in the normal articles and use phrases that appear to have been made up on the spot. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom ZBrannigan 03:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, there's no way this could be realistically maintained. MarcK 08:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete redundant list, also impossible to maintain MPJ-DK 10:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The nominator should be slammed slapped with a wet fish for mentioning the word listcruft, but the rest of his nomination is as sound as it can be. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The potential for abuse and misinformation outweighs the utility of the page. McPhail 12:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete' (super-spin hit delete button sitting in chair) For all the reasons above, it's hard to add any more to the reasons, except to say that the "descriptions" added to each entry in the list are also positively bamboozling for someone not interested in the "sport" (like me). Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete per MarcK's comments. Quatreryukami 15:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it it is very useful and there is no point in taking it down and it took a lot of work to make. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.50.245.113 (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment - it is completely useless. The actual articles serve the purpose of this list. It is just taking up space, and hasn't been shown to be reliable. -- The Hybrid 00:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I think the nomination demonstrated the reasons for taking it down. I do understand the article must have taken a lot of work and I certainly sympathise but WP policies really should be checked on before putting a lot of time/energy into a creation. Suriel1981 13:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I realize the point of the nominator, as this is an endless list, but I feel the opening paragraph is a perfect definition of what a finishing maneuver is. I tried to search for a page that had only the definition, of which none currently exist. All pages with similar titles redirect to this page. I would like to nominate the first paragraph as an official definition, or even a stub, for a page entitled "Finishing Maneuvers". —YeLLeY511 21:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see the terms finishing- or signature moves needing a separate page, but Professional wrestling does need a section/paragraph describing them. ↪Lakes (Talk) 21:03, 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 keep. --Wafulz 05:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atomic Opera

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

non notable christian rock band. a couple of indie records, but no singles, article notes that band "broke up after struggling to gain mainstream popularity" indicating it fails WP:BAND. Also is completely unsourced, so violates WP:A ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, and bundle with For Madmen Only (Atomic Opera album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) No notability established. Both seem to only have redlinks (the blue ones for the album are all for different people with the same name.) Bobanny 19:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

• STRONG DELETE - not notable and probably self-promotional. Ward3001 22:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as it's not yet a suitable subject for wikipedia. Mr. Berry 23:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP there are too many examples of rock bands inside of wikipedia so there is precedence. Kemper Crabb and Frank Hart are ICONS of independent Christian rock music. Atomic Opera often perfomed with the likes of Galactic Cowboys and King's X. Just because some people apparently don't like them is NOT a good reason to remove the information. Unless wikipedia is about censorship (??) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cjcox (talk • contribs) 07:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC). — Cjcox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• KEEP Just because they broke up once before does not make them a candidate for deletion. They did reconvene and are still an active band. I went through and removed the "red links" that were another person's argument for deletion. And what does "Delete as it's not yet a suitable subject for wikipedia." mean? Please be more specific than that, Mr. Berry. Also, the citing of WP:BAND in the original argument is bogus, due to "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted". Also, to Ward3001, the article isn't self-promotional, as I wrote most of the content originally, and am not affiliated with the band. Also, the article is no longer unsourced as multiple references have been included. Dlwhiteman 15:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP Those reasons for deletion are pathetic. The band is still around and all the members are making music. Just because some people don't know that doesn't mean this should be deleted. -JJ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.253.143.229 (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC). — 161.253.143.229 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 02:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This band has a long history, and it seems to be fairly notable - "Atomic Opera" and "Christian" generates 18,600 ghits, most of which seem to be the band. It isn't hard to find multiple reviews of their work online, and interviews; there seems to be a lot of interest in their work, especially in Christian rock circles. Brianyoumans 02:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. A perusal of the first couple dozen ghits seems to confirm the bands very minor notability, just barely enough to avoid deletion I think. Ford MF 06:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Question Can any of the keep voters explain how this fulfills WP:MUSIC criteria? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is now properly referenced. Dan, the CowMan 03:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I am unconvinced that there are any non-trivial published sources about this band, and as such fails the primary criterion of WP:MUSIC. All the stuff I can find on them is either from blog, directories and the like - nothing from an independent source to support the idea that this band is notable enough for inclusion. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you now see that there are. Dan, the CowMan 03:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets central criteria of WP:MUSIC: "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." Also meets criteria #3 "national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources" for touring with Dio. Note that the usage of the term "mainstream" from Swatjester's nomination refers to Rock radio outside of the Christian rock realm. The stuff that's played on most rock stations throughout the United States. It is possible for an artist to be notable in the Christian realm without success in "mainstream" music. The artist has a biography on All Music Guide [8]. Royalbroil ^T : C 20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Despite my immense distaste for the genre, it looks like it meets the multiple non-trivial standard. Abeg92contribs 11:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This article is now properly referenced, meeting WP:MUSIC. Dan, the CowMan 03:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Dan, the CowMan. GreenJoe 19:45, 2 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 Keep. Notability concern addressed. Shimeru 07:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A. David Lewis

A. David Lewis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article should be deleted because it is a non-notable vanity (and COI) article. Lewis wrote this article about himself, and has exaggerated his awards and accomplishments. The Day prize is the only one he won outright (and it was for a collaborative work); the Broken Frontier is a web community-based award with no official standing, and Cinescape chooses multiple winners, hence "a winner" (their usage - Lewis skips that bit). The first hit for Lewis on Google is his own company, and there is no way to verify easily that he was ever more than a student contributor to the IJOCA. He's also not an "educator" but, given his current education level (self-stated PhD student), perhaps a teaching assistant. The sources on the article are his company site and his blog, and thus fail WP:RS. MSJapan 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• delete Absolutely not an academic -- at least yet. Whether he qualifies otherwise I doubt, but cannot say for sure.DGG 08:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 02:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete His credentials are unconvincing. YechielMan 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 04:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Not notable as an academic, no, but his credentials are there in the comic book world. He's not wildly notable, to be sure, but I found a couple of sources and went ahead and added them to the article. His name definitely has decent prominence once you get into comicbook-specific press and web sites. Nonetheless, two of the sources I added are more mainstream, so as to be more clear about his overall notability. Mwelch 05:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Very minor, but sufficiently notable in the comic book world. Ford MF 06:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. borderline notability, but glossy secondary sources do cover him and his work. John Vandenberg 05:27, 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 10:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of notable science fiction films

List of notable science fiction films (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

List with many problems: It includes any film that has won a "widely-recognized" award (including a Razzie). "Widely-recognized" is inherently subjective. I know about films but I haven't heard of some of these awards. Annual box office receipts also appear to be a factor here.

WP:NOR states that unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material... (including) interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication. So unless these films have specifically been listed in this order, for this reason, by a reliable publication before, the list is OR.

Also problems with the title; "notable" just doesn't work in Wikipedia articles because, by definition, every science fiction film with an article is notable. I have proposed a rename (renaming it to anything else descriptive), but that was before I actually looked at the list properly and realised it shouldn't even be on here. Saikokira 02:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, you're right about the problems in this article... but I'm not sure that it should be deleted for them. Films considered the greatest ever had many of these problems at one point but it's better (not great) now and seems to be accepted as an article that won't be deleted. With some work this could be the same. I'd vote keep if someone was going to clean this up. gren グレン 02:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't believe the problems here are the type that can be solved by cleaning it up. Films considered the greatest ever is different because it's a list of superlatives, so most of the films on that list have ranked higher or won more awards in a particular field than any other. Saikokira 05:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - any film with a Wikipedia article is supposed to be notable by definition and this is redundant to the far more comprehensive category system for science fiction films. If the award the films won is sufficiently notable then lists of the films that won those awards might be acceptable. Otto4711 02:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as well as the previous reasons this list is too loosely connected. If it was just sci-fi films that have won an Oscar, OK. If it was highest-grossing sci-fi films ever, fine. But where's the strong connection between a Golden Globe, a "Hugo", and a Razzie? There isn't one. There's a related AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road to the 76th Academy Awards. Croxley 04:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Split into separate lists about the winners of the listed awards for those lists that don't already exist. A list of all notable SF films would be unmaintainable. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I concur with Otto4711 in saying that as "notability" is a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia, by default a list of "notable" films is redundant to the existing category system. The article attempts to create a more narrow definition of "notability" but in doing so has injected a POV bias as to what constitutes a "widely-recognized" award. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:30, 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, nomination withdrawn. WjBscribe 22:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auxilliary Fractions

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

Reads as a howto (see WP:NOT#IINFO); misspelt page title; incomprehensible EdC 23:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• needs an expert reading to the end, it seems this is not arithmetic as taught in the US or UK, but Vedic mathematics. I cannot evaluate tha, except to see that it is all based on or taken from one book. .DGG 09:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The article on Vedic mathematics treats the topics lightly, from the same book. Changed name to a single "l" in text. Method explained and exemplified in article. Most math articles give and work out some examples. It is arithmetic, converting a fraction to a decimal value with mental math, without long division. As the algorithm is from one book, it is a rare, valuable resource. Larry R. Holmgren 15:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• comment it does not help that the writing is so horrid. I suggest withdrawing the nomination for now, submitting it to WikiProject math articles in need of attention and resubmit in a few weeks if no one has bothered to clean it up. Pascal.Tesson 23:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think it has potential. If not, it can be redirected somewhere. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 02:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with most of y'all. I judge this to be a viable topic (despite the very low number of google hits), but the presentation is horribly arcane. See if it can be translated into some variant of standard English. YechielMan 02:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and send to WikiProject math per Pascal.Tesson. This may be a notable topic and even has featured article potential - but who can tell right now? --Charlene 18:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and submit to WikiProject Math. Abeg92contribs 12:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Closing. Given the evident consensus to keep; I'm going to close this discussion and mark the page as needing expert attention using {{expert-subject|Mathematics}}. I reserve the option to relist Auxiliary Fractions for deletion if it is not significantly improved within a reasonable time period. –EdC 16:21, 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 10:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Billingham Bags

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

Advertisement, not notable. Prod contested on two separate occasions in the past. Sable232 02:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - does not provide any indication of notability; reads like fan-site. ZBrannigan 03:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-promotion, no assertion of notability. DoorsAjar 08:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not enough information to establish notability. BTLizard 10:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Articles here [9] [10] [11] from established magazines (these appear to be transcriptions from articles, so they are not just from one source). A major manufacturer of camera bags sold by many major photographic stores (B&H photo and Jessops off the top of my head). The article is poor at the moment but could easily be saved with a bit of work. Will attempt a cleanup soon --Xarr 19:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it is a self-advertisement. — Wenli 22:52, 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. WjBscribe 22:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zio Systems

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

Nom looks like self-sourced SPAM to me; This company hardly registers with Google - and it claims to sell computer hardware. Fails WP:CORP methinks. Rklawton 02:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - reads like a fan-site. does not satisfy WP:ORG. ZBrannigan 03:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Generated a lot of controversy recently after claims that it failed to deliver hardware. Outside of this (which is really just a forum spat, honestly), though, it's non-notable. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. (For those not acquainted with the current controversy, I suggest reading through this {and maybe this too, if you have the patience}.) Nonnotable, plus there is controversy over whether ZioSys is even a company to start with. Also, for those aware of the controversy, WP:TROLL seems to apply (in spirit). Ourai ^тʃ_с 04:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be a shell company owned by one person. Rulesdoc 04:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (for now), wait until all this blows over, see if anyone remembers it in a month's time. If not, then delete it. Lankiveil 11:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
• Keep, the company is an ongoing scam. The page should be filled with current information though. Pmbarros 14:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - they may or may not be a scam, but there doesn't seem to be any notability for this company, and no reliable sources provided from which to verify any of the information. -- Whpq 20:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Ourai. --Aarktica 19:38, 4 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 11:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tommyknocker (producer)

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

The article does not assert notability of the subject. Nv8200p talk 02:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom ZBrannigan 03:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Uncertain no references, but his Discogs entry is pretty extensive. Can anybody knowledgable about the genre produce any reliable sources? If so, my vote would likely be to keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Local club makeshift DJ. Not notable. Cioxx 17:36, 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 speedy delete as spam. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Betinternet.com

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

Nom - speedied once; fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB Rklawton 02:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• unsourced--and that's all i can say, for I do not understand from the article itself what is its position among other companies in that line. DGG 03:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as spam. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:13, 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, amateur Sunday League team. NawlinWiki 15:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Locomotiv FC

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

I'm astonished this page has lasted nearly a year! Anyway, fails WP:CORP as it appears to simply be a Sunday league team HornetMike 03:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions.
• Delete - per nom. ZBrannigan 03:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as per nomination. How did this page keep below the radar for so long! Daemonic Kangaroo 05:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable Sunday recreational team, doesn't meet any form of guideline ChrisTheDude 07:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - could have been speedied despite its longevity. Qwghlm 07:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Nothing to suggest this is anything other than a Sunday League team Jules 15:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete As all above. Tangerines 15:46, 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 11:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enoch Moore

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

Possibly notable pioneer, article sources lost during page moves.

Partly procedural: At first glance, the subject of this article would seem important as an early pioneer of the European settlement of the area. However, the sources for this page were lost along with the early page history during some rather unclear page moves. The article obviously cannot stay without them, and I myself have no information on the subject. I ask some admin who knows how to retrieve the sources, so the article can be properly restored and discussed. . -- or perhaps the orig. ed who added the article still has the information. We have been discussing similar bios, & it would be a good time to clear the status of this one if possible. I cannot say which way it should go without knowing the sources. If restoring them is for some reason impossible, then of course it should be deleted. DGG 03:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• The history of the article is in Inky Moore. There never were any sources in the article itself. There is only one online reference to this person - the link is on your talk page. Resurgent insurgent 03:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

From the note left on my talk page, the ref referred to is [12] (he's no. 160). which must obviously have been compiled from other sources. I am not in the least disputing about this article, just discussing it-- I have been puzzled by it, because it was obviously written from sources along with a number of other bios on Moores by User:Podiatrist, and I cant figure out where. (How the history got to be under Inky Moore is something I never did understand, but no matter), So i'd like to ask in public, and have it settled. If I ever have the time in some future year, I may try to find the real sources myself & either add or recreate depending on what the status of this article is by then. because it does seem obvious that a leader of an obviously historical rebellion should be notable and must have sources somewhere beyond the link above. But not my main interest in life. DGG 03:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a sad comment on Canada, if you can lead a rebellion and still not be notable. Should this not be on the Canadian-related list? Johnbod 04:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable even given the era of his life. He's #55 in the page DGG linked to, not #160. (The WP:V pundits won't like it that the page is hosted on some ISP's personal web server and is likely to be self-published, but that is another matter for another time.) The writer of that page appears to have done much research, but assuming everything on the page is accurate, nowhere is he claimed to have been a "leader of the rebels" in any battle. So that info is unsourced. Under "notable events: military" his only notable event was "his service in the 1812-14 War with the Americans" and allegedly getting land in return for said service. Thus his best reliable claim to notability is only an unspecified role in another battle, which is not close to notability even in that era. Other things he did include being jailed, sentenced to death, moving residence several times, and owning about 500 acres of land, none of which are notable activities in themselves. Resurgent insurgent 04:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not everything old is notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, but once notable, they remain so. If he was a notable revolutionary in the 19th century, he remains so. I think getting sentenced to death for treason is generally notable, even if not executed. But agreed that this part is not currently documented. DGG 00:39, 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 keep. It was a procedural nomination, and the consensus to keep is unanimous. Non-admin closure.

[edit] Brimstone (wrestler)

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

An anonymous user tagged this article for speedy deletion, leaving the following note:

non-notable wrestler; if for some reason this does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion (I think it does), could somebody please put it up for afd as a procedural nomination for failing notability requirements and being unreferenced, and perhaps even being spam? I can't because I don't have an account and don't wish to make an account at this time. Thanks in advance. YechielMan 03:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. He was in multiple televized wrestling matches for notable wrestling organizations and has a comic book character based on his wrestling persona. Don't see how that is not notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, there are more assertions of notability than in the majority of wrestling biography articles. The article is comprehensively referenced and relatively well written. McPhail 12:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, In agreeing with the other users, there seems to be more than enough notability especially compared to MANY other wrestling biography articles on wiki. RingWars2007 14:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I realize that as the original creator of this article, my opinion is technically "biased" in favor of keeping the article, but I felt the fact that he has appeared in a range of media sources was enough to qualify him under the notability factor. I have noticed in my work on the to do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling, that many other wrestling-related wiki articles are either not sourced, poorly sourced, or seem non-notable (and not necessary). I had hoped this article was a step above those, and am still hoping! —YeLLeY511 17:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum total of human knowledge, cover everything we can find sources for. I was surprised to see so many sources on the wrestler, who I have never heard of before seeing the article being worked on in recent edits. Probably the anon who suggested it for speedy deletion hadn't heard of him either. Deletionism is so against the spirit of Wikipedia that it sickens me. Speedy keep I say, pretty much everyone is agreeing on this. KV(Talk) 21:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. He's quite notable, and the article isn't badly written. — Wenli 22:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A lot of sources, but peppered with redlinks. Abeg92contribs 12:04, 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 speedy delete G4. Daniel Bryant 07:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trashketball (second nomination)

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

Still fails WP:NFT, WP:NEO. Due to the nature of the game, it is unlikely that it will ever be verifiable. Only new information appears to be a link to some Flash game. mikm 03:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per CSD G4 and salt please. --Sable232 03:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete G4 per Sable232. So tagged. --Dennisthe2 04:09, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perim Özgeldi

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

Delete, per notability criteria of WP:BIO - the article says "Turkish press advisor who is working for one of the best comedian Mehmet Ali Erbil in Turkey." Not sure if press secretaries qualify as notable, even though the comedian might be. Gets 138 hits on Google, nearly all from Wikipedia mirrors like answers.com [13]. Baristarim 03:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator Baristarim 03:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable deniz^T_C 03:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable Free smyrnan 04:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete if Mehmet Ali Erbil doesn't warrant his own page, don't see how you can justify his press secretary having one. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think Mehmet Ali Erbil does warrant his own page, it's just not done yet. deniz^T_C 16:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It seems like an advertisement as well. — Wenli 22:55, 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 11:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darren Headrick

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

He's a college student with a radio show and a blog. Big deal YechielMan 03:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Gets few hits other than his blogsite which is not the best link per WP:ATT and WP:EL. Fails WP:N. Morenooso 03:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above unless it can be independently sourced before close of AfD. janejellyroll 03:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I just saw him discussed on an ESPN radio program by Bill Simmons who was talking about some of the better Sports bloggers on the internet. Rooks19

With new media and its recent advances and the growth of blogging, who is to say who is a legitimate source and who isn't? PerezHilton, Deadspin and countless others are on Wikipedia. Just because you don't follow NASCAR and haven't heard of his blog does not mean it should be deleted. He has a growing viewership because of his southern roots and knowledge of the sport. Keep Piggy on Wikipedia! AlSorr06 — AlSorr06 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• • Articles need to be verifiable by someone else than the subject themself. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:Notability for entertainers. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. NawlinWiki 15:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira 04:05, 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 11:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nick irwin

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

Supposed three time world lightweight champion at the age of 16. Suspected hoax Mattinbgn/ ^talk 03:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - hoax. ZBrannigan 03:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I found some stuff on Google about the guy, but I reserve judgement whether it is a hoax or not. Needs major cleaning up. Useight 05:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete sources needed to prove claims, then I would vote keep. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• LexisNexis comes up dry. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing relevant on Factiva either. Unsourced, it looks very much a hoax. Resurgent insurgent 14:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I moved this to the proper capitalization. Abeg92contribs 12:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the commenters above, does not meet relevant content policies or guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 03:19, 2 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Wood (cricketer)(1977)

Matthew Wood (cricketer)(1977) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Sources do not validate claims. Philippe 03:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Professional first class cricketer. See Cricinfo for details. --Mattinbgn/ ^talk 03:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Top-flight professional cricketer, sources appear to verify all info given. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Even if the sources don't validate given content, unless there's strong reason to assume it's promotional in nature or blatantly incorrect those are reasons for cleanup rather than deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've placed a dab notice on Matthew Wood (cricketer) to point here. I'd support a move to Matthew James Wood to avoid the ambiguity and the odd title with two modifiers. A middle name works just as well. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep and move per Mgm. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep though should be a little better sourced to verify the claim of being a professional - not to mention the fact that sources should really be listed as references, not external links :) Article does need some cleanup, and please move it to a better title per Mgm - the existing double-modified title is just ugly. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am currently trying to write an entry for every first class cricketer who has played for Yorkshire CCC. By definition a first class cricketer is a notable person. The entry will be expanded and properly presented soon but I can't do everything at once. The sources for the statistics, Cricket Archive, will be given. Nick mallory 00:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory

• Keep. WP:BIO says "competitors who have played in a fully professional league" are by definition considered sufficiently notable for an article. This cricketer has played more than 100 professional matches. Johnlp 22:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - a professional cricketer in the English first class game is celarly notable. If the sources are not good enough apply an appropriat tag. Peterkingiron 22:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has references to Wood's statistics on cricinfo and cricket archive and is linked to the Yorkshire Cricketers category. I agree the title is clumsy, but that was the link from the 'Yorkshire CCC players' page which I'm working my way through. If someone could change the title that would be great but I wouldn't presume to do that myself. This article is as complete and well sourced as a thousand others on similar first class cricketers and I'm not sure why it's still up for possible deletion. Nick mallory 02:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory

• Keep As stated above. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 03:30, 4 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 delete by Geogre. →Bobby← 14:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin lacey

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

Non-notable subject; sources do not validate the claims. Philippe 03:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as lacking any sources to back up claims and indicate the subject is notable. janejellyroll 04:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per A7, tagged as such. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:06, 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 11:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citizendium versus Wikipedia

Citizendium versus Wikipedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Let's nip this in the bud. This page (even with a new title) appears to be waiting for something problomatic or a flamewar. It is impossible to compare the two without either having this be a op-ed or a direct fork of an article. Yanksox 03:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not because of the tendency for flamage, but because it's something more that allows WP:OR. --Dennisthe2 04:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- The identical material is (currently) included in the Citizendium article -- this is therefore a fork, and ought not to be. (Not to mention the obvious flame/troll bait it represents." -- Simon Cursitor 07:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Single source not enough for this to be a noted controversy. Title implies original research. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Problematic. On one hand, it is possible WP:OR. On the other hand, for all I know, this is not only a flamebait, but a bait that is setted by Citizendium editors to show the world that Wikipedia that there exist a cabal or censorship etc (if delete), or to show that there are no standard even if it IS WP:OR. (if keep). Proceed with extreme caution; if vote for any case, please put up good arguments beyond the WP:OR. George Leung 08:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete any useful comparison content might be worth having in the Citizendum article though I doubt there is much to say about a project that is in its infancy it is crystal ball to suggest that this is a genuine alternative to wikipedia. MLA 10:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this isn't a real article, it's a thinly veiled claim that Citizendium is better than Wikipedia. As for George Leung's concern - Citizendium's claims under those circumstances would be unsound: if delete, we are deleting a flamebait, inherently POV article, not being an evil cabal. If keep, we would be allowing that article to grow - something I find inappropriate given that the article on Citizendium will, or should be the location of any comparison of WP and CZ since CZ is arguably a fork or offshoot of Wikipedia. Let the standards existing in our AfD processes rule, and any challenge from an opportunistic CZ'er is baseless - we will have followed Wikipedia's standards and reached a reasonable conclusion via consensus. For the record, in this comment I do not imply that WP either is or is not better than CZ - I just can't see this article as anywhere near appropriate. Nihiltres 13:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The inevitable comparison of Citizendium to Wikipedia is best covered in the Citizendium article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I really wonder what's User:QuackGuru's obsession with creating Wikipedia related articles. --Conti|✉ 14:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If and when the topic of Wikipedia vs Citizendium comparisons becomes too uweildy for the Citizendium article - properly backed up by reliable secondary sources of course - then perhaps a more comprehensive article can be written. Right now that set of circumstances does not exist and thus neither should this article. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • To be perfectly frank, that's probably best left in the Citizendium article itself - this would be based off of a precedent set by articles for Everything2 and, by a long shot, Urban Dictionary (which, in its current state, I don't believe has such a comparison - but you get the idea). --Dennisthe2 16:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is clearly going nowhere. Yanksox is right, it's waiting for some sort of altercation. I also raise the question of how you'd source an article like this; it's inherently going to contain POV unless it's a simple statement of differences between the two sites. --Deskana (ya rly) 16:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Simple paraphrasing of a single source does not constitute an encyclopedia article on a topic. Obviously this is the sort of topic that could assemble a variety of sources into an interesting article, but for now, it doesn't. Sockatume 16:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete belongs in the Citizendium article. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment When a lot of voters believe it belongs in the Citizendium article your vote would be merge. Think long and hard about your votes. People are watching us. You never know. A news reporter could write a juicy story about Wikipedians and their real attitudes, and ... I'll let you fill in the blanks. Have a nice day. The truth will prevail. BTY, I vote MERGE. Note to closing administrator: Voters are saying merge and then they vote delete. You are all an interesting bunch. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 18:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Seriously, the culture of Wikipedia is scary. There is alreadly enough coverage. I'll let you in on a secret though: not many people give a damn about Wikipedia. Hence, the press really doesn't care about something as minute as deleting a barely one paragraph article. Yanksox 19:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, they don't care about Wikipedia when something good is happening, but as soon as a hint of bad stuff happen, they will flock to it like bees to honey. Personally, I am neutral, but like I said, proceed with caution. Kudos to those that stated these with clear arguments.George Leung 21:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No, it doesn't happen at the hint of anything slightly bad. I've been here for a year and known about Wiki's existance before that. For the most part the press is somewhat lackadasical about Wiki, they only care in gigantic situations like Essjay and Schelgr., but the press doesn't monitor Wiki, it takes alot of people to jump up and down. This is a simple and small page, stop spitting so much into it, George. You and Quack need to relax. Yanksox 22:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Alert That's what they said about Essjay in the beginning. Relax? or better yet procede with extreme caution. The votes for delete are a logical fallicy arguement. Therefore, it is a keep. Voting is based on logic and NOT the cabal (if delete). I find it interesting you are all in it together (vote the same). :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 23:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think a better question is to ask is who are you? Who christened as Wikipedia's ombudsman? Yanksox 00:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • And another thing: if you keep showing up with nonsensical blanket threats you can kindly show yourself the door. Yanksox 00:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • QG, what in blazes does Essjay have to do with this? Don't bring Essjay into the mess. This article is not about Essjay or how s/he (apparently) relates to this article we're discussing the deletion of, it is about the potential deletion of the article. --Dennisthe2 06:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wayyyyy too soon. Maybe in a year when sources can cover this. - Denny 23:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm not even sure what this article is supposed to be? Is it about a controversy? If so, which one - I don't know of any, and the article doesn't bring any forward. Is it supposed to be a comparison of Wikipedia and Citizendium? Then it's not an encyclopedic topic, AFAIK - and it surely could be covered on the page about Citizendium, or Wikipedia themselves. I mean, a "differences" page should only be created when there is substantial and informative material to be collected which could not be produced on the pages about the two items being compared. In this case, it is all of one line on either to summarize the comparisons - it doesn't need it's own article. --Haemo 02:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, no reliable sources to speak of, non-notable topic. Fails just about every policy we have (and probably just about every policy Citizendium has, though I confess I haven't checked). Xtifr _tälk 12:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Section Break

• Alert The text of the article has significantly expanded. All the votes above have nothing to do with anything. Cordially. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 05:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• You're seriously kidding, right. You've significantly altered the tone of this article in a way which makes it entirely unencyclopedic - note the continual use of "we" for instance. Furthermore, it's now virtually all WP:OR! This is an even stronger reason to delete it, and it hasn't even come close to addressing the primary complaint which is why is this topic encyclopedic in the first place? --Haemo 05:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Also, you should probably have made it clear in this AFD that you are the original creator of the article in question in the first place. I was quite confused. ---Haemo 05:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Surely, you're joking. The article is still serious WP:OR, and there is no other documentation (with the possible exception of the Citizendium article). Finally, don't even get the idea that you speak for me - not only do you not, I find your pretention of doing so downright insulting. My !vote stands as is. --Dennisthe2 06:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Take a look here. The nice upstanding people at Citizendium are not afraid to make a comparison. Are you afraid? :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 07:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, and we aren't Citizendium? What of it? --Haemo 07:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Let me expand on this, so it doesn't seem too terse - Citizendium is created as a response to Wikipedia. This article is their meta-namespace, to talk about what Citizendium is, and is not. It's not a mainspace article, and they don't appear to have an article on this in their mainspace either. There's no clear reasoning why this is an encyclopedic topic - they clearly don't think it is. --Haemo 07:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Dude, I'm stunned. What in tarnations am I supposed to be afraid of?! I'm at a point where the only thing I can ask you borders on a personal attack! Quit with the drama already - the smiley doesn't help. I have nothing more to say about this. --Dennisthe2 14:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete excessively self-referential and otherwise problematic. Just because we could do this according to our standards doesn't mean we should. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Just adding to say that I don't mind Move to Wikipedia:, but failing that, this is definitely Deletable stuff. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia: space. The obvious decision. Abeg92contribs 14:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Frankly, I wouldn't even grant this, if I were me. Granted essays are inherently POV as a whole, but this isn't even a good essay. --Dennisthe2 15:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The current, "expanded" article is a copy of Wikipedia:We aren't Citizendium, so there's not much of a point in moving this anywhere. That explains the POV and OR language, too. --Conti|✉ 15:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Citizendium. The article has nothing which isn't on the Citizendium article, so why the need for a comparison? It also assumes self references, ie assumes that the reader is on Wikipedia (rather than answers.com, etc). Comment: What on earth are all these paranoid references to "you are being watched"!? Come now, the black helicopters are not on their way! --h2g2bob 03:18, 3 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 11:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Heppell

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

Vanity/promotion page about an educator whose importance is still pretty unclear after reading the article. This page was previously deleted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Heppell for the first debate. The entirety of sourcing available at this time consists of a couple of short bullet points in a "profile" on a news site [14]. There is also this, brought up in the previous debate as an award he won that (1) isn't an independent source, (2) reads like a press release, and (3) doesn't give any idea what the RTS Judges award is, or if it has any prestige, who awards it, et cetera. Given the shabby state of the article, the creation of it and some recent editing by User:Stephenheppell, and the borderline level of notability here, I say we delete. Mangojuice^talk 03:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 04:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP:Vanity article, seems to exist to only promote. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia:Notability (people) Wikipedia:Autobiography DrKiernan 14:19, 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 redirect to Chappelle's Show. - Mailer Diablo 11:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Negrodamus

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

Completely uncited quote-farm about a single skit on Chappelle's Show. Sub-minor fiction character which even fails notability on Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) since it does not have sufficient depth to sustain an independent article. At most it should redirect to the show or actor article. Anything remotely notable could easily be covered by the Paul Mooney or Chappelle's Show articles. Recently prodded but deprodded with no assertion of notability. Recommend delete, then redirect to either Paul Mooney or Chappelle's Show. Dual Freq 04:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This sort of cruft pours through the TV every day. Herostratus 05:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. No way enough sources about this single skit exist. Fancruft. Funny skit, though. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as per both above. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and possibly move any notable quotes to wikiquote. Hewinsj 12:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Chappelle's Show. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Chappelle Show. LevelSolve 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect and/or merge per above. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as per above. - grubber 17:54, 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, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lyfe Style Supply Co.

Lyfe Style Supply Co. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Claims that they are known all over "the Los Angeles county" (sic) and have designed shirts for celebrities are unsourced. Google search turns up nothing beyond a myspace.com page. Db tag has been removed numerous times by creator. Fails WP:CORP janejellyroll 04:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for utter failure in meeting WP:CORP: Eddie.willers 05:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - spam. BTLizard 09:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless some evidence of notability provided by the end of the AfD. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the article can't even pretend to meet WP:CORP. Google finds next to nothing, and there are no external sources. Ale_Jrb^talk 13:26, 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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE, unfortunately. The article's a mess. All of the Keep votes noted that the article needs major work, generally pruning. There were some comments suggesting a split (of the potheads) or a merge, but not significant support for those solutions. I will now proceed to prune the article with a vengeance, as everyone agrees that that is a condition of it being kept. No prejudice against a renomination if the article doesn't soon figure out what it wants to be and moves in that direction. Herostratus 03:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of famous smokers

List of famous smokers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This list was nominated once before as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of iconic smokers. At the time, the article lookedlike this.

The final keep vote acknowledged the need for substantial cleanup. The top of the article begs for references on the hundreds of claims made below. On the talk page, the following comment sums up my impression of the situation:

== This article is a total disaster. == This article has got to the point where any celebrity who has been photographed smoking is included. "Tony Yayo"? I really have no idea who he is, he certainly doesn't belong in this "iconic" article alongside Bette Davis and George Burns. This article needs MAJOR pruning. PatrickJ83 21:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's throw this article in the ashtray. And while were at it, let's throw in

Nicotine users and former users, List of (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

YechielMan 04:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep List of famous smokers. The list does need major clean-up, but I don't think that is a sufficient reason to delete. The list need to be sourced because right now it is a magnet for all sorts of dubious claims (pictures "surfaced" of someone smoking a joint, so-and-so is "said" to have smoked pot everyday, and numerous references to people being marijuana smokers because they simply sang a SONG about smoking marijuana). The list should be reoriented to the original purpose of iconic smokers, not just anybody who was ever seen with a cigarette. janejellyroll 04:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I am biased in that I like lists, which makes me want to keep it (with some serious cleanup), but I also don't see how this is helpful, because there are way too many smoking celebrities out there. Useight 04:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - smoking is not defining or unique or in any way indicative of notability. Otto4711 05:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - these are people who are 'notable' already who just also happen to smoke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HisSpaceResearch (talk • contribs) 08:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
• Strong delete - This list is never going to be of interest to anyone. None of these people are famous for smoking. We may as well have a list of Famous people who wear brown trousers. Which someone is probably writing right now. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• How about we turn this in a list of famous people who advertised smoking and a list of people who are known primarily for their smoking (Cigarette Smoking Man comes to mind)? Although the second list may be controversial, the first is definitely useful and either one or both together could eliminate a lot of the dubious entries on the current list. It would also greatly improve manageability (which is almost non-existent now). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Prune, if need be; and revert it if it becomes unwieldy, but keep it. Might be best also if it were to move back to the former title, List of iconic smokers; but certainly it cannot be denied that figures like Fidel Castro, Winston Churchill, or Humphrey Bogart are indeed closely associated with smoking, even if they are not famous for smoking. FWIW I would remove any references to causes of death from the article; that comes across as waspish and so last-century. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Extinguish. I find it curious that the purported definition as given by the lead section is "This is a list of famous people, for whom smoking is clearly a recognised part of their public image, or who are known for some unusual aspect of smoking", when the very first entry is for someone who "Was a closet cigarette smoker, a fact that came out shortly after her death". Despite the assertion by the lead section this is nothing more than an intersection between people who are famous and people who smoke - and given the popularity of smoking at one point in time the people who fit both those qualifiers will be enormous. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and prune. Only people whose smoking is iconic should be listed, entries like "Jessica Simpson was once photographed with a cigar" should be removed. --Strangerer (Talk) 17:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Edit: And delete Nicotine users and former users, List of. Smokers are covered in List of famous smokers and there isn't much content for chewers. --Strangerer (Talk) 17:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Arkyan ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment this should rise or fall with List of notable drug culture figures, either we prune the list under discussion back to the iconic and name it appropriately, or delete it, I don't frankly care which, but if this goes, I will nominate the the drug culture figures most of which are people who admitted that they inhaled (injected, or whatever) and really aren't iconic. Carlossuarez46 00:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is of great interest to so many people, I don't know how some of you people can say otherwise. Brown pants, indeed! (Iridescenti, above) (For all we know, you "delete" voters could work in the tobacco industry and want a lower profile because of negative publicity. I've been a proud anti-tobacco campaigner for decades.) Some evidence for public interest are the campaigns to get celebrities to be better role models and the campaigns to reduce smoking in movies so that young people (the main movie theatre-goers) are less influenced to smoke. To participate for or against such campaigns, it helps to know about whom you are talking, so let's draw investigators to Wikipedia for that encyclopedic information! Many of the delete supporters are voting based on the quality of the article now, instead of how good it can be after we work on it more. We don't delete an article because it is unfinished and needs references. We should keep out the word "iconic" (too limited and trendy) in the criteria. Arkyan (above) has a good point--probably a great majority of entertainers in Western culture in the 1940s smoked. But because almost everyone believed the world was flat long ago doesn't mean that today's flat-worlders are not notable. Korky Day 01:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge the newer article. I recently started the article Nicotine users and former users, List of (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). That was before I knew about the older article (because the latter was hard to find!). Then I realised that the two articles are not exact duplicates. The chewers, etc. are added in mine. But more importantly, I have a section for ex-users. This is of great interest, for instance, Fidel Castro quit smoking, which greatly interests people and is an argument for admirers of Fidel to quit smoking. So I'd like to see the two articles merged, with all the features of both. Korky Day 01:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Separate non-tobacco. As part of the merge suggested above, how about separating the cannabis users and putting them elsewhere? They never really seemed to fit in this article. Korky Day 01:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge elsewhere. The cannabis smokers could get their own article, SqueakBox 23:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Arkyan. --Dariusk 03:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Objectivity Persue Wikipedia and delete everything that does not conform to most current accepted propaganda on whatever subject. Let's have a Wikipedia Dogma to spread over the internet ... right? DasV 18:56, 5 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 delete per nomination. Harryboyles 06:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LUGs, FSUGs, GLUGs in India and Asia

LUGs, FSUGs, GLUGs in India and Asia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A list of links to websites of user groups for various Unix-like operating systems. In blatant violation of the policy that Wikipedia is not an Internet directory. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• LUG this to the trash bin in double-quick time as a collection of external links and nothing else. Resurgent insurgent 04:51, 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 11:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prophecy (comics)

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

Non-notable comic. Doesn't pass basic tests like existence of reliable third-party coverage (oddly, the sole thing I could find was this recommendation by an islamic website). The official website claims [15] that the comic will soon be available to a wide group of retailers, which suggests that it currently has little or no distribution. Pascal.Tesson 04:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Lakers 05:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- -- Ben 04:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless expanded - in the absence of sources it's impossible to check notability, especially with such an ungoogleable name. These may well be notable in Islamic countries; if anyone can dig out evidence of this I'm happy to change my !vote. The illustrations also look like copyvios. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

hi i don't know how to use html please fix up my mistakes- the Prophcey comics have a website which would be a great reference rather than the Islamic website it is http://www.prophecy.com.au/index.htm. sorry for the inconvenience Daqiq (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Daqiq

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

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

The result was keep with suggested cleanup. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Siobhán Hoey

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

Does not making the Olympics confer notability? Her team finished 16th in the European trails... where's the cutoff? 20th? 50th? Irish triple jump champion yes. But triple jump is a darned obscure event, Ireland is a small country, and one editor noted "Multiple Irish triple jump champion but never jumped within 2-3 metres of standard in other countries". I'm sure she's buff and all, but where's the limit here? Herostratus 04:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep One could argue that triple jump, being an Olympic event since 1896, is not that obscure... and as for the notability of Ireland, well, I don't know what to say. I would say that the national champion in a notable sport, in any country regardless of size, is notable. --Canley 05:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• I don't think the triple jump is an obscure event either, and Ireland is not an insignificant country. Nevertheless there is a paucity of information here, which means that the article fails to establish notability. If it could be beefed up I'd be likely to say keep, but otherwise delete. BTLizard 09:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Canley; national champion in a reasonably notable sport seems legitimate enough. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Needs work, but per reasons stated above, no need to delete.Yem75 15:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per above ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep needs to be expanded but being a stub is not a reason for deletion especially when some notability can be established. To the nominator, Tiddlywinks is obscure, triple jump is not... Xarr 20:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep ten-time national champion in an Olympic sport. The article is a pathetic sub-stub lacking all relevant biographical information, but the subject is clearly notable enough. Xtifr _tälk 13:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If anything is pathetic here, it is the level of triple jump in Ireland generally and speficically the results of Siobhán Hoey. Punkmorten 20:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• I am sorry but to include her on the basis of her triple jump record is really plain silly. She to the best of my knowledge never competed in any of the following for Ireland- European championship either indoor or out, World or Olympic championship. I am not even sure that she competed in the Europa cup. The standard in the Europa cup and European indoor championship is quite low journeymen or journey women national champions normally get an outing in one or the other. There are also countless living Irish people who have won multiple track and field national titles- it is not for wikipedia to list them all. She triple jumped when the event was just introduced in senior competitions and won national titles. someone had to. Her performances compare very badly to standards in England, France, Germay or America at the time she jumped no where near the marks recorded by athletes in those countries at the time. As an aside she is not the Irish national triple jump record holder either- the long time record holder is also off the pace so to speak compared to other international athletes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.112.142.244 (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC).— 84.112.142.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong delete. Being a national champion in a sport is in itself far from notable, even in a large sport such as athletics. I'm a national champion in an athletics event, so if Canley's argument was true I would benefit from that in a way. On the other hand, our goal should be to build a high-quality encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreover a set of guidelines known as WP:BIO cover this type of articles, and none of the criteria outlined there are met in this case. Punkmorten 20:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, forget the triple jump... as a bobsleigh team the Hoey sisters seem far more notable - there are several full articles about them in several Irish newspapers (and this is, after all, the primary criterion for notability): Cool run for Port sisters, Success for bobsleigh sisters but sponsors still giving them the slip, Sisters taking sport to the extreme, Fundraising drive to help Port.’s bobsleighing sisters. There's also The Sun in Britain, which seems to think they did qualify for Torino: You are sexski things!, as well as some scant biographical information on the CBS and Yahoo Olympic sites: CBS, Yahoo. --Canley 14:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Changed my opinion to keep based on her merits (World Cup competitor) as a bobsledder alone. Punkmorten 18:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. per Punkmorten and also does not meet criteria of WP:BIO User:KRBN 17:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Bobslieghers who nearly qualified for the Olympics how many other people around the world meet this criteria. It to my mind lacks notability. They have little relevance outside Ireland as Triple Jumpers but are better at bobsleigh by all accounts- but are still weak athletes by the standards that should be applied to wikipedia which is not here to include everyman and woman who every did some sport to an international or quasi international standard. still strong delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.112.142.244 (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC).— 84.112.142.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Hmm, it's an encyclopedia, so I would say it probably is in order to record everyone who has excelled at national level in every recognised sport. Your mileage may vary, however I see no reason to delete articles for the sake of it, which is what this would seem to amount to. --Tony Sidaway 18:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I would say the exact opposite - for the same reason: An encyclopedia, Wikipedia should not and does not cover everything. The fact that Hoey hardly excelled in triple jump (look at her results) is another discussion. Anyway, the bobsleigh achievements on the other hand seem good enough to merit inclusion. Punkmorten 18:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- Canley 16:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This article isn't a deletion candidate. Siobhan and Aoife Hoey made national news with their Olympic attempts. The Irish Examiner and the Irish Independent are two out of the three principal newspapers of Ireland. And that's before you consider that we're talking about a six-time national athletics champion. --Tony Sidaway 17:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Still a strong delete. The Triple Jump point has surely been addressed at this point. Neither of the two ladies has any releveance at all outside of Ireland as Triple Jumpers. The fact that they made national headlines for a short period in Ireland when doing another sport in and itself does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. There is an inference here that they should be included because they are plucky Irish girls competing in a sport not normally associated with that country and they nearly made the Olympics. That is an extremely weak argument for inclusion. They got some publicity as at the time it was a good colour story. But the reality is they are unknown in Ireland. Bad Triple Jumpers, better but not notable bob sleighers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.112.142.244 (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC).— 84.112.142.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• There's a reason the primary criterion for notability is "multiple, non-trivial secondary sources" – whilst I'm sure many who participate in the AfD process would love to have a manual for biographies, and sportspersons in particular, which spelt out what was "notable" in black-and-white, this will never happen: Wikipedians would never satisfactorily agree on the thousands of arbitrary limits and rules required. The Hoey sisters meet the primary notability criterion, with multiple non-trivial references in Irish and UK media and sources over five years – whether this is due to their athletic achievements (which the press seem to have a fairly high opinion of) or because they're "plucky Irish girls" aiming for Olympic glory is irrelevant. You appear to be arguing that it is a bad precedent to include apparently lacklustre athletes, I would argue that it is a far more dangerous precedent to discard the primary notability criterion and instead rely on subjective opinions or "gut feelings" of athletic prowess. --Canley 00:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Still a strong delete. They lack notability. The two are absolutely unheard of in the UK- do not accept there were multiple non trivial references there- they made some press for colour reasons whilst Olympic winter sports were in peoples minds. I travel between the two countries. If you want to put it in those terms they really are lacklustre athletes. Utterly irrelevant as Triple Jumpers and no relevance in winter sports. It is a dangerous precedent to keep these ladies here. Being Irish claiming to have no access to funds and nearly doing something seems to allow you to have these girls punch above their weight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.142.244 (talk • contribs) — 84.112.142.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Well, you certainly seem to have a strong opinion on what is and isn't notable in Irish athletics and sport (see Sharon Foley). Might I suggest you sign up for a user name, so that you can suggest changes to the notability criteria on the relevant discussion page? Please also read up on notability guidelines, in particular "Notability is not subjective". --Canley 03:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Attacking this person because they haven't signed up to an account is changing the goal posts. I have just googled Siobhan Hoey. As a track and field athlete she seems to have a long jump best of 6.02m and a triple jump best of around 12.38m. The Olympic standard for 2008 in each event is 6.72m and 14.2 m respectively. Therefore her p.b is 70cm shy in one case and 1.8m shy in the other. This discrepency strikes me as indicating an athlete who shouldn't be on wikipedia. The marks just referred to are the minimum required to get to the Olympics- to progress it would be normal to exceed what is asked of you in qualifying once you get there. I know little about the bob sleigh but I doubt that someone so average in one event suddenly becomes an Olympic standard athlete when they change to winter sports. And the fact is she didn't qualify in that either. Taking her argument at its height its basically she should be here because she came 16th in olympic qualifying when 15 were to go. She still missed it and we have no objective information on the difference between 15th and 16th place. The Irish Sports Council guy is spinning the story. Unless more bona fide objective information is given she really doesn't deserve to be here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.202.154.56 (talk • contribs).— 213.202.154.56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I'm not attacking them at all, and I'm very sorry if it comes across that way. They are of course welcome to continue to post and edit anonymously (as are you), there's nothing wrong with that at all. I just think that if one is going to issue dire warnings of dangerous inclusion precedents on AfD and talk pages, then one tends to have a little more credibility if one has a user account and signs their posts. Whatever... the standards the two of you are drawing are subjective and in opposition to Wikipedia's primary notability policy, that's all I'm saying. --Canley 12:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree. Objectively one can say she jumped certain distances in the long jump and triple jump, that are quite average, and did not qualify for either the 2002 or 2006 winter Olympics. In track and field her performances were 10-13% shy of the present Olympic 'A' standards. A man at the same standard who ran the 1500 metres would be running 4 minutes 15 seconds or so instead of the required time of around 3 minutes 37 seconds. Someone of that calibre evidently lacks notability and shouldn't get on wikipedia because they missed qualifying for the Olympics in winter sports also.

She is also not well known- I have just googled her again and 26 references came up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.149.105 (talk • contribs) — 213.202.149.105 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• OK, so is Olympic qualification your only standard for notability? Where do you stand on Eddie 'the Eagle' Edwards, who is widely noted as a terrible ski jumper, but qualified for the British Olympic team as the only applicant? How about the Jamaican Bobsled Team, also the only applicant, but notable as plucky lads giving it a go? How about a football player who plays in the FIFA World Cup, but doesn't qualify for the Olympic soccer team? Do you agree we should delete athletes who no longer meet your arbitrary "Olympic standard", but once were the best in the world in their time? As I keep saying, they meet the notability standard easily, full stop. Notability does not equal athletic prowess, or Google hits. --Canley 07:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• There is a big difference between Hoey and Edwards the latter qualified for an Olympics as did the Jamaican team. Edwards was also extremely well known in the UK for some time in the late 1980s and there was a movie made about the Jamaican team. You keep deciding without any basis in fact that I am being arbitrary and subjective. I am not factually Hoey did not qualify for the Olympics either at track and field or winter sports. In the former situation she compted in any event that women had not done before. Whilst Triple Jump has been around for men since 1896 it was only introduced for women in the early 1990s. The standard in Irish athletics varies from year to year and event to event. Someone has to win the national championship each year. Jumping 12.4 metres or thereabouts really does not merit further comment. There are 25 perhaps more unmemorable Irish athletes who have won 5-10-15 multiple national titles because they were competing in a small country at a time when the standard of competition was low and have little relevance for an encylopedia like wikipedia. Hoey is one of them. On its own it is also irrelevant to be told Hoey finished 16th when 15 qualified for the Olympics bob sleigh. She could have been 16th by the proverbial mile. We just don't know from the information given. The google rating is relevant in one way- it indicates some validity to the statement that was made earlier that she is unknown. Google hits on Siobhan Hoey 26, Eddie Edwards 80,000, Jamaican team 3,00/, Cool runnings 1/2 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.149.105 (talk • contribs) — 213.190.141.210 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I see that Siobhan Hoey did not win a medal in the America's cup event her sister and another women are said to have done. I tried to find these results online and can't. Does anyone have a link to this bronze medal win other than a provincial Irish newspaper. Other results for the Hoey's show them coming 17th/19 teams and 22/23 teams etc so this entry seems most odd. Very strong delete on track and field credentials. Doubtfull for inclusion as a bob sleighter until more information given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.190.141.210 (talk • contribs) — 213.190.141.210 (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, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broadcasting of SpongeBob SquarePants

Broadcasting of SpongeBob SquarePants (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of program syndication. A show does not accrue notability based on who broadcast it and a station doesn't accrue notability based on running a show in syndication. Otto4711 05:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for being Spongeboblistcruft. Eddie.willers 05:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft directory. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not even worthy of a merge with the main spongebob article. --Philo 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:NOT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steptrip (talk • contribs) 00:11, 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. Shimeru 07:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beast of Dean

Beast of Dean (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I've just been through a lot of Cryptid pages. this one contains absolutely no sources or external links whatsoever. It does not beg any notoriety at all. The 1998 sighting has no source at all.
Nominate. Non-notable local myth. ZayZayEM 05:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Its not a great article granted. Essentially its only because the British aren't used to having wild animals roaming around, since they killed them all in the proceeding 6000 years up to 1800's... Some sources:

• http://www.active.visitforestofdean.co.uk/thedms.asp?dms=13&param1=earth&feature=12&venue=1302774&easi=true
• http://www.sjc.ox.ac.uk/alumni/display/magazine.php?pageId=6&textId=38&pageNo=3
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4833450.stm
• http://www.northumberlandnationalpark.org.uk/VisitorGuide/TheNationalPark/hottopics/reintroducingextinctspecies.htm
• http://www.britishwildboar.org.uk/Confrontations.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bjrobinson (talk • contribs) 09:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

• Delete - Almost certain hoax. No mentions whatsoever on cryptozoology.com. Google brings up no mentions other than Wikipedia & mirror sites plus a few "I read about this on Wikipedia, does anyone know about it?" questions. None of the "sources" listed above refer to this animal, but just to other stories about non-native animals in the UK. Normally I'd say move to Beast of Gloucester - the only cryptid I can find any genuine reports of anywhere near the Forest of Dean - but all sources agree that the BoG was a big cat and not a "moose-pig". - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but without prejudice to recreation of a more general article based on such sources as the BBC magazine. I'd say the subject is probably a confusion or legend, rather than hoax. But given the total lack of sourcing for the details, probably the article is a hoax--though it's been worked on for quite a while by different eds. DGG 01:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Lack of sources and Google only seems to bring up mirrors/forums Suriel1981 23:50, 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 22:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Australian scientists

List of Australian scientists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Like the recently deleted Australian musicians list this list is too broad in scope to every be complete (WP:LIST); there are no inclusion criteria, a look over the list shows that it includes, physical, biological and social scientists,; as well as people that aren't really scientists - like engineers and architects; this could run into thousands of people. There are good categories for all types of Australia scientists; delete. --Peta 05:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 06:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Peta.--cj | talk 06:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete on the condition that Peta include every one of the people on this list in a category. JRG 08:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The only categories the people included were missing is births/living/deaths.... --Peta 09:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok - thanks. Definite delete now. JRG 09:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Lankiveil 09:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
• Keep. I am not convinced that this list is unmaintainable. Although there are many Australian scientists, there is not so many notable enough to have articles that the list becomes an unmaintainable one. As for redundancy with the categorization scheme... well I'll agree that the list could be sorted by something else than the alphabet, chronologically by birth might be a better idea, but since each entry has a note of what science the person worked with, and when the person lived, I will call the list annotated, and as such not redundant. I feel that the list passes two criteria on the WP:LIST guideline, it is informative by virtue of the annotations, and it serves a purpose as a navigational aid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete per nomOo7565 18:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons listed above, plus I forsee problems with the definition of "scientist". For example, at least some of the engineers/inventors on this list are not scientists (technology != science), many other problems with who ought to be considered a scientist are possible. Pete.Hurd 21:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - utterly impossible to maintain. There are literally thousands of names added to a theoretical complete list every year, even ignoring definitional concerns. --Haemo 02:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete too broad an inclusion criteria. Try List of Australian organic chemists, List of Australian research botanists... Garrie 23:23, 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 11:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of North American scientists

Please see this discussion; this list is even more untenable given that it covers the entire area of North America rather than a single country. Delete --Peta 06:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - intersecion between "North America" and "scientist" does not warrant an aricle. Otto4711 07:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this list could easily be a million names long. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unless I get to be on the list. Irene Ringworm 15:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

comment if you're on it I want to be on it too. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 14:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 14:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete how many people is this list expected to grow to, hundreds of thousands, millions? Plus, I forsee problems with criteria for inclusion, explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian scientists. Pete.Hurd 21:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per my comments on the related list. Even a "List of Canadian Scientists" would be inappropriate. --Haemo 02:53, 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 merge back in to Krusty Gets Kancelled. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worker and Parasite

Worker and Parasite (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - fictional cartoon within another fictional cartoon, the subject consumed approximately two minutes of screentime in one episode and was never mentioned again. The subject in no way passes notability guidelines. On the extremely off chance that someone might use the title as a search string, redirect to the episode in which it appeared, Otto4711 06:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - merge with Krusty Gets Kancelled, it used to be a section there, I don't know why its was deemed to need its own article. Gran² 06:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per Gran2. --Rubber cat 06:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. In fact I have already done this before. --Maitch 10:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Krusty Gets Kancelled, never mentioned in the show again, and the article establishes no real world notability. -- Scorpion 12:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Krusty Gets Kancelled. Whilst extensive information about the Simpsons isn't a bad thing at all, I think this should be merged, but with as much of this article as possible kept intact. Korinkami
• Merge to one of the above - I'm not sure which is more appropriate, though. --Haemo 02:54, 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, subject isn't notable and the only sources provided are trivial message boards and fan sites (e.g. geocities). John Reaves (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Nevada

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

Prod was removed, so I had to take this to AFD. Non-notable indy wrestler. A google search turned up no decent results. RobJ1981 06:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not-notable. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I removed the tag after minor editing to establish his notability, which I am allowed to do as per template guidelines, and left a note on the talk page with no response from the nominator. He is a major competitor on the Midwestern independent circuit, particularly as part of the tag team Satisfaction Garanteed with Aaron Williams, and presently holds at least four tag team titles in three of the largest independent promotions in the Midwest-area. MadMax 14:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matrix17 (talk • contribs)
• Delete No evidence of non-trivial coverage by reliable, independent sources, fails WP:BIO by a mile. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable until he makes the big leagues or gains notability in some other field. MLA 15:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per reason of MadMax. Oo7565 18:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment We tend to base our reasoning on notability guidelines, not on unsourced tangential commentary. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It should be noted: MadMax keeps re-adding useless sources. Message boards and fansites aren't helpful or reliable. Sourcing is good and all: when it's decent reliable sources, not just any random link you can find. RobJ1981 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. As I mentioned previously on my talk page, I never "re added" any sources nor was I informed prior to RobJ's removal that there was a problem with any of the sources I added. I assume the change took place during an edit conflict, however the "fansite" is actually an official website of prominant independent wrestler Nikita Allanov. The second link, Midwest Independent Pro Wrestling Discussion, is a longrunning messageboard which has been active for over seven years and, while is usally unconventional, I used to support the introductory statement concerning his notority among wrestling fans in the Cincinatti-area. I believe I am allowed to improve the article anyway I'm able and, if others feel the sources are useless, then they are free to take that into consideration when they vote. The other references were used both to support statments already made in the article (such as notable opponents, title changes and events) as well as to support the claim that New Era Wrestling itself is a notable independent promotion as it is covered by website's such as Dave Meltzer's Wrestling Observer.

Also, I've reverted RobJ's prior changes due to portions of text which were removed from the article and placed an unreferenced tag due to his concerns. As I have explained my reasons for adding those specific references, I don't think unwarrented accusations are nessessary. MadMax 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

New Era Wrestling is not a notable promotion. The coverage in the Wrestling Observer is as follows:

--New Era Wrestling from last night in Mount Healthy, OH: Dave Nevada b Coz Jackman, Cyrus Poe & Tommy Chill b Team Awesome, Garf Redman b Nikita Allanov, Chris Reno b Nick LeBeau, Ronnie Longworth b Wrestler X, Brad Callway NC Tim Lutz. Next show is 9/2

That's nothing more than a set of results almost certainly sent in by a fan, it's trivial coverage. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• That specific link is meant to cite the opponent and event as well as the promotion's notability. New Era Wrestling is covered by several mainstream websites and there are general guidelines for fan submissions on most of these websites (otherwise they'd all be filled with backyard fed's and fly by night promotions). As opposed to a one time appearance, the promotion is listed frequently on WrestlingObserver.com as well as other mainstream wrestling websites such as Lords of Wrestling and PWTorch. Among its former roster includes Nikita Allanov, Tarek the Great and, most notably, Shane Douglas who has held the promotion's heavyweight title twice. MadMax 19:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment These are points on which I feel the subject fails (adapted from WP:BIO):
  a credible independent biography, significant recognized awards or honors, wide name recognition, a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record of pro-wrestling, multiple features in credible news media, appearences in well-known television and other productions, a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, a unique, prolific or innovative contributions to pro-wrestling, an important figure or widely cited by peers
  Suriel1981 16:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I wouldn't expect lesser-known wrestler to satisfy all of those but I cannot oppose deletion of a wrestler who fails to satisfy any. Suriel1981 16:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Much of his wrestling career is covered by his profile at New Era Wrestling while the Midwest Independent Pro Wrestling Discussion messageboard, again usually regarded as an unconventional source, does demonstrate at least a significant following among wrestling fans in the Cincinatti-area. MadMax 20:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

NEW's profile on him [16] is either crap or he really is non-notable and they put everything they could. Suriel1981 21:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The sources provided mostly do not meet WP:RS. There's a blog, a forum, a geocities site and a mini-bio from the promotion he works for. Where are the secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of sources you expect for an independent wrestler, however I've already stated my reasons for adding those specific sources. I have also established that NEW is a notable promotion (one of its champions being Shane Douglas), second that he has face at least one notable opponent Nikita Allanov (whose notability I have established despite its nomination for deletion) and third that he has held championship titles in NEW and at least two other independent promotions (Intense Wrestling Incorporated being a feature story on Everybody's News as well as Al Snow and New Jack having previously competed in the promotion). Also the "geocites website" is an archive page of Allanov's official website NikitaAllanov.vze.com. The messageboard, a current and longrunning messageboard which specifically coveres in the Mid-West independent scene, shows Nevada is known in at least to wrestling fans in the area. Not the best of sources, but it does support that he is notable beyond the World Wrestling Coalition. MadMax 02:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'd expect the type of sources specifically required by WP:A - If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. This is an encyclopedia not a wrestling fan site, so we should not accept sources which clearly fail WP:RS in order to include an article about an independent wrestler. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This article has just as many references supporting its nobility, and in fact moreso, then more high profile independent wrestlers on Wikipedia such as Reckless Youth, Mike Quackenbush (if you exclude his books as an unrelable source), Crazy Train, Jonny Storm, Tom Howard, Joker, etc. yet meets the same qualifications for their inclusion. MadMax 02:00, 5 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. Far stronger arguments favoured the deletion of this article. Articles based on a series of news reports about a single incident or short series of incidents are far from encyclopedic content, though they are well covered at Wikinews. This does not strike me as an incident of WP:DENY or WP:COI, simply an example of a non-notable business. It exists and was in the news for a bit but as argued below, that does not make the company notable. There may be room for a discussion of the effect of people being paid to edit articles at Criticisms of Wikipedia but not for detailed coverage of a single such business. There is an urge to create articles when an incident receives a large amount of press attention but I think the important distinction between an encyclopedia and a newspaper needs to be born in mind- lets leave the reporting to Wikinews. WjBscribe 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MyWikiBiz

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

Deleted by first afd, second was no consensus. I speedied it as G4 yesterday, my bad, I didn't notice the second AfD. Sources: an article about paid editing of Wikipedia, which has a bit about Gregory Kohs (article deleted and endorsed), slightly less about MyWikiBiz, and some about Microsoft. Second source: a press release. Not independent. Third and fourth sources: the Wikipedia Signpost, completely inappropriate self-reference. Kohs is not notable, by consensus, he is, however, banned. Quite why his one-man company which is never known to have traded more than a tiny amount, would be considered notable, is beyond me. Navel gazing, I guess. List it in project space in a long term abuse page, I suppose, but the company itself, if it still exists as a separate entity (debatable) is not in any way notable other than internally. Guy (Help!) 06:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as a singular and solely internally referenced article about a non-notable individual and his non-notable company.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Criticism of Wikipedia#Criticism of the contributors. If every source on MyWikiBiz mentions Wikipedia in the headline it's clear just why this company is mentioned in the news. ~ trialsanderrors 07:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge would be a reasonable idea, but criticism of Wikipedia may not be the right merge target; this was more about how we react to conflict of interest. Kohs criticises Wikipedia, but fomr the basis of a fundamental misunderstanding of the project (and perhaps founded on a wish for it to be something it is not). Guy (Help!) 08:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think T&E was suggesting that it be merged there not as a source of criticism of Wikipedia, but a target of criticism. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Kohs is/was a contributor to Wikipedia, so the target seems appropriate. No objection to creating an article Minor contorversies surrounding Wikipedia though. ~ trialsanderrors 09:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete CNN article would more fit an article about paid articles, where mywikibiz might be mentioned. This company not notable enough for its own article. —Ocatecir ^Talk 07:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable, and I think the nominator's behavior with regard to the subject says everything that needs to be said about this nomination. Everyking 08:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, so that's one citation from the International Journal of Because I Said So, and a personal attack. Not a terribly good argument for keeping. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for expressing your opinion about my opinion, Guy. It remains unchanged, however. Everyking 08:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Guy's not-terribly-diplomatic riposte aside, this is a really bad argument. "Keep, notable" is worth just about as much as "Delete, non-notable." If it's notable, where has it been noted and why haven't you added this crucial source to the article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It wasn't constructed as an argument. The "crucial source" appears to already be in the article. Everyking 09:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Where specifically, please? What part of the descriptions of the included sources do you disagree with, and why do you feel they are sufficient for "multiple, independent, non-trivial" per WP:ATT and WP:RS? If you're going to assert something here, you need a better reason than Because I Say So With A Personal Diss. Barno 17:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:DENY. >Radiant< 08:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, a single AP article partly about this topic isn’t nearly enough (WP:V, WP:N etc.). —xyzzy_n 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I got an e-mail from Greg suggesting that I add [17] and [18] to the article as sources. Well, somebody did, but both articles focus on the matter of Wikipedia versus paid writers with COI and mention the subject of this article only as a matter of context and introduction. Greg is ‘sure their lawyers would love to hear them described as trivial’, so: both sources’ coverage with respect to the subject of the article is trivial in the sense of our definition of notability. Lawyers need love, too. (Well, some need Miniluv, but I digress…) —xyzzy_n 19:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There's only one third-party reliable source in the article. It looks like advertising. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. trumpeting anyone? Not seeing much in the way of notability of this issue either. A possible alternative could be a Wikipedia:MyWikiBiz article/essay that discusses the COI aspects of the article. (→Netscott) 10:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Just fails to come up to scratch on WP:RS, WP:COI, WP:N and others. This relist is procedure for procedure sake that we're making Guy do for no apparent reason. Sometimes I wonder if people here are getting unnatural pleasure from Wikipedia process, but I try not to think about it too hard and just get on with other things. Also, I like Radiant's WP:DENY, so I'll give that as a reason too. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 11:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. To get it out of the way, WP:DENY is an irrelevant argument, it refers to project pages and general mass hysteria over vandal activity. It is unrelated to what we put into Wikipedia. However, the fact that 1) this is a one-man company, and 2) a short-lived one (the blocks on the person behind it effectively stop its business model) and 3) not particularily famous, makes me feel that this is not a notable company at all. Even if a second source were found, I would still call this non-notable since anything related to the internet tends to inflate the number of sources, not due to notability, but due to easier access for journalists. (Is this a good place to note why I object to the WP:N "primary notability criterion"?) Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thinking about it again, Trialsanderrors' merge suggestion might be better. A singly sourced item on something which might have affected Wikipedia's integrity could be relevant there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and others above, for lack of independent reliable sources. Also the constant self-referencing and a lack of notability outside the WP community. I wouldn't object to a merge as a second preference. Sarah 11:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with fire. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, abjectly fails WP:CORP. A one-line mention in Criticism of Wikipedia might be appropriate, but there's no need for either a merge or redirect. —Cryptic 12:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Due to my involvement in the investigation I'll limit my participation at this discussion, but I think the relevant standard ought to be WP:CORP. If this company had nothing to do with Wikipedia, would we keep this article? Durova^Charge! 12:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The only reason it's here in the first place is because it's self-referential. If this were about any other one-man company with negligible press coverage and negligible sales, it probably would have been shot on sight. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge As trialanderrors said. I did say keep last time, but I misinterpreted that. His company is THISCLOSE to just creeping in as a stub. Personally, I could care less that Kohs is banned for purposes of the article itself. If it gets another 1-2 sources independently it would be fine but not there yet. - Denny 13:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. Seems to meet WP:WEB [19] even though we hate it. --W.marsh 13:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:WEB applies to Internet phenomena such as blogs, not multiple Google returns that got generated as reprints of a single article in which this business was a subordinate topic. Durova^Charge! 14:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well this began as a website and that's what I think of it as, I don't really follow the drama related to this guy/company. Anyway WP:CORP is the same thing basically, multiple sources. And although a lot of the results are reprints of the same AP story, not all are. --W.marsh 14:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually this was a public relations business (not a website) that attempted to piggyback off Wikipedia's notability. The very slight amount of news coverage it received was all as a subordinate topic to stories about Wikipedia. Durova^Charge! 15:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Nevertheless that's more an argument to merge/redirect than delete. --W.marsh 15:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I have made only comments at this discussion and have not voted, but if you agree merge/redirect is more appropriate than keep would you change your vote to reflect that? Durova^Charge! 15:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Well what people say is more important than the words they put bold formatting on, you've certainly implied an opinion. I said "keep or merge", as in, keep the content and a redirect to wherever it goes. Keeping the article outright would be okay in the meantime. The closer can read our comments and see what I think. --W.marsh 15:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm getting married in less than 24 hours, and when I have three completely unrelated editors not named Gregory Kohs pointing this out to me, I feel like I have to respond. Who gives a shit if we got it wrong numerous times in regards to the Gregory Kohs article, but we shouldn't get it wrong here too. W.marsh has offered a great resource, and here's another one, a German translation. Can we stop with the crap already? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, and between the German article and the subordinate mention in Bergstein's piece simple arithmetic deduces that this business grossed $250 - $500 during its entire operative lifetime. WP:CORP. Durova^Charge! 14:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey, Jeff, congrats on the matrimony thing (my mate Mike is getting spliced tomorrow). Don't worry about Kohs, though - we got it right. See? It's redlinked :o) Guy (Help!) 17:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! (Hey, now this AFD has an actual purpose.) —xyzzy_n 19:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete lets face it, folks: given the size, revenue, and impact of this company, if this were ANYTHING other than Wikipedia-related it would be CSD-A7'd within 30 seconds of creation. We're supposed to avoid self-reference, so just the fact that we know about it (largely because it got its editors banned) doesn't mean it should get an article. Delete as hoplessly non-notable company. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually I think it's about the opposite, personally. If a non-Wikipedia related company/group had a mainstream AP story written about it, we'd probably lean towards keeping it. Either fear of self referencing or an outright pro-Wiki bias is one thing that makes people want to delete this article. --W.marsh 15:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you W.marsh for being one of the few editors that does not have his head thoroughly entrenched up his ass. Oh let's see now, even though the subject of the article in question has been reported in the mainstream news, let's all vote to delete the article because god forbid it might sully Wikipedia's impeccable reputation. By the way, I was being sarcastic in my last sentence. I figured I'd have to point that out since most of you cretins are unable to grasp even the most rudimentary forms of wit. You are a miasmatic hirsute simian 15:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Uh this guy seems to be a single-purpose account and should probably be blocked. I'd do it myself but I'm not 100% familiar with this situation, plus I'm involved in the dispute at this point. --W.marsh 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Indef blocked as an attack account and probable sockpuppet of User:MyWikiBiz. Durova^Charge! 15:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep, unfortunatly per notablity, even though its wrong. Quatreryukami 15:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Practically unsourced, non-notable outside of Wikipedia internal culture, and nearly everything about this whole incident has already been endorsed for deletion by the community (Kohs is deleted and banned, the first AfD for this was delete followed by a no consensus). Burn it already. WP:N or WP:A or whichever one it all got merged into is the primary criterion and this fails. Ryanjunk 16:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the arguments provided by Denny in the previous discussion. How are people coming to the conclusion that this is unsourced when there is a direct link to the Associated Press article? Burntsauce 16:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • People are coming to the conclusion that this is unsourced because the only fact in the article that is corroborated by the Associated Press article are (two of) the pricing tiers. As for Denny's argument in the previous afd, I can only assume that he copy/pasted the links out of a Google News search without actually reading them, since they're all identical reprints of the same article. —Cryptic 16:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That is a fair response, although I still feel that the subject is notable enough to remain. Some of the other comments are too grounded in WP:IDONTLIKEIT line of thought and vice-versa. Burntsauce 17:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - If Jimbo found it notable enough to comment on it, might as well stay.. // Gargaj 16:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Deskana (ya rly) 17:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It has one Associated Press article that's been reprinted many places. That's not nothing, but neither is it the "multiple works" required by Wikipedia:Notability. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing to Keep with the addition of the Chronicle and Die Welt article. The former may be debatable as to whether it's a qualifying work for purposes of notability, the latter isn't debatable, it's a respectable paper. Sorry, Guy. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep multiple reprinted associated press article is way more than many of the buisnesses we've got articles for get... and of course every business we've got an article on was covered in USA Today and Fox News... and been covered by news agencies in Spain, Germany, and Japan (yes I know they're the AP article). Here's one link no one else mentioned above... The Chronicle For Higher Education... Why do we have to pound our reasoning through your thick skulls people?  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Also included as subject matter in a curriculum on CyberLaw at Harvard. Public speeches by Jimbo  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • A good number of them, certainly inthe hundreds, are in the Wall Street Journal all the time. This one isn't, obviously, because it only traded for a few months if that and made next to no money. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Uhm check the facts dude... Greg is still running the business ... its now called Centiare. And what does the fact it made next to no money matter? Lots of starting businesses dont make money at first *cough*Amazon.com*cough*.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There's a difference between "making tons of revenue but no profit" as Amazon and "making less revenue than a weekend job at Burger King". Additionally, unless I'm missing something in looking at the site, but Centiare seems to be a completely different business. Ryanjunk 20:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• unambiguously serious keep WP:CORP is easily met. self-reference is necessary as wikipedia itself is a main subject. wikipedia will look even worse if an article about its own questionable practices is deleted. why do people have such a vendetta against this germane and serious article when so many rap albums and pokemon characters are documented? i explicitly fear that "delete" opinions given here reflect people scared that further publicity of this well-known iffy decisionmaking episode will reflect negatively on the project. on the contrary, transparency and a willingness to acknowledge what happened is the only viable solution. Aaronbrick 18:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If you feel that there are numerous rap album and/or pokemon articles that need to be deleted, please be bold! Ryanjunk 20:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless improved To satisfy WP:N, there has to be multiple third party stories on it. We have 1. Unless article improved by end of AfD, delete it. Self-referential, to boot. SirFozzie 18:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • with all due respect, are you blind? Aaronbrick 19:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and quit navel-gazing. --Ali'i 18:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Where are you people every time Wikinfo gets nominated for AfD? heh. --W.marsh 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • E kala mai ia'u. I'll be there next time. ;-) --Ali'i 18:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have recently received an e-mail from Mr. Kohs concerning my comment in this AFD. He wishes me to add two additional references to the article, but I will not release them yet, as I would be acting as a proxy for a banned user.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, basically navel gazing. Nobody outside of Wikipedia ever heard of this company, there are no reliable sources. Corvus cornix 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, there are three reliable sources given in the article: the Associated Press, Chronicle of Higher Education, and Die Welt. Everyking 00:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above -Doc^g 00:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete from article space & merge as a subpage of WP:COI ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I think this is very much a case of COI -- it's COI of the editors on WP against a serious attempt to undermine the basis of WP. I share this COI--I think that the commercial writing of articles is a disgrace, and engaging in it appropriate for a community ban. But it's real, it's sourced, and it's notable. The prevention against such inherent COI is to recognize it and keep the articles that the COI would encourage us to delete. If we want to give ammunition to the enemies of WP, then deleting this article would be a good way to do it. It almost matches the attempt to deny the N of the Essjay controversy. .DGG 01:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Erm, to speak only for myself I was among the first to call for Essjay's resignation when the scandal broke and have never opposed having an article about that scandal. That was real news. Please research more carefully before leveling such a serious allegation. Durova^Charge! 02:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • My sincere apology, for I certainly did not direct it at any particular person, but at the general course of the discussion.. It was a suggestion that just as we in the end recognized the need for the article about him, we should realize it about this,for the principle was similar. DGG 05:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • No apology needed. When the Essjay article first appeared my opinion on the deletion discussion went from neutral, but strongly endorse letting the discussion run its course to this has become international news in dozens of separate outlets - if Essjay were unrelated to Wikipedia we'd have an unambiguous keep. This time I'm an involved party - or at least Mr. Kohs insists I am - because I stepped forward and investigated when his sockpuppet demanded an investigation. My take on this page is that he's a public relations professional who's had more than half a year to astroturf this story and doesn't have much to show for it, but I'll restrict my participation at this discussion to comments. Durova^Charge! 01:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable sources, self-referential, and there is a major conflict of interest involved. --Coredesat 04:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll list them again: there are three reliable sources in the article, from the Associated Press, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and Die Welt. It is plainly wrong to say there are no reliable sources, and I am concerned that as people claim this repeatedly in justifying their opinions, others are taking their word for it and not actually looking at the article. Everyking 05:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • In that case, still delete for the other two reasons. --Coredesat 05:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • FWIW, the Chronicle of Higher Education appears to be a news aggregation blog, which takes news stories from various sources, writes a summary, and links to the original article. In this case ([20]), the Associated Press story is explicitly credited and linked to, and much or all of the summary is based on it. I'm not sure it would be fair to call this an independent report. - David Oberst 05:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at Chronicle of Higher Education -- like most magazines , it has a blog section as well, but the lead-off topics in "The Wired Campus" are from its staff writers, and have the authority of the newsmagazine. I would say that its use of an AP story as the base for an article authenticates the AP story yet further, and certainly adds to its visibility. DGG 04:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Even if you don't count that one, there's still two, a far cry from the none that some people are claiming. Everyking 06:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, NN navel gazing. Not everything what splashes through media is notable. Pavel Vozenilek 06:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and at best merge somewhere. Definitely not notable enough for an article of its own, but they could be discussed somewhere briefly. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And more rambling while I'm at it: Basically, this company got famous by going the "let's do something novel and controversial that involves Wikipedia" route. Boom! Wikipedia reacted! The press was all over the case! And since the press was interested, it is by definition notable by Wikipedia standards! This is again yet another case of stuff that involves Wikipedia that somehow got an article and we could write an article based on the sources - but it's really not interesting in the great scheme of things so we shouldn't have an article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not WikiNews. This had no lasting significance to anything. Rossami (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Worthless article on worthless subject, propped up by really desperate grasping at straws as excuses for reliable sources. This is worth all the wikidrama and breast-beating to keep why, exactly? --Calton | Talk 18:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is not notable on an objective level. JuJube 23:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I guess. Appears to meet notability guidelines, though barely. If keeping the article was somehow harmful to the Wikipedia, I would argue to get rid of it, but I don't see it as harming anything, rather it would be more harmful if we got rid of it just because the subject is noxious. Herostratus 13:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• The subject isn't noxious, it's just negligible. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There isn't enough independent information about the company for the article to ever be more than a stub. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes relevant content guidelines by a nose, and I see no benefit to the removal of this article. Yamaguchi先生 03:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If it wasn't for our systemic bais as Wikipedia editors, this would be a CSD A7. I'm not really sure that anyone other than Wikipedians gave a crap about the incident and it all seems a bit too self-referential. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As much as I dislike this company it actually passes WP:CORP notability, which IMO needs to be fixed. I'm a spam fighter and this sort of company is going to be an endless headache for us. Unfortunately deleting the article won't make the problem go away. (Requestion 01:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC))
• Keep per WP:DENY. RFerreira 08:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  WP:DENY means removing any trace of a person editing. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 09:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per AnonEMouse. --JJay 09:30, 4 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. WjBscribe 23:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aron Brent

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

This article features a boy and his band, neither of which are at all referenced, and neither of which seem at all notable enough for Wikipedia - see WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO BlackberryLaw 06:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per A7. —Ocatecir ^Talk 07:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notablity offered. Mwelch 17:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't see it. Deiz talk 06:22, 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 23:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gamers Pair of Dice

Gamers Pair of Dice (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable webcomic group full of non-notable webcomics. No sources provided to confer notability. —Ocatecir ^Talk 07:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- -- Ben 15:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources can be produced meeting WP:WEB --Haemo 02:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no reputable third-party sources . --Dragonfiend 01:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep, as per Tingle. Nert Nert Nert. --Objection! 09:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.22.127 (talk • contribs)

Sorry about him, do not take it out on the site because of this random idiot. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 00:58, 4 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 Speedied as A7. Sarah 12:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morgan Innes

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

Completely non-notable accident victim whose only claim to fame was dying in a ferry accident on Sydney Harbour; and see WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, which this is rapidly becoming. Within a couple of weeks she will be completely forgotten. While I feel for the family involved, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site or memorial page site, and the incident is already well covered in the Sydney Ferries article and that is enough. I have already merged a separate article created about the accident. Delete JRG 09:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- JRG 09:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.--cj | talk 09:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails BIO. --Peta 09:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as with other NN accident victims. There's always the chance this could be the subject of a groundbreaking civil lawsuit but for now there's no real importance attached. Sorry for getting in the middle of your nom, JRG, I misread the posting time.--Dhartung | Talk 09:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, getting killed, no matter how tragic the circumstances, doesn't automatically make you notable. Lankiveil 09:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
• Delete -- per all the reasonable reasons provided above. - Longhair\^talk 09:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think you are underresting the popularity of this young girl. Mayb enone of you now anything about figure skating? I guess not.--Matrix17 12:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if we don't, there are guidelines for biographies on Wikipedia as Peta has already mentioned, and she does not meet those guidelines; and calling for the article to be deleted yourself doesn't make me any more confident. JRG 12:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete doesn't claim to be a notable figure skater. MLA 12:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Sadly not notable. Have only won state championships in Queensland, afaik no national or international results worth mentioning. --Strangnet 12:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please just stop this discussion - someone get rid of the article, and we should all move along... really. Petesmiles 12:48, 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 Speedy Deleted. Spam CSD G11. kingboyk 12:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beneton Movie GIF

Beneton Movie GIF (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Appears to violate WP:SPAM and WP:NOTE at least. Non-notable product by non-notable company. Also propose deleting the following two articles for the same reasons:

Beneton Software (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Beneton software (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

GDallimore (Talk) 10:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Adverts for a non-notable company. --Zundark 10:26, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cottonwood Mall (Albuquerque, New Mexico)

Cottonwood Mall (Albuquerque, New Mexico) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A directory entry for a mall. No actual evidence of notability, references provided appear to be either directories, trivial, or not independent (e.g. press releases). Guy (Help!) 11:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless some evidence can be found as to why this is any more notable than any other big shopping mall. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Strong Keep. I wrote this article -- in part because New Mexico was the only state with none of its malls listed on Wikipedia, and in part because I felt the mall was notable. I haven't been able to find any solid sources that prove the mall's the biggest in the state (strangely, their website makes no mention of it), but really, could so many independent sources all be wrong? Furthermore, I made some additions to the article, including the fact that it was built on land once owned by King Philip IV of Spain. Now how many other malls can make a claim like that? TenPoundHammer 13:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• KeepThis doesn't look like a directory entry. Anyway some of the sources do seem to be press releases, but better mainstream newspaper sources seem to exist in spades [21]. No real problem, article just needs some improvement. --W.marsh 13:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Unfortunately, every ****ing one of those newspaper sources requires a subscription. TenPoundHammer 14:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Through that interface yes, but there are other news search engines. My public library, for example, offers one to anyone with a library card number. A college library is even better. It's better than nothing, but the information superhighway still has too many toll roads. --W.marsh 14:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• I originally tagged this to be speedy deleted. Since then a lot more information has been introduced. I feel notability has been assessed since it shows it is the largest mall in the state of New Mexico. Also, the lawsuit provides historical context. Because of this, I say keep. --Адам12901 ^Talk 14:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep bad faith nomination like the rest this editor has nominated--Matrix17 15:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Article makes explicit claims of notability in terms of largest in NM, and provides ample reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn 16:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It has a gross leasable area of over 1 million sqaure feet. Anything over 800,000 is considered a superregional mall per the industry definition. Notable on that basis, in adition to the sources cited. Edison 20:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Didn't all of the southwest of the United States once belong to King Philip IV? If the Alameda Grant fact is the only notable fact about this mall, maybe an article should be created about the Alameda Grant. I don't think the "biggest mall in New Mexico' qualifies it for notability either: there are so few other malls in New Mexico, less than 10 all together. The other facts in the article are non-noteworthy also (large organizations get sued frequently, and lists of stores are uninteresting). Jaksmata 20:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The apparent justification for this article is the New Mexico has no other article about any of its malls. This has also been phrased more conventionally as "The biggest mall in New Mexico." Further, "When Cottonwood Mall opened in 1996, it was the first mall to open in Albuquerque in thirty years.[4][5] To this day, it is the newest shopping mall in New Mexico." Does the newest mall in a state automatically get an article? Each of them in succession, because N is permanent? DGG 01:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment The fact that New Mexico has no other mall articles was a justification, but it wasn't my only justification. I figured that it's notable since it's the biggest in New Mexico, AND the newest in the same, AND home to a co-op bookstore, AND on land once owned by King Philip IV. I've noticed that importance is quite often questioned with the mall articles, but being the inclusionist that I am, I'll give most malls the benefit of the doubt, this one being no exception. Maybe it's not important to the whole world, but one could argue the point that not even Mall of America is necessarily important to the whole damn world. I don't create pages on Wikipedia just to create them (at least, not anymore) -- I actually put considerable thought into a subject's notability first. I'm aware that notability is, at least sometimes, a matter of opinion; however, I hope that by stating my own opinion, that others may see my side of the issue. They may still vote for deletion, but if they do, c'est la vie. TenPoundHammer 02:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment If it is correct that the whole state was included in the land grant, that argument doesn't help, and not all coop bookstores are N, though in an ideal world they would be. And, there were 29 other malls joining in the court case mentioned above. I am certainly not implying the article wasn't created in a reasonable way. for the largest mall in a state to have an article is not absurdly wrong, though I don't think it's right. I too will go by the consensus. (By the way, any info. on relative amounts of business in the various malls in the state? That might help show N more than square footage). DGG 01:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment The land grant didn't include the entire state at all. As for the relative amount of business, I can't find anything on that. I've googled about 40,000 possible word combinations, yet nothing's yielded anything about profitability at ANY mall in New Mexico. TenPoundHammer 02:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, supermalls are notable, and this article does pass WP:A and other relevant content policies. Yamaguchi先生 03:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know where people are getting the idea that this is a "super mall" or a "superregional mall" – where did that standard come from? This is only an average sized mall, which can be verified by perusing through entries in List of shopping malls in the United States. I guess the real question is, "Is a mall notable just because it’s a mall?" That same list has many entries with less content and notability, but they're not up for deletion. Has this question come up before? I haven't seen any Wikipedia policies or guidelines on the subject of mall notability. Also, several of the people who have said "Keep" insist that the information is all verifiable - that has never been questioned. Jaksmata 04:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as malls of this size are notable. Why are we wasting time on this? I thought we settled on a guideline for malls ages ago. RFerreira 08:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, seems notable enough as said many times above. DCUnitedFan2011 16:18, 4 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 keep. Bucketsofg 01:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid

Note: The first two AfD nominations of this article were straw man nominations made by sockpuppets of now-banned editors.

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

Delete Clear violation of WP:SYNT. Contains large amounts of OR. Jtrainor 23:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The "Israeli apartheid" analogy has become the subject of extensive discussion since the release of Jimmy Carter's "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" last year. This is clearly a relevant subject. If the article is flawed, our solution should be to fix it. CJCurrie 00:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep - entire books have been written on these allegations.--Urthogie 00:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not aware of any WP:SYNT or OR issues with the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The article is obviously having problems right now but that doesn't make the subject itself non-notable. I've heard the allegations mentioned in mainstream media quite a bit. Also, have you heard of Jimmy Carter? The Behnam 01:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - A bad faith nomination without a leg to stand on, as there is an abundance of sourced material in the article. The problem is POV-pushing, which in itself is not a reason for deletion. Tarc 02:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Move to WP:Sandbox - This article must be made NPOV before being published to the public. As it is now it fail to meeet WP:NPOV for a year. I am not advocating a full delete just that it is removed from the main wikipedia name space and will be worked on (in a WP:Sandbox) until it reach a stable and NPOV version - At that point a stable version of the article can go back and be published to the public. Zeq 05:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Clearly, even those who support keeping this article complain about the POV pushing in the article - surly it violates many policies in it's present form including a violation of WP:SYNT. Zeq 05:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Legitimate subject, term used often, with plenty of reliable sources including South Africans and anti-apartheid figures themselves. POV is mostly from those editors who wish to deny the analogy, or hide or diminish the reliable sources/quotes/uses of the term in the article.Kritt 08:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I object to four nominations for deletion, and think the previous votes should be respected. --BozMo talk 10:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  See note above; the first 2 nominations were straw man nominations. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and start again. Far too much push-pull between the competing factions. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article and discussion is well sourced to reliable sources. Mackan79 13:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close as keep per this AfD and this AfD and this one too. When an article reaches its fourth nomination, it becomes increasingly difficult to assume good faith. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  See note above; the first 2 nominations were straw man nominations. In fact, the first nomination was by a sockpuppet of the person who created this article, almost immediately after he created it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  Just to add, for whatever it's worth, that the third nomination was terminated prematurely and in a disputed manner. I don't believe this article has ever had a valid AfD discussion, and now, because some people see this as a "fourth" nomination and oppose it on that basis, this one is tainted as well. Everything about this article, or associated with it, is now inherently corrupted and I don't think there is any way to fix it. 6SJ7 14:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Huge amount of references backing up the statements, so the nominator will need to point out some examples as to why everything is SYNT or OR. If there is some SYNT or OR, we solve that by editing the article, not deleting it. Let's face it, the term "Israeli apartheid" is common, whether we like it or not, and whether we agree with the term or not. A quick search from my country of Norway produced this article (UN accuses Israel of Apartheid) from a mainstream newspaper (albeit one with a pro-Labor Party point of view). Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Sjakkalle in this, its fourth nomination. I disagree with "pitch 'til you win" tactics where an article is nominated over and over for deletion, and urge the principle of Stare decisis. Edison 20:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I find allegations of bad faith on my part rather disgusting considering I have never been involved with this article in any way before. The number of AfDs an article has survived has no bearing on it's validity for deletion in future AfDs-- I advise you to go ask around about the GNAA article, which survived -14- AfDs, but eventually was deleted anyways. Jtrainor 20:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete POV fork--Sefringle 01:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The article is presently a patchwork, but it covers a legitimate subject. Could use a more NPOV title. GregorB 19:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but not per the above nom; rather per all of the many comments I have made on the talk page over the past year. I hesitate to participate in this AfD because it is clear that the snow is falling and, as I mentioned in a comment above, I think this process is inherently corrupted by the three "previous" AfD's that should not "count" because they were bogus. I also think it's interesting that of the "four" AfD's, none have been nominated by anyone who was really involved with the article, except for the first one which was basically a forgery by the person who started the article, using a sockpuppet. On the other hand, there is no way around the fact that I have said on the talk page, about 50 times, that the article should not exist, so in order to be consistent I must, again, support deletion. 6SJ7 03:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Idiotic bad faith nomination. Subject is the subject of numerous works. If you don't like the content, edit it. Andyvphil 13:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as deleting it would be a violation of the NPOV the zionists claim they care oh so much about. --Nyp 21:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment ummmmmmm Jtrainor 02:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, a very notable topic (as indicated by a lot of coverage over the years), which deserves a Wikpiedia article. If there are issues with its content, AfD is not the way to go. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep.The subject has been defined, discussed, and debated by numerous prominent scholars and public figures, most recently a former president of the United States. There are many good reasons to delete certain articles; that the subject matter is provocative is not one of them.--G-Dett 16:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. This article is incomprehensible!!! The topic is a valid topic for a wikipedia entry. However, it looks like the article has been edited and re-edited in a tug of war that left the article in such a state that any decent copyeditor would reject it from any decent publication. It should be started again and written by an unbiased expert in a NPOV and not by a person looking to make political points on either side . -- msalinasphd 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Yes, unfortunately the article has been in extra-heavy-edit mode the last two weeks after being essentially stable for months now. I would be happy wholesale reverting to this version, because I don't believe the new approach has been sucessful. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment The version that Kendrick7 proposes is much better; cleaner and more balanced. It would be helpful if it is also limited for edition under Wikipedia:Protection policy because of the controversial nature of the topic. -- msalinasphd 15:20 EST, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Add my voice to the chorus. In the past two weeks the article has been rapidly transformed, many would say disfigured, by an ardent and irrepressible editor. He means well, but that is sadly beside the point.--G-Dett 20:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Per all the keep votes above.cs 19:50, 3 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. I find the SYNT/OR arguments compelling because of the wide variety of contexts in which "apartheid" is used within this article. While some of the sections feature well-sourced material, there is no evidence of any sources implying any connection or equivalency between many of the various sections. Setting up this equivalency is therefore novel synthesis. Shimeru 13:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations_of_apartheid

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

Clear violation of WP:SYNT. Contains quite a bit of OR. In addition, much of the article's content is duplicated elsewhere. Jtrainor 23:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. If you had said "nothing but OR", you might have had a point, but AFD isn't part of the cleanup process. "Contains quite a bit of OR"? {{sofixit}}. --Calton | Talk 23:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Calton.--Urthogie 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete OR collection of practically unrelated events under umbrella of a broad term, ignoring any context. Magnet for vandals and warriors. Unmaintainable, potential to grow w/o limit every time when someone somewhere says the work apartheid. Classical example of the problem with OR on WP. Pavel Vozenilek 07:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  09:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep not all WP:OR. Some of it is sourced.--Sefringle 01:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I just looked at the Canada section, but unfortunately those concerns about the Indian reserves are well-known and at least that section is valid. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is important human rights issue. Most sections are valid.Biophys 03:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Pavel. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of allegations and accusations. Also in violation of WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. Let's get back to building an encyclopedia. We should send a clear message to all those who would use Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote their personal opinions, political ideologies, nationalist movements, etc etc. We have too much of this nonsense already here. Wikipedia is not a political conference. Khorshid 04:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I completely second Khorshid's assessment. If there are any individual concerns, the standard country structure allows "Human rights in X" articles, and they can be covered there. If there is any meaningful content, merge them under those articles. Such articles really leave the door open for all sorts of POV-pushing and OR. It is time that Wikipedia got more serious covering subjects - every country has "HR in X", develop fully anything that pertains to that country there. Baristarim 04:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - We can make individual articles for countries with real allegations against them, but this 'hub' is completely unnecessary. The Behnam 10:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, sandbox the salvageable material and merge to many articles What happened was this.
  1. Now banned User:Homey and other leftist editors created Allegations of Israeli apartheid, a page that was reliant on a neologism to dissect an issue that was already well covered elsewhere. The article seems in my mind to be a violation of WP:POINT, inherently POV and an unhelpful propagandistic use of the term apartheid. Though the editors have done their best to neutralise it since.
  2. Naturally, Israeli focussed editors were unimpressed, and scoured the net for other uses of the term in relation to other nations. And found them. Hence the creation of Allegations of apartheid by Israeli focussed editors, which placed Israel merely as one of many nations attacked by the pejorative. One of the countries most linked to the term was Cuba due to its tourist policies of the 90s (exclusive hotels etc), which also happened to be one of Homey's preferred nations.
  3. Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba was carefully created by Israeli focussed editors, essentially as response to the Allegations of Israeli apartheid. This naturally ticked off unrelated Cuba focussed editors who believed that it was a violation of WP:POINT and the material should be merged into Tourism in Cuba. A merge resisted by the Israeli editors for reasons that are best explained in point 2.
  4. Seeing as it had seemingly become acceptable standard practice to throw accusations around on article mainspace providing they were sourced, Cuba related editors went over to Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America and added a whole load of verifiable accusations to that page. And the knock on effect was that U.S. focussed editors have repeatedly demanded its removal in turn. Which they shouldn't be able to do because the standard had already been set by previous articles.

So, either we end this nonsense and merge all of these articles into neutrally titled pages that cover these issues in an encyclopedic manner, or we keep all of them them. At present I vote for unilateral disarmament, and call for editors to get back to creating good articles of the kind one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Here are the related articles/forks. If I have left any out, then please notify.

• Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka. Merge into politics/human rights of Sri Lanka etc
• Allegations of State terrorism by United States. Merge into Cuba United States relations etc and the many related pages.
• List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state delete, the term has no agreed definition and thus it is just a list of anything that comes to mind.
• Allegations of apartheid delete
• Allegations of Israeli apartheid merge into Human rights in Israel etc
• Allegations of Islamic apartheid merge into Criticism of Islam, Sex segregation in Islam etc
• Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba merge into Tourism in Cuba
• Allegations of Brazilian apartheid delete, just useless.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 12:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Zleitzen does give a fair history of the article, but I can't agree that this crime against humanity is just something to split off into various human rights in country X articles. Genocide gets its own article , as does Genocides in history, so I'm not sure why (little-a) apartheid (which could as easily be called Apartheids in history) shouldn't as well. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hopelessly POV and unencyclopedic to the extreme. If anything can be salvaged, move into the appropriate articles as suggested above, but honestly, this sort of thing is probably documented in such articles already. Editors should not have to waste their time with this tripe. There are far more articles out there that are in need of work and attention. metaspheres 20:54, 5 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 Keep. Cúchullain ^t/c 05:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flyff (2nd nomination)

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

The reason provided by the user when it the AfD template was edited in by the user with an IP of 67.100.16.114 was Notability. Again, please note that I did not put the AfD up, I merely replaced the template with {{afdx}} because the user had used {{afd}}. Remy Suen 22:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep We've gone over this before. Flyff has recieved awards and its article has certainly gotten enough vandalism to render it notable. I'm not sure that this was a serious AfD, either, considering that the nominator didn't bother to start a talk page or even give a reason on the template. --Niroht | Smoke signals 22:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliable secondary sources are found by the end of the AfD. At present, the article is entirely self-sourced (the developer's own website, etc.). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Last I checked, a secondary-sourced article just needs an unsourced tag, not deletion. We don't delete articles just because someone uses second-person, I don't see how lack of references calls for deletion.--Niroht | Smoke signals 16:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: To write that "its article has certainly gotten enough vandalism to render it notable" shows deep misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies including the WP:NOTE guideline. A Google search shows some game sites, player blogs, and a GameFaqs listing, but in the first couple of pages I didn't see any sources that appeared to meet the reliable sources policy. Neutral at this time because I haven't looked deeply into possible sources nor investigated how major are the awards won by Flyff, but so far I don't see multiple independent non-trivial coverage by reliable sources to meet the WP:ATT basic policy. Barno 17:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Let's pick, shall we? Last I checked I was allowed to type according to my personality rather than yours. Let's also note that this is a Korean program, so of course it's going to get more publicity in Korea than here. --Niroht | Smoke signals 01:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I believe it doesn't seem noteable simply because its origins and larger user base are in non-english speaking contries. Let's not delete something simply because english speakers haven't heard much about it. Tag it with sources needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kennethmaage (talk • contribs) 08:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

• Keep:

uh, why delete it exactly? its a popular mmo and lots of us have put alot of effort into making the article. its just the idiots who dont read the rules that stuff it up.

• Keep. A rewrite should've been requested if there are problems with the content, the article itself is notable. Harg 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• KeepAgreeing with the above that there should be an article for the game. If there's something wrong with it, then edit it. Gregorz 09:10, 5 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 delete author request. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mae (Winx Club)

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

I have nominated this article for deletion citing as it violates guidelines listed on WP:NOT and WP:OR in that "Mae" is not a notable fan fiction character--Kevin586 22:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete, possibly Speedy as nn web content. Just somebody's fanfiction character. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - non-notable. Ale_Jrb^talk 13:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete the latest version says "go ahead and delete...I see what I did wrong now...", so that should qualify as G7/db-author as well as A7. Xtifr _tälk 13:39, 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 Keep. Shimeru 07:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Schoenman

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

Article completely unreferenced, requests for citations meet a point-blank and rude refusal, citation tags repeatedly removed by another editor RolandR 23:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ludicrous. Article is copiously referenced. I removed citation tags all of once, because the nominator couldn't even trouble himself to identify statements that were disputed or otherwise needed citations (as this edit makes clear, he simply used a find-and-replace to place {{fact}} tags in front of every period, with the nonsensical result that he was demanding citations for both letters in the abbreviation "U.S."). --Michael Snow 00:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• No, the article is not referenced. It merely contains a list of 14 New York Times articles, unavailable to most readers, and with no link between statements in the text and the relevant articles. This is not referencing, it is a reading list. If the author is too lazy to cite references properly and in a way that they can be used, the article should be deleted. RolandR 00:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment are you seriously suggesting the NYT is not a usable source? It remains available in one form or another in libraries. DGG 01:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Although inline citations are a much preferred referencing format, they are not the only method of referencing. This article is not just referenced but referenced with a highly reliable source (which I have reformatted for higher transparency). I agree to some extent with the nominator, in that a reference section at the end of an article really doesn't adequately show where each piece of information comes from, but in the absence of expressly changing policy, there is no deletion issue here.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• But although you have given the URLs (thank you), the articles still cost $4.95 each, and there is no indication which relates to what statement. So to check and follow up something in the article could cost $70! This is simply not acceptable, and without accessible references the article is not worth keeping. RolandR 12:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. That argument has no traction whatever and is not reflected in any policy that I know of. Books are less accessible than newspaper sources and are not deprecated because article readers must either purchase the book or visit a library (and not incidentally, any reputable library, at least in the U.S., has the New York Times on file). By your argument, the best sources are online and free only. We go by reliability of sources, not access of readers to those sources. I’m not saying that being easily accessible isn’t a good thing for sources, just that it can’t form an essential consideration for citation because many of the best sources are not online. Once again though, I agree with you that references are much better when they are systematically placed so any reader can see just which statements come from which references. That is not a topic that can be given its due discussion here.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Fuhghettaboutit; the citations are from a reliable source and nothing to suggest inaccuracy or POV. Even if the sources aren't acceptable the subject is notable enough that the article should be rewritten, not deleted. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete a novel synthesis from published sources. Please cite the secondary sources which back the overall content of this article, rather than a series of press clippings from which it was compiled. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This article really, really, really needs in-line citations. But that alone is not a reason to delete it. Michael Snow, you seem to be the primary researcher on this article. May we prevail upon you to just please in-line your citations to solve this problem? I don't see how synthesis is a problem. WP:NOR doesn't say you can't synthesize published sources. It says you can't synthesize published sources in order to advance a non-published argument. What non-published argument are you (Guy) claiming this article is advancing? Mwelch 18:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  I'd be happy to discuss inline citations if people will do the simple courtesy of providing constructive feedback about what might be disputed or where specifically they are needed. I've already asked for that on the talk page and would love to discuss improvements to the article there. So far the effort has been directed more toward undermining and even, as here, deleting the content. It should not be surprising that this is not a productive approach. --Michael Snow 18:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • • Comment. I did glance at the talk page and didn't happen to catch a mention of in-line citations there, but I'll now admit my look was a very quick one so I might well have missed it. Apologies, if so. In any event, while I cannot speak for other editors, for my part, I'm not claiming that anything is "disputed", necessarily. It simply is very helpful for the reader to be able to tie which statement of fact in the article is tied to which source. As I indicated, I don't think the article needs to be deleted, regardless, but I do feel that if it is not too much trouble for you, in-line citations would substantially improve the article's quality. Mwelch 19:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

      You probably didn't miss it, but I think you were looking for something different than I meant. I'm referring to the discussion about references, where I asked what if anything was being disputed (constructive feedback on that topic, rather than inline citations per se, is the relevant antecedent in my comment above). I'm sure improvement is possible - I'd actually value having additional reliable sources much more highly than inlining the ones already there - but it's not like I'm pushing for featured article status, and it's certainly not seriously deficient in the way the "unreferenced" mantra suggests. --Michael Snow 20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

      • • Comment. Agreed that "unreferenced" is unjustified for this article. I just changed the {{unreferenced}} template to {{nofootnote}}. Mwelch 20:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep References are provided. It is a great help if the creator of an article uses inline references to show which reference (and on what page) is the source for what part of the article, but lack of inline references per se is not a valid reason for deletion. Complaints about the cost of NY Times archives are completely invalid as a basis for deletion. I could just as well complain about the expense of travelling tyo some other city to consult an actual out of print print book, or the cost of buying a book. There is more to the world of scholarship than free online sources. Many public libraries allow full text access to the NY Times and other periodicals through Proquest. Edison 20:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The question how how references should best be expressed in a matter for the article talk page, not here. WP has 3 current systems for citations, and all of them are acceptable--even though some (i.e. DGG) think they each have major disadvantages. The only fixed rule is to have them consistent within an article. Changing from one form to another is probably almost never worth the trouble--readers of WP will adjust to each of them. The rest of the world uses an even greater variety. DGG 05:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)