Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 3

< March 2	March 4 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

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

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

The result was Merge to The Sims. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 13:13Z

[edit] List of famous people in The Sims series

I don't really see any value in this list that say a category wouldn't on these individuals pages. Please read WP:ILIKEIT before making comments on this. The way EA is cross-marketing this product to try and get as many celebrities as possible involved in it it could very easily become massive and unmanageable if it was to be completed.Crossmr 00:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge to the various individual titles, cameo info should be suitable for those articles instead. Feel free to ignore trivial entries like Santa Claus however. hateless 00:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge the cameo info to their respective titles per Hateless above. --Candy-Panda 01:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I wouldn't even go that far. Maybe put a note on the talk pages and let the authors do what they will with it. Some of these bios would certainly be worse for having this kind of trivia added.--Djrobgordon 03:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment Clearly, Candy Panda was speaking of the individual Sims games, not the biographies of the celebrities. --Dhartung | Talk 03:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge to The Sims and other various individual titles as Hateless mentioned.--TBCΦtalk? 03:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think a merge is potentially warranted, but not all of the titles listed have articles, leaving this list as the only appropriate place for the information. Is it better to encourage individual articles for niche software titles/updates, or broader series-oriented information? --Dhartung | Talk 03:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge: Merge to The Sims, etc. I don't see much value in creating separate articles for each, however, a brief description adjacent to the character, as presently constructed, might be well suited. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment This appears like its quickly going to snowball into a merge. I'm going to go ahead and make sure everything is already contained in the parent articles (I know for example that Superstar already mentions all those people).--Crossmr 03:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Having taken a look, everything except the last item "Tivium" is on their respective pages. The console games only get a short couple of paragraphs in the main TS2 article, so I don't know if that should be in there or not.--Crossmr 04:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge per above. --Meno25 08:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 13:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Well, a list is superior to a category in that this list explains the sense in which they are "in" the series. I actually don't see what's wrong with this list, but merge is a fine solution. — brighterorange (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

To date that has been pretty straight forward. Celebrities that are in have appeared as sims, musicians have re-recorded songs of theirs for the game. The explanation has already been made on all the appropriate articles anyway, so in this case its really a duplication of material except in the one case I noted above. The console piece is small and I'm not sure if Trivium re-recording a song for the game is notable in that context.--Crossmr 17:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to The Sims or another appropriate location, no need for a separate list but the information may be useful to those articles. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge to The Sims, no need for a separate articles.-- danntm ^T _C 00:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge Reasons above. Captain panda In vino veritas 22:20, 4 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 11:23Z

[edit] August Donnelly

appears to be a non-notable biography. Speedy deletion tag was removed twice. My vote is a very weak delete. Mostly listing because of the repeatedly removed tag, with no attempt to add any references or content that would prove notability. Improbcat 00:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Unable to find any references on the internet (not to say they don't exist). Reads like an advert, either autobiographical or written by a close friend so conflict of interest is an issue. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Looks to be a vanity page for an utterly non-notable person. -- Necrothesp 01:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:ADS. Possibly speedy delete per CSD A7.--TBCΦtalk? 03:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Notability has clearly not been established. --Nevhood 03:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Non-notable. I can't find any reliable references through Google or any other search engine, and the page reads much like an advertisement (same with Daniel J. Leivick). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and salt the earth: Not enough information, at least I couldn't find any on the Internet, to build a verifiable, NPOV article. The only source is his own site, but we need 3rd party sources and there do not seem to be any. Possibly advertising. If an autobiography it sure don't seem neutral. So delete the page, and salt the earth so he doesn't try to create more advertising. 74.38.32.195 08:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- You should create a user account, IP comments are not recognized in deletion debates Just H^{editor review} 13:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment That is not correct, while anonymous contributions are subject to weighting by the closing admin (as are all AfD arguments, for that matter), anonymous editors are allowed to comment. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete I can't find any assertion of notability but if there is any then keep. --Meno25 08:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - nn. Metamagician3000 11:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and Salt - 27 google hits for "august donnelly" the only ones of which that are actually about him being his own website and his myspace page, salt it for the tag deletion which is probably a good indicator of future behavior - Arch NME 12:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and close SNOW time. Just H^{editor review} 12:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable article, snow it. Hello32020 13:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, not speedyable as it contains some notability assertion, but I can't find a thing to back it up. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE This page is most certainly of a notable artist for which I can vouch. I created this entry at his request from an article written by the signed author. Albeit true that he is up and coming and certainly not widely known yet, it is indeed very petty and immature to make unfounded commentary simply because you may not be familiar with the artist in question. - --74.110.79.20 00:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC) A. Belanger
The people here are not making unfounded commentary. They are making comments based on the research they have done online.

Wikipedia has guidelines for inclusion of biographies or musicians, they can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability (music). Please read those, and make changes to the article and/or provide sources here that reflect how August Donnelly meets those requirements.

In addition, did you have permission from the author of the article you copied to post it in wikipedia? Because if you did not, there are possible copyright violations which would require removing the article. Improbcat 05:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:MUSIC, lacks any sources.-- danntm ^T _C 01:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable bio. *drew 09:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete like a very small WP:SNOWball — fails to meet any standard for inclusion ➥the Epopt 15:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Even the creator states Albeit true that he is up and coming and certainly not widely known yet which I would translate into "Fails WP:Music at present." No need to salt unless the article immediately re-appears as it may be that this artise will one day become notable but for the time being wikipedia is not a crystal ball and this article fails WP:Music, WP:Bio and WP:Advert. A1octopus 16:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete A1octopus made the most sensible comment I have seen in the entire debate. TBC laid some groundwork in citing violated policies. Mgm|^(talk) 01:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(moved comment below from top of page to correct location)Improbcat 14:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

DON'T DELETE (2nd Vote In Favour) I can also vouch for this artist and I know that the article was reproduced with the consent of the original author. As noted he has been featured with several well-known Canadian bands, so really, what concern is it of someone who doesn't listen to more underground artists anyway? Let's not forget that's how groups like The Roots started out. --66.46.233.218 14:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC) L. Boland - Toronto, Canada.

Delete unless clearly refed by reliable sources. He may be a splendid fellow, but he can't have an article in Wikipedia without enough reliable sources being referenced. NBeale 23:01, 5 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 11:24Z

[edit] Keith barker-main

Autobiography. No great asserion of notability. -- RHaworth 01:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Couldn't find any information written about him, so his article doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or be attributable. --Wafulz 02:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete His book ranks 323,935 in sales on amazon.uk (Barker-Main is British, so this is the appropriate site). Since it was only released in October 2006, that's pretty damning.--Djrobgordon 02:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and reasons. Sr13 (T|C) 05:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Userfy and delete. Tagged with the {{userfy}} template. Could just be an honest goof. --Dennisthe2 19:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Not notable. --Meno25 00:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It's not clear from the article that he's notable. it's clear from the history that he wrote the article himself, which you are not allowed to do. If someone else independent writes a properly refed article about him that will be different NBeale 23:19, 5 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 deletion by admin CesarB as the article falls under the criteria of CSD A7. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 04:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Olivier Réveillon

Biography with no assertion of notability. -- RHaworth 01:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Seven Google hits for the phrase. I don't read French, but when the number's that low, does it really matter.--Djrobgordon 02:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per {{db-bio}}. --Wafulz 03:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No notability or context provided. --Nevhood 03:33, 3 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 11:24Z

[edit] Circus of the Seed

Only one reliable source, no indication of notability per WP:MUSIC, and only 6 ghits, none of which provide any additional indication of notability. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 02:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BAND, WP:RS, and WP:V. Possibly speedy delete per CSD A7.--TBCΦtalk? 02:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete The first source is a legit Jackson, MS arts weekly that effectively gives the them an honorable mention for "Best Live Band" in Jackson. The second is a blog. Could be a great band, but not notable, and it's always nice when the given sources prove it. Let's not speedy it, though. Someone could provide a source that proves me wrong.--Djrobgordon 03:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - the first source is legit, so speedy is out. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 03:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete — As per above comments. Does not seem to be notable (any mentions of album releases?) however if another reliable source is provided I may change my mind. --RazorICE talk C @ 04:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete fame outside a bands home town is generally required to meet WP:Music. A1octopus 16:17, 4 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 13:15Z

[edit] Aminah Assilmi

After two years this article still fails WP:BLP policies. There are no secondary sources confirming notability except www.islamfortoday.com. Google only has 827 hits to her name [1]. This article seems to exist for only one reason, and that is to make the list of muslim converts longer. Sefringle 02:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, unverified and uncited article that fails the WP:BIO criterias. The organization she leads doesn't seem to be notable either; after going through Google News, nothing I found could verify that the organization has been "subject of multiple and non-trivial published works".--TBCΦtalk? 02:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete It's possible her organization is notable. If it is, it should have an article and this should be merged and redirect. If not, my vote stands. I can't find any information on her that's not already in this article, and that's not enough to justify its existence.--Djrobgordon 02:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep The article should be improved not deleted Al-Bargit 13:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment It had over two years to prove notability, and it still hasn't passed notability requirements.--Sefringle 05:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, unsourced and unreferenced. If sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD change to Keep Alf^Photoman 15:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 16:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - no well-sourced content.Proabivouac 22:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom - no reliable sources, just a propagandist website. NBeale 23:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

keep I've seen that picture lots of times. She must be famous. What harm does keeping it do? The information must come in useful sometime. The eid stamp bit was interesting—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.116 (talk • contribs)
Comment WP:ILIKEIT--Sefringle 21:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Al-Bargit above. --Webkami 15:29, 7 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. — CharlotteWebb 00:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Višnjica

The subject of the article does meet the guidelines for notability per WP:LOCAL Nv8200p talk 02:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Mere/Redirect to Belgrade.--TBCΦtalk? 02:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep along lines of WP:CSB - If this were an Australian suburb or American neighbourhood, this debate wouldn't be taking place - indeed, several of those have made good or featured article status. Orderinchaos78 03:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Not true. I have nominated American, London and Mexican etc. neighborhoods in the past. This is a weak argument to keep a non-notable subject. -Nv8200p talk 14:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep — Non notable, however I agree with Orderinchaos' comment above. Cites two sources though they are both (Serbian?) books. --RazorICE talk C @ 04:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A mention in a book or two does not make something notable since we have no idea of the extent or the writing about this subject in the book. This article needs to assert that notability, which it does not. I agree with TBCΦtalk? however, that the article could be merged with Belgrade. -Nv8200p talk 15:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Orderinchaos78. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 08:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Orderinchaos78 Circumspect 08:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Obvious keep. Punkmorten 10:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - looks just like a million other articles about various towns, I don't see the issue - Arch NME 13:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a town. It is now an "urban neighborhood of Belgrade." -Nv8200p talk 15:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - notability is not judged by how many online articles in English there are about a subject. A major neighbourhood of a world city is notable, and especially one referred to in two books. --Charlene 13:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a link to where it is written that "a major neighborhood of a world city is notable". WP:LOCAL tends to disagree. Thanks -Nv8200p talk 15:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep as there is absolutely no reason for deletion...? Are you going to delete all neighborhoods of Belgrade because they are stubs at the moment? As for Višnjica, it is noted in all Serbian encyclopaedias (general, geographical) and merging with Belgrade would probably be the most improper thing to do (just like all the other articles on neighborhoods). Anyway, the first thing on the WP:LOCAL says it is not a policy or guideline, just opinions PajaBG 15:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

All of the non-notable neighborhoods and suburbs should be deleted. They can be stubs, but the stub needs to assert notability, which this article does not. Sometimes opinions are all we have to base a judgement on. This discussion itself is just a listing of opinions and a decision will be made on it. -Nv8200p talk 16:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

How someone not living in a city can know what's notable and non-notable in it. Notable, cited, indexed, credited...if someone spends the rest of his life reading only things he already knows it will be good to memorize them but how will he ever learn anything new? Nobody needs to log on to Wikipedia to check if the Earth is round PajaBG 16:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The Flat Earth Society may disagree with you on checking if the Earth is round, but that is their opinion -70.113.57.85 17:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh right...my deepest appologies :o) PajaBG 18:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ unless someone convince me that our "sources" aren't just street maps. They're not available in any library whose catalogue I checked online, including the Serbian Co-operative Online Bibliographic System & Services. Huon 18:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd imagine that if I could speak Serbian I would have no problems finding materials. Incidentally, the article on sr.wikipedia is even more stubbish than ours, and they don't seem to have a problem with it. It's not hard finding articles on neighbourhoods and suburbs of Australian/British/American cities that are far worse than this one (and utterly *un*referenced, too). Orderinchaos78 02:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to cities, towns and neighborhoods, reliable street maps are excellent sources of their existance, size, location, etc.. --Oakshade 04:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

By the same reasoning, street maps would be just as excellent sources for individual streets. Somehow I doubt you claim that. To cite WP:N: Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Unless some non-trivial source is found (whether in Serbian or English is secondary), we have to consider this neighbourhood non-notable. Huon 09:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, actually. I'm not saying just becuase something is on a map it's automatically notable. A reliable map will confirm, say, a side street being "just a side-street" as well as a signifficant area being so. --Oakshade 18:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It is referenced in the Mala Prosvetina Enciklopedija, Third edition (1985), Volume I, ISBN 86-07-00001-2, No 1 Serbian general encyclopaedia and in Enciklopedijski geografski leksikon Jugoslavije, by Svjetlost-Sarajevo, ISBN 86-01-02651-6 References are added to the page. Street maps are excellent for the detailed view and also would be great sources for the notable streets, why not? In addition, googling for Visnjica Belgrade gives 17,800 and for Visnjica Beograd 28,000 hits. Dorian Hawkmoon has 11,300 :o) (btw, the books are great). PajaBG 10:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - per Orderinchaos78. It's a signifficant neighborhood in an major city, not some housing project or the like. Inherently notable. There's no reason to delete it. --Oakshade 04:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Change opoinion to keep per PajaBG's new sources. Huon 11:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Pavel Vozenilek 15:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Villages with a much smaller population in Britain are notable enough to be included. This includes places that have eben absorbed into an adjacent town or city. The English language WP is too English language centred, and we should welcome articles on foreign places that are as notable as those in English-speaking countries. Peterkingiron 23:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep" As a big city neighborhood this is notable and sources are not to be judge by language. Poeloq 23:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep There are so many reasons this ought to be kept: It was a former suburb before some reorganization took place (like Encino, California and the multitude of other parts of Los Angeles), it is the subject of multiple independent notations (more than most of the schools we keep), and it's home to 7000 people, thousands more than other places we keep, and finally, the systemic bias toward English sources (just look at the repeated use of Google searches in English using Latin characters) needs to be counterbalanced by a real effort to keep articles with non-English sources. I can't read Serbian, but hey that's MY problem... Carlossuarez46 00:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per WP:BIAS and Carlossuarez46. A lack of English-language sources is no reason to delete an otherwise valid article. -- Black Falcon 21:46, 7 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. w^L^{<speak·check>} 07:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back to the Future themes

Delete - An enormous mess of a trivia article, filled with unsourced original research in declaring as fact that such things as Marty's saying "Mom, is that you?" in each of the films was a deliberate "running gag" or "theme" and that this sort of thing contributed to the popularity of the film series. Otto4711 03:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete This is an OR essay authored almost entirely by a single user. Also, the title is a misnomer, as only a small fraction of the items mentioned are themes. Most are motifs, running gags, and maybe even coincidences.--Djrobgordon 03:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. At most, the important themes can be merged to the article on Back to the Future, if they are not already there. --Nevhood 03:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Original-research essay written primarily by one-user. Some of these have been covered in the main Beck to the Future articles, while others are non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete — Non-notable, no cited sources and WP:OR. --RazorICE talk C @ 03:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Yup, mess of WP:OR, trivia, and tricksy little things. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 04:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - It's just a large mess of trivia--양복⁴² 04:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a huge collection of irrelevant trivia and original research. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Information might be interesting to fans of the movies, but this is exactly the kind of thing you'd want to see on a fan site, not in an encyclopedia. ◄Zahakiel ► 06:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - any good, verifiable content could go in the Back to the Future article, if not already there. Metamagician3000 07:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The article was originally part of the Back to the Future trilogy page, but as this page was very long I removed the copied the themes section into the separate article. I agree that the article needs some work, possibly even a name change, but its clear that there are are large number of themes, or running gags throughout the trilogy.Dannyboy3 10:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made some improvements to the first section of the article based on the comments above but it still needs work, some points could probably be removed, and if anyone has a better idea for the title, it would be much appreciated. I don't think this information should be put back into the Back to the Future trilogy page, as it would become too long. Also it is difficult to cite sources, when you are referring to scenes in a movie, the source is the films themselves. Dannyboy3 11:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Think of sources this way: if a reputable publication hasn't explored a theme of the film, at least briefly, it probably isn't notable enough to be mentioned in a Wikipeida article. If you want an example of a good "Themes" section, check out Blade Runner. It's impeccably sourced and well written, and explores the themes rather than lists them. I suspect a well-sourced article would be significantly shorter than this one, and could probably be merged back into the main article.--Djrobgordon 17:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge or Delete - You are correct in that it's a lot of crap to be in the Back to the Future trilogy article, but the point is it's crap period. Sort out the more notable bits and make it fit in the original article or delete it all together. Wikpedia isn't the place for this, start a back to the future fan site if you want to put this much info out on it. - Arch NME 13:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Can we not refer to good-faith edits as crap?--Djrobgordon 17:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

See my user page and please don't mention it again. - Arch NME 06:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per several users above. Anthony Hit me up... 16:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Per above.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 19:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge per Dannyboy3. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. Captain panda In vino veritas 22:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Dannyboy3. THE KING 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Could anyone who's voted to keep per Dannyboy3 point out what they find so compelling about his argument. I'm not trying to disparage him, as I believe he's a well-intentioned editor trying to write a good article, but all he's argued is that the article is too long to be merged into Back to the Future trilogy. He hasn't attempted to counter any of the concerns about sourcing, verifiability, or notability. Again, I'm questioning the reasoning of those voting "keep per Dannyboy3," not Dannyboy3 himself.--Djrobgordon 03:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unfortunately, not good on it's own. Please userfy to me? I might be able to do something with integrating the good stuff back into the BttF film articles. - Denny 19:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus. This band seems to be on the line between notable and not notable, with some saying it qualifies under WP:BAND, while others saying it fails WP:MUSIC. If this band doesn't improve, maybe another AFD might change matters. w^L^{<speak·check>} 07:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grown At Home

reason non notable band article does not state why they are imptent enough to be on here Oo7565 03:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nomOo7565 03:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak ~~Keep~~ Delete — Cites only a single BBC article that denotes notability (as far as I can see). Apart from that they have no charted hits or major awards. However, they have two album articles on Wikipedia not listed as AFD, and as such those two articles would also require deletion (I don't consider albums to be more notable than their respective bands). Changed my mind per below comment, though I still think the album articles would also have to be deleted, and it's a keeper if another reliable source is cited. --RazorICE talk C @ 04:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete - it looks like they totally fail WP:MUSIC. The BBC link is only one non-trivial source; the policy requires several. The articles should be deleted if more sources can't be produced. --Haemo 04:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete This band seems to be just on the cusp of not meeting WP:MUSIC. However, if there were any additional sources, they would probably already be in the article. janejellyroll 04:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Per radio playings. Just barely notable.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 19:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The article describes national and international tours as a support act. "In April and May 2007 Grown At Home will be supporting the established Californian ska punk outfit Voodoo Glow Skulls on their European tour." --Eastmain 21:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per WP:BAND as having two albums and radio playings (including on BBC local program) and the multiple references that discuss the band and/or their albums. However, my "keep" is conditional on both album articles being merged into the main band article, as there seems to be more references for the albums than the band itself. -- Black Falcon 23:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per WP:BAND as having two albums and radio playings (including on BBC local program) and the multiple references that discuss the band and/or their albums. (As above. I'm lazy.) The UK ska-punk scene is hardly thriving in 2007 (what with popular bands such as Lightyear, No Comply, King Prawn and Adequate Seven all splitting up in recent years), and Grown At Home are one of the few surviving bands of the genre still gaining popularity. It seems silly to make me come back and rewrite this in a few months after more headlining tours and CD releases. I'm sure that many fans of the genre would be interested in this article. Don't make me beg now. -- MartyHol 04:33, 4 March 2007 (GMT)
- EDIT: And they're clearly "the new market leaders for their genre in this country, and with a nationwide fanbase to back their unsurmountable popularity"! :-P -- MartyHol 03:04, 6 March 2007 (GMT)
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Do other editors read the article? For those that don't here are some excerpts from the article, they have realeased one EP 'which was then released on Cash For Pigs Records - a label created primarily to release this EP', e.g. self released. It is going so well 'The EP has sold more than 1000 copies.' They have also released one album, again on the Cash For Pigs Records label. As for the references, very few qualify as reliable sources. As for the tour, the requirement is that 'Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources'. The tour has not yet happened, has no independent sources reporting it and, IMO, the requirement is that they are the main act. Nuttah68 08:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, assumption will get you everywhere. So... because Cash For Pigs Records was created to release the EP, it's 'self-released'? Who said anything about any members of Grown At Home having ANY affiliation with the running of Cash For Pigs Records? Somebody considered their EP worthy enough of release to create a record label simply to release it. Lack of reliable sources? Now I'm sorry, but where exactly would you expect me to be getting references for an upcoming UK ska-punk band if not sites such as Punktastic? -- MartyHol 09:00, 6 March 2007 (GMT)
Delete According to WP:Music a simple entry on a tracklist, even the BBC's tracklist, does not constitute signficant non trivial third party coverage. This band may well be very good and they may well one day sell millions, but they simply do not meet the wikipedia criteria set out in WP:Music at this moment in time. We cannot keep the article on the grounds of what they might become because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A1octopus 15:25, 5 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 keep. Obvious joke nomination; non-admin closing using WP:SNOW.--TBCΦtalk? 04:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Harper

Totally fails WP:Notable. Little known leader outside Canada. Does not require article.

User:Superkiooo 3:36 UTC AM

Speedy Keep He's the Prime Minister. As in the leader of the nation. Bad faith nom by an unestablished user.--Djrobgordon 03:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. Hes the #@$#@! PM of Canada. Mystache 03:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. This is almost as ridiculous as the AFD yesterday to delete our state's premier (it survived barely an hour before being snowballed). Probably the only time I'm going to raise the snowball clause. Orderinchaos78 03:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. This is a very stupid move by Superkiooo. SFrank85 03:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep — Easily notable, established article and includes reliable sources. I don't see this article violating any policies... --RazorICE talk C @ 03:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Speediest Possible Keep - bad faith nomination; totally absurd. --Haemo 04:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This user also has a history of sprurious nominations of Canadian political figures. I'd urge admin action to address this disruptive behavior. --Haemo 04:09, 3 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 Inter-Cooperative Council at the University of Michigan in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 13:16Z

[edit] Luther Buchele Cooperative House

Despite being a "cooperative house" this reads like it was written as a frat house prank. I acknowledge this might be salvageable as a basic article by removing everything beyond the first three paragraphs. Yet I'm putting it up for deletion because I waver on the importance of the location itself. But no references at all in the article. Given the tone and content, this suggests it's written by members of the house. Officially, I'm pegging it with WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:ORG. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 03:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as non notable, fails WP:CORP. University residences are usually not notable unless it is demonstrated they have an interest to the wider community. Nuttah68 10:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete or remove all unsourced non-notable material. --Xnuala 21:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete I don't think the subject is N in the first place--how important is this in the life of the university--and reading the last paragraph or two confirms this.DGG 23:08, 3 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 13:17Z

[edit] Somewhere off Jazz Street

Notable? Neutrality^talk 04:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete — Non-notable "music project", absoloutely no sources cited. --RazorICE talk C @ 04:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete A vasty emptiness crammed into a short, lacking WP:RS stub. Wave bye-bye to the nice Wikipedia, says I. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 06:47, 3 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 13:17Z

[edit] Crash Course in Science

Not notable. Neutrality^talk 04:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete — Non-notable, no sources cited apart from band's own website. Article claims the band's songs influenced techno and industrial music but does not provide references; possible WP:OR and fails WP:BAND. --RazorICE talk C @ 04:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the random uncited claims from it, just becuase... - Arch NME 13:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:MUSIC I just searched for references and did not find any reliable sources. ghits fairly high but mostly commercial or blog. NOTE - I have previously edited this article as part of a Template:Active Wiki Fixup Projects. Signed Jeepday 15:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete lacks sources need to pass WP:MUSIC.-- danntm ^T _C 06:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Geometry Template. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 13:30Z

[edit] Mathomat

Contested prod. No appearance of notability as a commerical product (are there multiple, independent published sources discussing it?). I think it warrants discussion no matter whether it is kept or deleted. CMummert · talk 04:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete — For being non-notable, or Merge into ruler. Cites no sources, possible WP:OR. Comment: A google search provides only 122 hits.--RazorICE talk C @ 04:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Surprised delete. This is something which so many people (I'd'a thought) know, but I'm having difficulty finding sources too. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete commercial product Al-Bargit 13:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has been added to the list of Australia-related deletion debates. Spacepotato 05:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I got 1400 Google hits, including this one. It looks interesting; I'm still uncertain about notability. Most of the g-hits are offering the M-o-M for sale, but this one is a little different. DavidCBryant 13:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That comment says that a Mathomat can be used to draw some shapes, and says this in exactly two sentences. But it does not discuss the mathomat as a subject. What we need is an article somewhere that discusses the mathomat as a subject (for example, with the title "Educational benefits of Mathomats in elementary classrooms"). CMummert · talk 15:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

delete Many of us have seen them or even used them, but I have never known them called by that name, though I cannot readily think of a good specific name. DGG 23:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Absolutely notable, and institutional in Australian classrooms - I don't know any Australian kid who wouldn't have used one at some point. It'd be called a stencil anywhere else, I guess (it's *not* a ruler, it's used for tracing shapes like triangles, curves and circles, and contains a protractor in its centre, but does not make a great fashion accessory in the headwear stakes unlike the opinions of some 14-year-old students). It is a requirement to purchase one if studying maths in any Australian state - and often they have to be approved by a government agency such as the Board of Studies (NSW), Curriculum Council (WA) etc. Australian-based educational theory textbooks would be the place to reference this, but I don't have any at my disposal. Might contact Curriculum Council during the week to see if they know a text which would clearly and unambiguously refer to it. Orderinchaos78 03:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Orderinchaos78. As an Australian student I can tell you that what Orderinchaos78 was saying is true. We do have to purchase Mathomats for our math classes, (not just any stencil but the specific "Mathomat" stencil.) They are on our booklists every year. --Candy-Panda 05:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

*Delete, maybe I'm getting old, but I went to school in Brisbane, and I've never heard of this "Mathomat" gizmo before. To my mind, a non-notable commercial product. Lankiveil 10:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Weak Keep, changing my vote, as obviously my school was unusual in not having these gizmos. Perhaps it's a private/government school thing. Lankiveil 10:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Keep per Orderinchaos. Definitely notable and an Australian classroom institution. We need sources, and deletion should not be the outcome. JRG 11:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - and can i vote that as someone who has never used one. (i went to school in tassie). THE KING 00:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

AFD is not a vote; if you give no new reason for keeping the article, the closing admin will ignore your "vote". Several people have claimed that this thing is notable; I hope that they will provide some sort of reference. When I went to school, we used Mead notebook paper, and while there is an article on MeadWestvaco there is no article on Mead paper. CMummert · talk 03:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument, 'Mere numbers are an indication of consensus: in fact, evidence of uncomplicated agreement may represent the best evidence of consensus. Your "just a vote" shows that you concur with another editor's judgment.' THE KING 12:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

~~keep~~ It was on the booklist. An unusual and specific design made compulsory. I can almost hear that sales pitch. History of adoption by the Education Dept would be interesting. A generation knows them well. Unless there is an article to merge it too? - Fred 11:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC) merge to new article. Greatwalk has almost written the lead paragraph below. Fred 08:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The article is inadequately referenced, which is clear cause for deletion. WMMartin 13:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Lack of references is not an AFD criterion. Lack of notability is, however. CMummert · talk 13:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Geometry Template, ~~TEE or HSC~~ or Delete. Australian students do often own a geometry template, but students are just as likely to carry at MathAid/Proliner as they would a Mathomat. The main claim to fame of both of these templates is that they are allowed into TEE and HSC Math/Science examinations, along with a specific list of calculators and a selected math tables book. Geometry templates are rarely required purchases for students, but are recommended and do appear on most booklists. Almost every Australian secondary school student would have owned one or the other, but I believe many would have owned a MathAid and not a Mathomat. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 02:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why merge to HSC? Mathomats are used by more than just HSC students. --Candy-Panda 10:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Thank you. --Greatwalk 00:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment If thats the case then maybe we should go Geometry template and have a section on Mathomat (which would be this article basically) and a section on Mathaid? I have never heard of the latter and always used a Mathomat but it is probably different in different schools/states/etc DanielT5 08:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Can I throw this for a French curve? There is a Category:Technical drawing, but dare I suggest a Template for mathematical and technical templates. - Fred 13:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Question. Given that there are other popular brands of geometry templates in Australia, is Mathomat used as a generic term for these templates? Spacepotato 01:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

- In my experience, no. I was always asked as a student to have a Mathomat, and what the bookshop ordered in (I don't even know how you'd go about buying one in the wider world) was a Mathomat-brand thing. Students who had different kinds of templates were at a disadvantage every now and then. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm from Western Australia and see Mathaids in use more frequently...they are called 'Mathaid.' I can't speak for how the word is used in the Eastern States. --Greatwalk 02:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Orderinchaos78 DXRAW 22:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment from nominator Delete as non-notable (I am also the original nominator). I can't find even one reliable source that discusses mathomats as a subject, although I have tried, and no editor here has presented one during five days of AFD. CMummert · talk 00:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Above comment is by nominator. Discussion moved to talk. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 13:23Z

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 11:27Z

[edit] Biochain

Original Research Alex Bakharev 04:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Actually it's research published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a conference. But there are thousands of such papers published every year, so it needs to show why it is especially notable. —Dgies^t c 04:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete I'm with Dgies on this one. Notability is not asserted. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 06:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
delete the article itself implies they coined the term. DGG 23:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Premature to make an article for this without multiple independent sources. —David Eppstein 07:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This just seems to be an abstract/precis of a paper at a conference. We can't have articles on every paper presented at every conference! Nothing establishes notability here NBeale 23:05, 5 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 11:28Z

[edit] Yu gi oh Champions

Article solely on advertising, all created by one person who mentions himself in the article, contact info at bottom DiamondDragon contact 04:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete - Non-notable, unreferenced, NPOV. If this championship is notable, there would be some real press coverage. —Dgies^t c 04:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete — Sounds like WP:OR, is non-notable and provides no sources. --RazorICE talk C @ 04:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete - Same as Dgies. Manjoume Thunder 04:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 04:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable bordering on WP:NFT. Krimpet 05:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:NFT, borderline nonsense. The images alone confirm this is a joke. Resolute 05:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete this article doesn't believe in the heart of the cards. JuJube 05:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - this isn't even advertising; it's a hoax. The author of the article has held two of the three awards, and organizes the event? Wait, wait? --Haemo 05:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete per WP:COI, WP:HOAX or WP:NN. Would violate all three policies. --K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 07:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Sad, pathetic and nn on so many levels. Booshakla 10:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fansite stuff not appropraite for wikipedia. the pics are terrible and oversized anyway, not encyclopedic content --PrincessBrat 14:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. Utterly nn. StuartDouglas 22:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. My god 声援 -- The Hyb rid 21:15, 4 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 11:30Z

[edit] Container Man Project

This project does not appear noteworthy. A Google search yields only 8 hits. Furthermore, the article is copied verbatim from its website. Over half of the article are biographies of its two creators. Even if the artwork were somehow found to be notable, and even if there were a significant secondary source of about the sculpture, the article would have to be scrapped completely because of the copy vio, not to mention the style and content issues. Tbjablin 06:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7, and perhaps G12 as well. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 08:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete agree with BlastoButter42, but the AfD trumps the WP:CSD#A7 so it probably has to wait the 5 days. I did not find the first paragraph in the self site or else I would have placed a copyvio on the article. Jeepday 16:11, 3 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 13:36Z

[edit] Johnny Mann (actor)

I think this is a hoax, but for once, it wasn't played on Wikipedia but rather the the source that was used in good faith by the article creator. Other than the obituary which is referenced and provides the material used for the article, I can't verify the claims, which if true should be easy to verify. I note that while IMDB has an entry for a Johnny Mann (I) and a Johnny Mann (III) there is no Johnny Mann (II) which leads me to suspect that they were hit by the hoax but later discovered it, deleting that entry. The only innocent explanation I can think of is that he was credited under a different screen name, but if that's the case, we really need that name for this article to be of any use. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This isn't a hoax, but he wasn't notable. He really did exist (I'm looking at an obit from a Palm Springs, CA newspaper with his photograph and with a direct quote from the wife of the bandleader Johnny Mann, who says she wishes her husband dressed as well as this guy always did). The problem is that the man's notability was exaggerated quite innocently after his death. He may have worked as a walk-on or extra in soap operas and movies; generally there's a set number of lines an actor has to say in order to be credited, and he probably didn't make the credits cut in any of the things he did. I think what happened is that the writer of the Palm Springs obituary took Mann's roles to be more involved than Mann or his widow ever claimed they were, then when the AP picked up the obituary and condensed it they made him seem even more important. For instance, the AP report talks about a "recurring role" in Highway to Heaven. A recurring role is generally meant these days to mean a major role in two or more episodes. The original obituary didn't use that term. So yes, delete, but not as hoax. --Charlene 13:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Gotta agree with Charlene there. Delete per nom, but only for lack of any real notability. Sorry. --Dennisthe2 19:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Charlene Alf^Photoman 19:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as above. Metamagician3000 08:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Hatten

Tagged for speedy deletion, but I don't think the article's subject is completely non-notable. Having said that I am unsure about the subject's long-term impact. Procedural nomination, no vote from me. – riana_dzasta 06:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable convict/attention hound/stalker. --Charlene 14:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, don't see anything that fits WP:BIO about a stalker. If editors feel that this information is absolutely necessary it can be merged with the victims page Alf^Photoman 15:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete With Alf on this one. Jailed stalker with little to recommend beyond personal claims. Pig^man_dialogue 19:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Mcoop06 11:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Compare it with Dannielynn Marshall Stern's one. Mr Tan 13:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, as per Alf above. --Strangnet 17:41, 5 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 13:44Z

[edit] Bucklers mead

Clearly does not assert notability, and is defiantly not in the tone expected of an encyclopedia. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 07:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per above. Someguy1221 08:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete if not the whole article, then at least the bit about the student; obviously unencyclopedic – Qxz 15:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, as per nomination. Jeodesic 16:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Partial Deletion, I believe that the article shoudn't be deleted as it is a real school, and the ofsted claim is also true. However, the paragraph about Daniel McNiven should be removed as he is actually a real person and an acquaintance of mine, however for his privacy i believe the paragrpah about him should be deleted.DoubleBassist 18:55, 3 March 2007 (GMT)
Delete, in entirety. The school's article does not assert as to why it is notable. Let's completely disregard that Mr. McNiven's blurb therein makes it look an awful lot like a Myspace page. Note that I will change my mind about the notability if I can be proven otherwise, but Mr. McNiven does not belong there. --Dennisthe2 19:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - removed McNiven's bit. --Dennisthe2 19:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Notability neither asserted nor evidenced, and no references. WMMartin 13:40, 5 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 Neuroimaging. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 13:46Z

[edit] Brain function map

This one is a bit interesting. On one hand it does not neatly fit into one of our speedy deletion categories, but on the other hand I have concerns over how it is written, and the possiblilty for this to become a WP:OR problem. In either case I just happened along this while clearing Category:Stubs. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 07:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete or redirect There is already information on this topic located at Cognitive science, Psychology, Neuropsychology, and others that branch off of these. There are undoubtedly enough sources on the specific topic of brain mapping to create an article on it, but as of now this article serves almost no purpose. Certainly no harm removing it, or redirecting it somewhere else until someone puts the time in to make a full fledged article. Someguy1221 08:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Oh great, now I've been implicated. I didn't realize that {{AFDWarningNew}} was for those who personally started the AFD. Hbdragon88 09:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Sounds to me from the tone of the article as though the creator intends to add OR, and there's currently no real content. Jeodesic 16:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. unsourced, potential "original research".--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 19:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and rd to neuroimaging. Google search for 3d map as possibly SPAM, so I rewrote the article. But looking at what I wrote, none of it deserves an article over the articles I linked to. I'm no expert, but I don't see any references to this in any of my cognitive science books. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:10, 7 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 {{wi}}. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 13:49Z

[edit] Single Supplement

We are not a dictionary. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 07:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. --K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 07:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Haemo 10:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete term isn't even that notable even for a dicdef Whilding87 10:40, 3 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. Carabinieri 14:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Dupee

This is not a majority vote. If someone brought this page to your attention, or you brought this page to others' attention, please make a note of this fact here. While widespread participation is encouraged, the primary purpose of this page is to gauge consensus of a representative sample of Wikipedians; therefore, it's important to know whether someone is actively soliciting others from a non-neutral location to discuss. Such contributors are not prohibited from commenting, but it's important for the closing administrator or bureaucrat to know how representative the participants are of Wikipedians generally. See Wikipedia:Canvassing.

This was marked for speedy deletion, but it is well-written and has plenty of assertion of notability. I think the real question is, are there reliable sources for this guy? There might be, there might not be. But I'd rather let the community decide what happens to this article. No opinion. Grand master ka 07:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete nn game show contestant, other top Jeopardy contestants have been deleted in the past. Booshakla 07:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Doesn't seem to be notable or newsworthy. It'd be one thing for his name to be mentioned in some list of quiz show winners, but a full article is not warranted. Pseudomonas 17:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Include Michael Dupee is one of the best jeopardy players of all time. Plus, lots of people know him from playing his online games at MindFun.com. He is not a person of merely local interest. His online radio trivia call-in talk show is also becoming popular among people who like trivia. Next week, he is going to start hosting Jeopardy Tournament of Champion winners as guests on the radio show. This is sure to be a popular segment.70.171.58.219 18:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Include This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Additionally, many other notable Jeopardy contestants who did not do as well have biography pages on Wikipedia. Michael is within the scope of the Biography project. Adding additional sources is a good idea.Zana4 18:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please note that being within the scope of the project has nothing to do with whether the article meets biography guidelines. --Dhartung | Talk 20:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Include I was sitting on the fence about this article, but now I'm inclined to keep it since it lists sources now, and is well-written (no surgery is necessary to bring it up to standards). There are sixteen articles about Jeopardy! contestants on Wikipedia, by the way, which is a very tiny percentage of the number of people who have appeared on a popular show that has been running for decades. It's not like Wikipedia is dealing with an avalanche of Jeopardy-cruft, unlike say, Pokemon-related articles. I don't think removing this article is helpful, and I hope the new editor who wrote it stays around to contribute further to Wikipedia. - Itsfullofstars 19:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Inclusion is not proof of notability; the other articles may well be subject to deletion as well. --Dhartung | Talk 20:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The only thing even remotely close to this is a blurb on emory.edu's online magazine, mentioning Mr. Dupee's winnings. Anything else is either official stuff from Jeopardy or what appear to be fan pages. We need some reliable third party sources here (of which the Emory Magazine may count, but we still need more), and without those my vote will stand. --Dennisthe2 19:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable game show contestant. —ptk✰fgs 19:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless evidence he passes WP:BIO is presented. --Dhartung | Talk 20:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Include.Per above.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 20:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't include. Having an article in the scoop of a WikiProject is meaningless, and so is having other articles on Wikipedia with a similar subject. As I see it, the article doesn't provide a single reliable source about the notability of this multiply Jeopardy! winner, and all the existing ones are lists of Jeopardy! winners and players which only provide his name (e.g. this and this). It also seems that the most of the article consists of viewer's original research rather than verifiable facts. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Dupee has no records on the show and it not especially notable outside of the show. Robert K S 08:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Include Although Dupee currently has no records on the show, that is mostly because of the multiple changes in the show's format since he competed. He is a highly notable Jeopardy champion because he wrote the book which most contestants use to prepare to go on the show. Thus, all competitors know of Michael Dupee, and he is certainly notable enough to be one of the 16 Jeopardy contestants who are biographied in Wikipedia.75.200.104.42 21:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Clarification In contrast to Tom Walsh, Dupee never held any winnings records on the show, which should be requisite for notability barring notability outside of the show (as are the cases for Ohio State Treasurer Richard Cordray or children's author Linda Sue Park). If Dupee's forthcoming radio show is deemed to establish his notability outside of his involvement in the show, this should be considered. But his authorship of How to Get on Jeopardy! and Win! doesn't qualify him. It wasn't a huge seller, it's out of print, and it's mostly known only within the Jeopardy! community. Nor does his stewardship of several (wonderful) web sites/games make him notable. ToC champ and Google employee Ryan Holznagel also has a great web site (Who2.com), but none of these is enough to establish him as notable. Robert K S 11:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Clarification Dupee's authorship of How to Get on Jeopardy! and Win! does qualify him as notable. That book is the book that most Jeopardy! competitors have used to prepare for the show for the last several years. If everybody in a specific field is using a particular text to learn how to do something, then it is notable. His book is the "Joy of Cooking" of Jeopardy!-preparation. Every copy ever printed sold and it was going into reprints when the publisher went bankrupt for completely unrelated reasons. The used copies on Amazon have historically been difficult to obtain and highly priced. Lately, the used copies are more attainable, but that probably is because there is now so much Jeopardy! info on the internet (thanks to certain persons like yourself, Robert K S, the extraordinary writer of the online J! Archive), which is in stark contrast to when Dupee's book was published. Plus, Dupee's 2nd book was a best-seller, being sold at all stores, including Wal-Mart, book stores, the Scholastic Book Fairs, and through Publishers Clearing House. It even had a sequel. Plus, TOC champ Ryan Holznagel is highly notable. He, in fact, is the next person that I was thinking of writing a Wikipedia page on. His web site Who2.com is really a cool site. It is a comprehensive trivia encyclopedia of biographical information.Zana4 04:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  - If you like the Archive, credit and thanks goes to a number of people, listed on the site. Robert K S 09:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Include Ken Jennings, the 75-game Jeopardy! winner, also regards Dupee as a Jeopardy! legend, detailing Dupee's Rocky-like preparation for Jeopardy! in his book, Brainiac: Adventures in the Curious, Competitive, Compulsive World of Trivia Buffs. Ken Jenning's book, The Emory Magazine article, and The Alligator newspaper article are reliable third party sources.70.171.58.219 05:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete almost all the refs are to blogs which are not reliable sources. It all seems utterly trivial and NN NBeale 23:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Include Several reliable 3rd party source have now been added as references, including The National Law Journal and The Orlando Business Journal.70.171.58.219 05:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - this IP address has now said "Include" three times. Pseudomonas 06:52, 9 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barbie and the Kens

Band has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. which is the core notability requirement. I don't see any citation that the band had a hit on a national music chart. Article had previously been proposed for deletion in Aug 2006. I'm not sure if the undocumented claim that is in regular rotation on a retro internet-only radio station meets the requirement for notability but would be interested in what others have to say. Warfieldian 17:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep Their song "Just a Gigolo" features on the KROQ Top 106.7 Songs of 1983 [2]. Catchpole 17:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Is "Their song" the Just a Gigolo (song) of 1929? SmokeyJoe 12:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep being no. 35 on a list of top 106(.7) songs in an age before Internet radio and MP3 is notable enough. Awyong J. M. Salleh 18:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I know that WP:BAND is just a guideline, but the central notability requirement for this band has not been met. And reading the guidelines, the secondary qualifiers of being on a national music chart is only an indicator of the probable existence of "sufficient reliable information is available about a given group or individual musician." I don't see any reliable information in the article or available on the web that would lead me to think that this article would ever be anything more than a stub. Warfieldian 18:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 07:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Very weak keep per the above comments, but it really needs sources – Qxz 15:14, 3 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scraps & Heart Attacks

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 12:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep An explanation of who TRAVIS (or any of the band members) would be nice - these people could be anyone without a surname attached. Since this article was only created on 10 Feb - its only been on two weeks, can it not be expanded better by the creator first since he seems to be the only person who has done anything wtih the article. if the creator does not make amendments (if this is kept) then it should be reconsidered for speedy deletion. --PrincessBrat 12:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete given the absence of any improvement, notability guidelines not met – Qxz 15:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:MUSIC on all counts. The bands that the various members have gone on to join appear to fail WP:MUSIC also. Nuttah68 08:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:MUSIC.-- Carabinieri 14:55, 9 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dillon Dam Brewery

Contested prod of small-town brewery. No indication of notability per WP:CORP. --El on ka 06:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Not even an attempt at notiblity except that it is close to a ski area. EnsRedShirt 08:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Part of Project Beer. The nutshell rules for Wikipedia:Notability_(breweries) seem to be inconclusive on the subject, or at least poorly formed. Wikibofh_(talk) 14:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Just because a page is part of a wikiproject doesn't mean it shouldn't be deleted. In fact the article seems to have been all but forgotten by the community as for the better part of 2 years all it had said was: "Dillon Dam Brewery is a brewery and restaurant located in Dillon, Colorado. The brewery was founded in 1997 and is located near Keystone Resort. Customers of the brewery tend to be a mix of locals and tourists and the brewery is a common stop after a day on the ski slopes." It also included a link to their website and a list of their beers. With the new addition of the beer awards notability is trying to be established, but I question if this can ever become more than a stub, which coincidently the above proposal flatly says should not be done. Maybe a better place to cover this establishment, and other like it, would be in a Micro-breweries of Colorado page?? EnsRedShirt 15:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: How depressing. I really did create it almost 2 years ago, and nothing of real value was added until this AfD came around. I guess my thought is that all breweries are notable, but I don't have a good reason for it. Not disagreeing with anything you wrote there. Wikibofh_(talk) 04:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I think the awards and review establish notability. --Eastmain 19:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non notable, no evidence of meeting the requirements at WP:CORP. For me multiple independent sources means more than trivial mentions in the awards list of a beer festival, especially when the festival hands out 300+ awards at each event. Nuttah68 16:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The Great American Beer Festival is the Kentucky Derby for U.S. breweries, and winning awards there should establish sufficient notability. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Interesting, notable, sourced and well written article that is likely to be searched for by people going to these beer fests. No reason for deletion. THE KING 00:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete The Pitchfork Media reference is damned by the conflict of interest brought up by Nuttah68; without it, the entire article fails. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bowerbirds (band)

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC; no album yet, the record label doesn't seem notable, and there isn't external coverage. (Lots of Google hits but they're mostly about the actual bird. Crystallina 05:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. If they achieve later fame, the article can be re-created. --El on ka 06:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BAND. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep There is indeed an album out by these guys (albeit on a small record label) and there have been two independent sources of published reviews (from Pitchfork Media and the Independent Weekly). So, while we might be able to call their record label non-notable, we cannot say that there haven't been multiple sources of external coverage, and per WP:MUSIC, that seems to be enough to keep the article to me. --TheSteve04 05:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not yet able to meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Might be so in future in which case article should be re-created but for the time being wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A1octopus 16:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- My point here is, indeed, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but more than a quick Google search will turn up numerous results for external coverage, with multiple independent reviews of an album that has indeed been released from notable sources. We seem to be assuming that there is no album and/or external coverage, and there is indeed such material, so we can't quite make these claims. Instead, the major argument is not about whether the article is speculative in nature (the crystal ball argument) but whether the group is notable enough to be featured in Wikipedia. Considering that this group has been featured in and given positive reviews by well-known outlets such as Pitchfork Media, I've got to think that the group is notable enough to at least remain in Wikipedia, and with the advent of further material, there should be no debate on the issue. --TheSteve04 07:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete. Subject doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion, at least not yet – Qxz 15:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as fails WP:MUSIC. The Pitchfork Media sources is tainted severely by the disclaimer 'Full disclosure: Bowerbirds are recording their debut LP for a label run by Pitchfork staffer Grayson Currin.' discounting it as an independent source. The Independent Weekly article, a local paper featuring a local band, is not enough to get a band that fails WP:MUSIC on every point an article. Apart from that, despite claims, there appear to be no other reliable sources available. Nuttah68 09:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. /Blaxthos 04:00, 5 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Total Control

Not sure whether this passes notability for products. Montchav 14:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep. In the era (5-10 years ago) when dial-up was king, these were pretty widely used by ISPs. Pinball22 15:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Disambiguate or redirect to The Motels Ohconfucius 09:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 04:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] R. Jay Fisher

Not Notable. --Hojimachong^talk_con 04:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The subject is the elected sheriff of Baltimore County, Maryland (not to be confused with the city of Baltimore, Maryland). As such, he could potentially qualify under WP:BIO per the clause for "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." The problem is that I can barely find any press coverage for this person. If it can be established that he has received significant press coverage, I may reconsider. --Metropolitan90 17:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 04:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No evidence given of notability beyond his post. Billlion 12:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as failing WP:BIO unless some evidence of notability is forthcoming. Nuttah68 09:16, 4 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Militaryphotos

A website of no objectively provable significance, subject of a lame edit war about the rules placed on its forums, entirely sourced fomr the site itself, sole external mention is a passing mention in a list of related subjects in an article on military subjects on the internet. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Look at the edit history, there will be no resolution between the banned member and the current members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.227.102 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep I think the article should be kept if a few people are willing to spend their time, fight vandalism, and make the article a good read. Tonster 00:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as failing WP:WEB, no assertion of notability, no verifiable or reliable sources. The Rambling Man 10:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Article has become a 'bash board' for Banned mp.net members. --Bryson 16:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, nothing there to prove WP:N Alf^Photoman 20:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as per CSD:A7--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 20:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, non notable. Nardman1 02:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete offers nothing that passes muster against WP:WEB. Nuttah68 09:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, I'd like greater detail in the link between it and the History Channel? And there is also this reference that is currently in the article. [3] There is another passing mention here. infotoday.com I'll presume there are more out there, considering the ease with which I found another one. Mathmo ^Talk 05:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as showing no assertion of notability. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to University of the East. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 13:52Z

[edit] University of the East College of Computer Studies and System

Prod contested with no reason given. This ia a spam article for a non notable university faculty. Per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a substitute prospectus. Nuttah68 10:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This part of a university does not meet notability criteria, and the article reads like a baddly written prospectus anyway. Billlion 12:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and merge. The dentistry/medicine departments are more notable than any of the departments in the University of the East, but I don't think this one is. Better merge whatever can be merged into the main article and delete this one. --- Tito Pao 14:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Titopao. Berserkerz Crit 16:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge to University of the East. --Polaron | Talk 03:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge to main article. --Mithril Cloud 03:50, 8 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 13:53Z

[edit] Brian Smith (photographer)

The article is an autobiography, and at least some claims are overstated. The author describes himself as having won the Pulitzer Prize, but this was in fact awarded jointly to staff of the Orange County Register. See also Gerald W. Smith. JQ 10:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. While I agree it's tacky to create your own article on Wikipedia, and it may have POV puffery problems, notability is stated for both him and his dad. Even as a co-pullitzer prize photographer, it's still notability. Flawed articles and non-notability are two different things. Bobanny 18:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, doesn't matter how we twist it a Pulitzer winner is notable. The article should be wikified and properly sourced and referenced though Alf^Photoman 20:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
keep I'd think some prizes at least would be recognized automatically.DGG 23:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. He won a Pulitzer prize. It doesn't matter if it was alone or with 5 others. Also, one of his photos has been on the cover of Newsweek magazine (see [4]). I have incorporated this information into the article. -- Black Falcon 23:41, 3 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 Hinterlands (short story). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 13:54Z

[edit] Toyvesky Anomaly Coordinates

does not merit its own article, all content is already on the stub-like Hinterlands (short story) page Skomorokh 11:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Hinterlands (short story). Mathmo ^Talk 04:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect as above. Lacks notability and detail on its own. Vassyana 10:17, 8 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sport teams by championships

Unencyclopedic, no references or citations, unnecessary fluff Anthony Hit me up... 11:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as unreferenced, possibly POV, potential future trivia magnet. ObtuseAngle 15:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete List of World Series won is the same thing specifically for baseball. There's also List of Super Bowl champions. There's the List of Stanley Cup champions page. At the National Basketball Association page, there's also a tallied list of champions. Already, more specific pages exist. - PoliticalJunkie 20:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect - Those articles should redirect here. Kingjeff 20:37, 4 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 13:55Z

[edit] Carole Goble

No case made for notability Billlion 11:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Professor at the University of Manchester and editor-in-chief of a peer-reviewed journal (the Journal of Web Semantics). First two hits on Google Scholar cited 281 and 199 times, several other more than a hundred times. Pharamond 18:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment:In the light of the above it sounds like she might well have done something interesting and be known for it, in which case lets see an article citing secondary sources that establishes that. However being a journal editor and having loads of grants and publications is pretty much part of the criterion for promotion to professor at the University of Manchester. Looking at Wikipedia:Notability (academics), I don't see the evidence for eg The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. (which is perhaps the easiest to meet). Billlion 19:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 21:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. In WP:BIO, "People who satisfy at least one of these criteria may merit their own Wikipedia articles ... Creative professionals: ... The person or their work has been widely cited by authors". The editorship etc also indicate to me that she is known as a significant expert by her peers. Passage of the more specific criteria in WP:PROF would be even clearer. —David Eppstein 21:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Full professors at major research universities meet it, having passed several external reviews by experts for their notability in the profession. We don't establish notability in WP, we see if the profession has established notability. -- This doesn't apply to every college, but it does to major universities, and University of Manchester is unquestionably one. This is further confirmed by the editorship.

There's an interesting phenomenon--if an article on an academic does list all the papers then it gets condemned as puffery, if an academic is more modest, then it gets thought non-notable. DGG 23:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Given information provided by User:Pharamond, this qualifies under criterion 4 of WP:PROF: "The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known." Having an article cited >200 times is a major accomplishment in academe. -- Black Falcon 23:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Being a journal editor-in-chief does meet "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources". Why otherwise would she be selected. The criteria for promotion to Professor at UK universities pretty well makes anyone so selected to be notable and this academic is. --Bduke 01:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, ditto to all the above keeps, extensively published and internationally known. --User:Duncan.Hull

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 13:55Z

[edit] Alan Rector

No notability is claimed in the article, although possibly he might meet WP:BIO criteria this is not claimed in this stub article Billlion 11:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, unsourced and unreferenced Alf^Photoman 15:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, ~~effectively a link farm, not even a stub.~~ Bobanny 18:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Much better. As a suggestion, you might want to reverse the order of much of the information - putting his accomplishments ahead of the more day to day stuff. Bobanny 23:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notability is claimed through being appointed a professor, Professor#Most_other_English-speaking_countries, in a UK university. This is a position only academics reknowned in their field receive. The article needs expanding though. Nuttah68 09:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Certainly professor is fairly high rank in a UK University, but I think it falls below what is required for notability in the wikipedia sense. A typical professor would be an editor of a journal and loads of publications, grants and PhD students. But that in itself is not notable, in a sense they are just doing their job. On the other hand any science professor with an FRS or engineering professor who is an FREng almost certainly would be notable. My interpretation of Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), 1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. 2. The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field. has to be backed up by evidence that is verifiable, I don't think the result of a promotion board can be considered as that. I must declare an interest, I am a professor at a UK university. Billlion 10:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- 'in a sense they are just doing their job'. A large proprotion of the biographies on Wikipedia are for people who are notable purely because of their job, John Terry, Tony Blair, Michael Vaughan etc. Doing a job is not a reason to include or exclude a biography but a what level that job places you. Nuttah68 10:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep This is merely an over-modest article - as was an AfD a little earlier. Did the nom think to check the links? He is a member or leader of many of the UK Semantic Web and related information Science groups, including several international committees. I added the to the article just now. DGG 22:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The additions by DGG demonstrate notability. Eastmain 22:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I don't think checking the links is the point. Links should point to secondary sources so that the case for notability established in the article can be verified. I admit I am being a little provocative, but I feel strongly such articles should make a case for notability even if they are stubs. Similar point for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carole Goble. Billlion 21:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Dave Douglas (drummer). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 13:57Z

[edit] Agnes (band)

Per Wikipedia:Notability. Auroranorth 12:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, per WP:N. Auroranorth 12:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - there appears to be no attempt to communicate with the article's main editor or recent editor to allow them the opportunity to either expand or substantiate any notion of notability SatuSuro 13:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have posted a notice on their talk page to let them know. DanielT5 19:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, the article's been tagged as part of this process - consider them notified. Bobanny 18:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment I am the main editor of the page. Now, I don't understand why there is a sudden urge to delete this article. I have discussed with others before when it was considered for deletion, and it was decided that the article was worth keeping because the band is the side project of the drummer of a very popular band. I will gladly expand upon it if you will allow me to. The artist is currently doing more songs for the project. I hope we can work something out here to keep the article around. God Bless.RoryS89 01:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)RoryS89
- Comment Please make sure your 'decisions' reflect consensus. Auroranorth 06:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep with option to review if WP:N not sufficiently addressed at a future time (but not, like, two days or two weeks or something - sources can take a while to find sometimes). It seems the issue is more that it doesn't *assert* notability, rather than that it doesn't *have* notability. Orderinchaos78 03:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment No, I truly believe it's a non-notable pet project, and not asserting notability is often a sign that it's not. But I could be wrong. Looking at the article for Dave Douglas (drummer), it's pretty stubby and kind of fluffy, and it would seem merge the two would do a better service to the subject.Bobanny 09:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment I just think someone could explain to me exactly what they want me to do to keep it around, because in cases like these, I'm always told all these things that don't lead to a direct answer. No offense to any of you guys, but I just think that the deletion policies on Wikipedia need a little more explaining. I don't see why there's always a rush to delete pages that don't seem notable enough. But hey, if you think combining the two articles is a good idea, I'm all for it.RoryS89 22:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)RoryS89
~~Delete~~: If this band is so notable where are the reliable sources that conform to WP:V?A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 17:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep: Not sure on reliabilty of amazon but I can go with the CD Review.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 13:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: As for what to do to keep the article around, read WP:V and introduce sources, preferably inline citations, to verify the information and establish its notability. Otherwise I wouldn't be surpirsed if it gets deleted.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 17:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Rory, there are central core policies that you need to read: Wikipedia:Notability (in this case Wikipedia:Notability (music)) and Wikipedia:Attribution. They basically say that you need to have 2 reliable resources independent of the subject that assert that the subject is notable. And that there are criteria that indicate minimum thresholds for inclusion. Royalbroil^T : C 03:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep or at least merge I added 2 reliable sources that talk about the album, and the side projects that are contained on it, along with their history. Meets or nearly meets notability standard "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. " I think that the future expected recordings are enough to break this article out of Douglas' main article. Royalbroil^T : C 03:20, 7 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 History of Liverpool F.C.. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 14:01Z

[edit] Liverpool F.C.'s European Cup triumphs

Only serves to duplicate information found on the Liverpool F.C., History of Liverpool F.C. and 2005 UEFA Champions League Final pages. Robotforaday 12:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge this page into Liverpool in Europe or History of Liverpool because as mentioned above it duplicates info from other pages or otherwise delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kyriakos (talk • contribs) 13:27, March 3, 2007.

Delete. All information already exists on the pages Robotforaday mentions. Also, "triumphs" is a POV word that shouldn't make it into an article title unless you're talking about something actually named Triumph. --Charlene 14:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Robotforaday 16:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - POV title, duplicates content of other pages, as detailed by nominator. Qwghlm 18:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - inherently POV, and content is already present in another article. -- Whpq 05:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, and I'm a big Liverpool fan. This information is already better written elsewhere. aLii 12:28, 6 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 14:02Z

[edit] DoylesRoom

I don't think this website meets the criteria for notability and generally seems like just a subversive attempt at an advertisement Arch NME 12:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete in the absence of sources – Qxz 15:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete - blatant advertising. "subversive" is too generous. Bobanny 18:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. Obvious notability, stated both in article and by simple common sense. Articles should have sources of course. 2005 21:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Now that I said that though, I would support merging and redirecting the article with Doyle Brunson. The notability of the entity is in it being fronted by a celebrity, not in its uniqueness itself. It is what is called a "skin" into a network, and as such is not norteable as a cardroom. It is plainly notable though as an online gambling/poker site fronted by an American citizen living in the United States. 2005 22:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per an abundance of sources, four of which are now in the article. Otto4711 23:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per improvements made by Otto. The subject seems notable per 20 Google News hits (and about 300,000 Ghits overall), and the sources added by Otto demonstrate notability. Thanks, Black Falcon 23:52, 3 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.

[edit] Andrew Choi

The result was Speedily deleted. Nothing to see here, move along folks. Hesperian 12:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This article should be deleted under WP:N. Auroranorth 12:20, 3 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 Blood Stain Child. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 14:03Z

[edit] VIOLATOR

Is this drummer notable? WP:N Auroranorth 12:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete and Redirect to band's page. Drummer alone is not notable unless he is famous for something outside the band. A1octopus 13:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and redirect per A1Octopus DanielT5 19:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and Redirect as above. Nuttah68 09:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per everyone above. The drummer hasn't been noted as having done anything notable outside the band, and the article lacks any information that could make it at all useful (that can't be put into Melodic death metal). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kopf1988 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
Delete with no redirect, per my nomination. Auroranorth (WikiDesk) 09:23, 5 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of YWAM bases

list of external links -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 13:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - List of YWAM bases is not a list of external links but a list of YWAM bases. The external links are only listed where available, and are not the point of the list. --Davidkazuhiro 13:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK I see the point you all have. Deletion seems like a reasonable action. If this is done however, consensus will have to be made as to what YWAM base external links are appropriate on the main YWAM article. People tend to add YWAM base links to the external links section until it looks too large and an editor removes them. That's one of the big reasons I made this list. If we simply delete the list we'll have the same problem again of people contiually adding base links and editors having no consensus on what's appropriate and what should be left to the YWAM directory. --Davidkazuhiro 18:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  - David, what I would suggest is locating a link on the YWAM home page that has a list of all the bases - and just link to that from the main YWAM article. Placing on the talk page an explanation for this should at least answer questions. --Dennisthe2 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Thanks Dennis for formatting my cluttered posts. It's the first time one of the articles I created became an AFD so I wasn't sure if I was allowed to vote. I've gone ahead and done what you suggested. --Davidkazuhiro 03:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - being an incomplete list of external links isn't that much better. There is no encyclopedic content whatsoever but the list, and no indication that there ever will be. Unsourced, too. In short, fails WP:LIST. Huon 18:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Merge - merge because it's better served in the article, but weak because I think the YWAM home page itself has a more complete list. --Dennisthe2 19:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete this can safely be left to the YWAM webmasters. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
With some reluctance, Delete. WP is not the place for a list of links to external websites for a particular organisation, even one as notable as Youth With a Mission. The main YWAM website contains an adequate search facility for identifying websites for their bases; where there is a base without a website, there is little point in merely providing a placename in a list. The list is anyway libale to become obsolete. Peterkingiron 23:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The 'keep' !voters didn't present really convincing arguments compared to the deleters. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Profound Intent

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram 13:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Mayo (news reporter)

Does not pass notability test for inclusion in Wikipedia. Burghboy80 13:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Agree with the comment above, the article is very short and he doesnt look to have done anythign of outstanding merit expcept done his job --PrincessBrat 14:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, article does not even pass WP:V Alf^Photoman 15:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Non-notable and verifiable. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:04, 9 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yumi Shimura

WP:NOTE Snarfies 13:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

KEEP, I only corrected the deletion nomination. Seems a bit stubby and not sourced, but is that really grounds for deletion? Snarfies 14:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Neutral. Are anime voice actresses inherently notable? – I don't see any other claim of notability. Furthermore, there are no sources. Mention of blood type seems a little out of place, too. Incidentally the redlink farm on I'm Enterprise will at best lead to dozens of these, and at worst be a list of red links. Someone might want to think about pruning it – Qxz 15:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Blood type is a common mention for Japanese celebs, see: Japanese blood type theory of personality. --Kunzite 07:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Problems with WP:V, real or perceived, due to missing references are always a good reason to delete. If the person is notable there are references (somewhere) Alf^Photoman 17:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, if the actress plays a main character role in a notable anime, then yes they are notable. --Candy-Panda 05:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Japanese seiyū are more notable thank their Western counterparts because the seiyū industry in Japan is large and has a high celebrity status. (Read seiyu) Not all seiyu are notable, however. Judging by multiple roles in Animation, CDs, and other information from the Japanese wikipedia, she seems to meet notability requirements. There is more info on the Japanese wikipedia that could be used to expand the article. --Kunzite 07:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I think "high celebrity status" is overdoing it. While there are differences in notability among professions between Japan and the Western world, I think that seiyu are getting more than a fair shake on Wikipedia. She certainly may be notable per the JA Wiki, but there is little evidence of it in the current article. I don't see any bias here. Dekimasuよ! 13:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  - I didn't claim bias and I certainly did not make the argument to include all seiyu in Wikipedia. I specifically argued for this person because of the extra data that appears in the Japanese wikipedia, this is more of a "clean-up and expand", not a delete. --Kunzite 17:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Kunzite. JuJube 09:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 13:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment if you really want to keep this article someone should source and rerference it, as is it fails WP:ATT, which could cause problems because this falls under WP:BLP Alf^Photoman 20:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I added a link to ANN from which most of the seiyu filmographies are derived. JuJube 22:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Holt (second nomination)

Dalejenkins has deleted and redirected this article twice as non-notable; however, in its last nomination there was no consensus. I created this article, and last time it was I who nominated it for deletion. However, since then I have changed my mind and I believe that the article should be kept. I am only adding this article here because an anon editor tried to add it for deletion but did not do it properly, and also so that we can try to reach a consensus on whether the article should be kept, in light of Dalejenkins concerns. ^Tom _Phil 14:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment, if the article stays as is, without citing non-trivial second party references then I can predict the outcome of this AfD without a crystal ball Alf^Photoman 15:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete 15 minutes of fame based on his non-notability. Bobanny 18:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete As per nomination. Dalejenkins 08:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete failed reality show contest and failed novelty act. That equal fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Nuttah68 09:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete same as Nuttah68's comments. 80.43.22.203 10:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep I can't see the merit in removing genuinely informative and referenced material off Wikipedia. Yes, maybe it's not the sort of thing that would appear in the Encyclopædia Britannica but then isn't the great thing about Wikipedia the fact that it has articles of the type that don't appear in the mainstream encyclopædias? Is Paul Holt really any less notable than, say, Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116? This information does not exist in any other Wikipedia article and may genuinely be of interest and/or use to some people. The truth is that while he does not technically comply with the guidelines set down, he did release a record on a major record label which made the top 40. There was also quite a reasonable amount of media coverage at the time, and Paul Holt was invited to sing on national TV (the Xtra Factor). This article has suvived on Wikipedia now since 2004 without doing any damage to the project or harming anyone. What possible purpose is served by deleting it? It's simply a case of following the rules strictly over common sense. ^Tom_Phil 18:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm afraid 'What about this article?' and 'It does no harm?' are false arguments that have been around longer than the article. Nuttah68 18:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
delete I don't usually comment on people in this field, but i was struck by the phrase "he has appeared in the audition phase of ..." DGG 22:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
delete There may be a case for adding one line about this gentleman under an "Interesting Events" section of the The X Factor's page, but under WP:Music and WP:Bio he is not notable enough for his own article. His history so far is that he faired badly in an audition show, released a single anyway (which also faired badly) and hasn't subsequently done anything, so that rules him out under WP:Bio. In terms of WP:Music there don't seem to be any non trivial sources that I can find, so it seems he woudl fail that too. His lower end charting with a novelty single should perhaps be mentioned on the The X Factor page as noted above. I note that the creator has invoked a WP:WAX on Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 and I also note that this improbably long-named Swede's article has already survived an AfD debate - so Wikipedia has therefore already answered that question. A1octopus 11:52, 5 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, obvious WP:NFT failure. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People-counts

Neologism Nv8200p talk 14:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete a pointless article if ever I saw one, prob hoax --PrincessBrat 14:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This may even be a speedy delete since notability is not asserted. --Charlene 14:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, probable nonsense or neologism, unsourced – Qxz 14:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - and I have tagged it for such on the article itself. As per Charlene, there is no notability asserted. Aside from that, no sources are provided, and did you catch a glimpse of the names of the "legendary heroes" that invented this sport? I am surprised this page made it past our diligent recent pages patrollers. ◄Zahakiel ► 16:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Deleted by Majorly. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 11:31Z

[edit] KEVIN ROLLE

Only ghits for Kevin D. Rolle is a comedy/comic strip writer; unverifiable, non-notable. --Walor 14:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipdia is not a platform for self-aggrandizing mystics. Bobanny 18:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete. Per above. Non-notable. Page is horribly made, would require overly substantial rewring even if it wer notable. Article title is even against wikipedia's naming conventions(ALL CAPS)--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 19:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I can find verifable sources for the kid going to college early, but the youth ambassador stuff can't be verified. I've asked for sources and prodded it once. Philippe Beaudette 21:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete unencyclopedic — Selmo ^(talk) 05:57, 4 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 11:31Z

[edit] Yuriy Leonovich

This is a user page that user switched to main encyclopedia - it's vain person who believes he's important, but is not notable to the world in general. The key, though, is that if he truly is important enough to have an article in the encyclopedia, he needs to wait and let someone else write it, rather than writing about himself. As a result of writing his own autobiographical entry, this page is full of unverifiable information. 129humility 15:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because Leonovich is not world famous does not make him any less noted. He has had works performed in Carnegie hall, and completed Tchaikovsky's Cello Concerto. 129humility needs to stop his or her personal quest to delete Mr. Leonovich's biography on Wikipedia. Instead of trying to improve Wikipedia by looking real problems, he or she is making persistant hits on a solitary individual that he or she might or might not know personally. I am well aware of Wikipedia rules of vanity and promotion. I am here to state the facts. As you can see, there is a legitimate reference on the Yuriy Leonovich page: www.tchaikovsky-research.org. This page is mainained by Brett Langston and Alexander Poznansky, authors of the Tchaikovsky Handbook, and other well known biographies on Tchaikovsky's life. The authors are used as references on different pages on Wikipedia. I am not here to explain my means of obtaining information. However, I'd like to see the end of attacks on this article.

Comment: I don't see where in the article it is asserted that Leonovich has had works performed in Carnegie Hall, nor how this is verified. It does mention that he has performed at carnegie hall with a religious figure, but I fail to see how this makes him important as a classical musician. As for the Tchaikovsky, while this may be notable, it does not necessarily make Leonovich notable. This is similar to the argument that a professor with one important paper is notable. I believe, and numerous wikipedians agree with me, that the appropriate action would be to mention Leonovich in the context of an article on the Tchaikovsky, rather than to create an article about him. Also, Mr. Lysenko, could you please sign messages with your username, rather than a name that doesn't verify whether you're a seperate user or not? Thanks! 129humility 22:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sergei Lysenko 16:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment, guys, rather than fighting at least one party should bother to get some verifiable non-trivial second party references. If they exist there is absolutely no reason for an AfD and further nominations would just get a speedy treatment Alf^Photoman 17:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a second party reference would be. I also don't understand why "humility" believe that I am Mr. Leonovich. That seems to be his only claim, of me writing about myself. I met Mr. Leonovich once, breifly, and have no personal ties to him. And the fact that an important author on Tchaikovsky has noted Mr. Leonovich as someone of importance, seem to me as a good reason to keep the page alive.

- A second party reference would be some published material that verifies all of the information presented. As is, one is forced to wonder how you, who claim to have met Leonovich only once, could know all of the facts about his history, his childhood teachers' names, and his many unperformed works, unless they were published in, for instance, some reputable biography. That would count as second party. Personal recollections or interviews are considered new research, and are not allowed on wikipedia. Finally, as to my assertion that you are Leonovich: the fact that your facebook profile gives your username as your AIM username and your AOL email address, and that this biography started as your own personal user page seem to be pretty big indicators that you and Leonovich are one and the same person. That and the fact that hours after I had initially questioned the validity of this page, you had mentioned in on your facebook account. 129humility 22:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Maestroukr Sergei Lysenko 17:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I don't see notability asserted in the article. If it was confused as self-promotion, it's because that's how it reads. There are lots of cellists and composers in the world, not all are notable. I'll change my vote if notability is established, i.e., via reliable sources. Bobanny 18:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are 2 sources to begin with:

http://www.kontinent.org/article_rus_44ef8d4888e0a.html . (this article is in Russian, from a Russian-American paper: Kontinent). However, the article is no less valuable in a differnt language. http://www.tchaikovsky-research.org/en/Works/th249.html is by a noted Tchaikovsky biographer Brett Langston, who gives credit to Mr. Leonovich for completing Tchaikovsky's unfinished concerto.

Sergei Lysenko 22:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are not Yuriy Leonovich, then by an amazing coincidence, your user name is the same as his email address. I understand your concern that a self-authored article runs a bigger chance of being deleted, but you should be honest with the process - it makes it easier for us to assume good faith. As to the article, unfortunately, I can't read the first source, but I hope that the closing admin makes sure that somebody does before this AfD closes. The second source is a trivial mention, but it links to this page [5], which, while written by Leonvich himself, seems to be a scholarly work on his completion of the concerto. It seems to me that it would confer notability, if completing the concerto was a notable or unique occurrence in the music field (much like a mathematician solving or proving a famous theorem or equation). Unfortunately, most of us lack the frame of reference for determining if this is a notable act, so sources would be needed to support the following questions: Was the concerto "famous" for being unfinished? Are there any other sources on the concerto and Leonvich's modifications? Has the completed concerto been played anywhere? These are the questions that need to be answered to avoid deletion. Officially, put me down as a Weak Delete - CosmicPenguin (Talk)

Can't one pay homage when creating a user name, or any nickname in general?

Sergei Lysenko 13:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

weak delete I am a little puzzled by this article, for while the items in it seem reasonable, there are not the expected number of sources for this point in a career.DGG 22:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete WP is not a suitable vehicle for autobiography. Virtually everything is written by User:Maestroukr, who also signs as Sergei Lysenko. It may be he is notable, but that is for others to judge, not the subject of the article. Peterkingiron 23:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - no indication he passes WP:MUSIC, WP:N, and the article certainly fails WP:ATT and WP:RS. And yes, autobiography is not acceptable. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Even without considering notability (and on that score I think he does fail WP:MUSIC) the article clearly fails WP:COI because its autobiographical. Also, as mentioned about, lack of sources is failure of WP:RS. A1octopus 20:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Leaving aside the autobiography issue--Yuriy, I really wish I could believe you, but people just don't take other people's online handles as a "tribute" -- the article fails our core policies of verifiability and reliable sources. Sorry. I wish you well in your career; you're off to a great start; but Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. Antandrus (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Putting aside all of the opinions about who did what, and who is who, this article fails qualifications as a Wikipedia article, and needs to be deleted. Kyle 04:12, 8 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indigenous Aryan Theory

I request opinions on this article, which since its creation has been a magnet for edit-warring (with WP:3RR and other problems) [6] and of a lot of uncivility and disputes on the talkpage.

About one half to two thirds of this article can already be found in the Out of India Theory and in the Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) articles. The remaining part of the article could be safely merged as a section into the OIT, AIT and Hindu nationalism articles. Most of it can easily find place in OIT, and the rest in the other two articles.

Here we have an article that claims to be about the "ideological position" that may manifest itself as "Out of India Theory", and that seems to have been created to paint views such as the "criticism of Aryan migration theories" as some sort of Hindu nazism. The article has also neutrality issues.

It does not need a separate article. Wikipedia has articles on theories like Armenian hypothesis, Paleolithic Continuity Theory and many other theories, but Wikipedia has not articles only on the psychological motives or ""ideological position" for these theories. Such claims belong in the article of the theory, not in a separate article.

I suggest that this article be merged as a section into the mentioned articles, or that at least a suitable title for this article is found. Such a title could be Ideological positions in the Indo-Aryan migration debate or maybe Out of India Theory (Ideological positions). --RF 01:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC) RF 01:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - The term nets a whopping 132 ghits and is uncited in any sort of academic journal. This page is dabcruft.Baka man 02:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Not exactly, This guy appears to claim to have invented the term in a 1997 Columbia dissertation (now he is at Harvard), and presumably uses it in his book published by Oxford University Press Johnbod 18:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment:I have read that book. In my opinion, Bryant's "Indigenous Aryan" is just another name for Out of India Theory or Indian Urheimat Theory, and we have an article for that. The creator of the article may disagree with my opinion here. --RF 19:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Find sources: Indigenous Aryan — news, books, scholar

it is not, as you can read up in the article. "OIT" is shoddy scholarship, while "Indigenous Aryans" is nationalist propaganda. The two overlap, of course. Bakaman's google search is spurious of course (surprise, surprise), since it includes the "theory" part which we want to get rid of by a {{move}} anyway. (as you can extrapolate from Bakaman's 'dabcruft' neologism, this isn't even about any topical issue for him anymore, he just follows me around wikipedia and tries to disrupt things in various small ways). "Indigenous Aryan position" is just a term for what proponents (or should we say, disseminators) prefer to call things like "exciting new emerging evidence found by eminent professors" (and permutations, ad nauseam), which is hardly preferable as an article title. dab (𒁳) 16:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Follow? The pages have been on my watchlist since time immemorial, I dont need to follow you around to see what goes on on WP:DSI, or any of the hundreds of pages on my watchlist.Baka man 17:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - insufficient notability per above searches. Addhoc 17:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not saying the term doesn't exist, merely that it doesn't warrant its own article. Addhoc 18:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry - moved comment up - was intended to refer to Bakasupram's one Johnbod 18:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Per proven lack of notability.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 19:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Bad faith nom using AfD to make a point, coinciding with numerous personal attacks, by a POV-pushing contingent of editors. Article is extremely well referenced. This discussion belongs on a talk page, not at AfD. - WeniWidiWiki 19:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Are you referring to your own personal attacks above?--RF 19:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Actually I would be referring to User:Bakasuprman referring to the article with the derogatory dabcruft at this AfD Diff and user:WIN repeatedly referring to Dab as a "hypocrate" (sic) Diff. I forgot to mention the numerous violations of WP:CANVASS and vote-stacking which surround this AfD as well as the conveniently timed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann the same series of editors are involved in. - WeniWidiWiki 20:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Win has not voted on this AFD. I am also not responsible for the personal attacks that the involved editors exchange with each other on the IAT and other articles. If this article gets merged, I am resposible that there will be one page less where they can exchange this. The allegations of vote-stacking surrounding this AFD are interesting, care to explain this? I'm not involved in any way with the RFC on Dbachmann, which was not started by me. My decision to put this article up for discussion came after the AFD for the Nicholas Kazanas article which made me again for a short time active on wikipedia, where I began a discussion on the Talk:Indigenous_Aryan_Theory, which you can read there. --RF 20:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
      - Wend Wiki sems to know nothing on the situation but quick to assign names to people. How about you add "Dab is incapable of failure" and "all those who oppose him are trolls" to your statement as well?Baka man 21:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, well sourced and referenced. We don't have to like it. On the other side, considering the whole history of this article ... Alf^Photoman 20:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I did not say that the content should be deleted, did I? I said that it should be best merged into OIT and the other articles, or at the very least a non-confusing article title be found. --RF 20:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a proposal... instead of screaming at me find a new title, would be a meaningful use of your time Alf^Photoman 20:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The IAT == OIT reduction is absurd. Generally, writers in the IAT rubric avoid trying to make definitive statements about OIT (and even if they do, the theorising usually ends at the Hindu Kush), or dismiss linguistics altogether. Bryant's book as a source is unfortunate, because as anyone familiar with the popular literature knows, the indigenousness of the Aryans has to do with (a) the indigenousness of Hinduism in all its antecedents and, thus since the 1920s, (b) the relation between the Vedas and the IVC. Everything else is secondary. Bryant does not cover these aspects in any particular depth. But they are the core of the "position", and rife with fringecruft. The point of this article in WP is to offer a home for the kookery, rather than have the nonsense vitiate other subjects. There really is no "debate". It's all jingoistic pseudo-historiography. rudra 20:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- If Bryants book as a source is unfortunate, this means that you are also somehow confused over the article title? I admit I am still confused over the article title, and its relation to Bryant's use of the term (in my opinion Bryant uses it as a synonim for OIT). Which authors on history then advocate IAT as opposed to OIT? The creator of the article has defined the article this way: It is about the ideological position that may manifest itself as OIT, among a couple of other positions. [7] And looking at the content, I see no reason why it cannot be merged to OIT, AIT and Hindu nationlism. --RF 20:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Personally, I think "Indigenous Aryanism" might have been better, or even "'Indigenous Aryan' Thesis" (note the two levels of quotes). And I disagree with your reading of Bryant. It's fairer to say that Bryant would like to equate the two (mainly because he considers linguistics important), but this confuses the theoretical implications of mainstream linguistics with the historiographic concerns of the IA "school". rudra 20:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Even if it were correct that Bryant's term is about the same thing that the article is about (which I doubt), the term is not in current use outside the work of Bryant. Bryant is notable, but not every term coined or used by him must automatically be so. The term IAT was already used by H. V. Sreenivasa Murthy in 1963 in A History of Ancient India. --RF 11:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
      - Please stop playing word games. No one has to wait for someone to coin a term like "Indigenous Aryan(ism)" for the subject to remain in limbo otherwise. Conjoining "indigenous" and "Aryan" in a phrase has been around for a long time, earlier than 1963 for sure. (Try Vol I (1951) of Majumdar's History and Culture of the Indian People, Appendix to Chapter X.) If you want a subject title like "Indigenousness of Aryans to the Indian Subcontinent", say so, instead of quibbling. Thanks. rudra 18:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Exact quote, in case you were interested: "The theory of the indigenous origin of the Aryans has been advocated by a number of scholars." A footnote says: "This Appendix is based on a long note on the subject prepared by Prof. S. Srikanta Sastri and most of the arguments are advanced by Mr. K.M. Munshi in Glory that was Gurjaradeśa, I, Section II". That's 1955, if you please. rudra 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - The linguistic claims in the article can fit in OIT page, the historical, ideological and socio-political aspects of the discussion are already covered in Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies). Although some of the better referenced material (Witzel's comments after being made NPOV) from this article should be moved to that page. The article still has lots of errors, items identified with footnote 3 and 7 are misrepresentation of the referenced material. This article doesn't add any new value to the discussion, but is full of all kind of original research.Sbhushan 23:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Per rudra comment about a home for the kookery, the fact it is well referenced and that Google alone should not decide deletion - many notable things are not referenced elsewhere on the Internet - that is what makes Wikipedia important, especially articles that are written with non-Internet sources. mceder (u t c) 13:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The "meta" issue here, as I'm sure you realize, and as I'm equally sure no one is prepared to admit, is that isolating kookery is precisely what is not wanted by those pushing for deletion. Because it would lead to removal of material from articles on subjects of legitimate scholarly concern, and thus lose "air time" for the fringecruft that seeks to gain respectability by association. The IAM and OIT articles are disasters already - reducing them should be the order of the day. rudra 21:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

speedy keep (no brainer), and move, per the discussion on talk, either to simple indigenous Aryans, or to a wider scope like Hindutva revisionism, Hindutva and pseudoscience or similar. The Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) should be either {{split}}, or be a concise WP:SS article; this is all editing business, not Afd business, and we'd have rectified things month ago were it not for our resident Hindutva trolling team. dab (𒁳) 16:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Could I suggest you make some effort to comply with the civility policy? Addhoc 17:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would argue against widening the scope, as Hindutva revisionism involves more than just fulminating against 19th century straw men. rudra 18:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"Hindutva revisionism"? You mean the article title should not only be confusing and "OR", it should also be pov? What else do you want to include into this "wider scope"? The Holocaust revisionism in India is currently not carried out by the Hindutva folk. So what kind of other "Hindutva revisionism" are you talking about?

The AIT article should be split, and be merged to IAT and other articles? AIT is the most common name for that article, while IAT is not common at all. And by policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions the most commonly used name in English should be used. You said on the IAT talkpage "A decent cleanout of offtopic observations on Nazis, imperialism and 19th century Romanticism just used to add spin ("Role in Imperialism and Nazism") would reduce it to about half its present size; the "Political and religious issues" could be merged here, while "Early history of the theory" could be summarized in the IAM article." What is meant by a decent cleanout? --Rayfield 20:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep It is essential to the neutrality of WP that articles about historical theories espoused by different political groups be maintained equitably. That such a theory is under attack as representing the view of only a nationalist group, is all the more reason to support it. The article seems reasonably fair and adequately referenced. That this is not the mainstream theory held on a global basis is made clear. Any effort at suppression of any POV by technical arguments, or by detailed discussion of the weakness of prima fascia RSs, or by merging in such a way as to diminish the influence or the number of articles of the minority group in such matters is to be guarded against by resolving doubts by keeping the article. (And personally, I skip over discussions of the editors involved; I think most uninvolved people here would do so also, and so I do not see the purpose of such attacks.) DGG 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps Keep - I know little of this subject, but if it is to be kept, it needs to be expanded to provide context, or alternatively it should be merged with something else that does so. It is evident from the fact that is has had to be semi-protected that the subject must be controversial. If so, it must ensure that there is a neutral point of view, by ensuring that both sides of the argument are presented with their strengths and weaknesses exposed. Peterkingiron 00:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Most contents in the article can be found in the Out of India Theory and in the Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) articles. Insufficient notability and repeated content. _{Freedom skies| talk} 01:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per RF's nom. The article does not conform to a neutral point of view, nor is it a justifiable fork of the AIT and Hindutva articles. An encyclopedia is not meant to promote new interpretations - the views of Bryant and Sen deserve acknowledgment but within the main article. Rama's arrow 03:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Rama's Arrow. Is a POV-fork, Dab's suggestion of moving the article to Hindutva and pseudoscience or Hindutva historical revisionism indicates the intentions of the article. I know Dab is quite knowledgeable on the topic, but Wikipolicy does not allow that as an excuse for him to express his views indiscriminately on Wikipedia articles. For example, most of the "Mainstream rebuttals" created by Dab on pages like Out of India theory are unsourced while the "Pseudoscientific arguments" put forward are very well sourced. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 08:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- huh? are we going to delete pseudoscience or revisionism too, since they expose crank views as crank views? The fact that you vote delete rather than merge shows that you are just out to get rid of something you don't like. We have entire categories that discuss Category:Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, Category:Propaganda of the Soviet Union, Category:Nazi propaganda and Category:Propaganda in the United States. And we're suppose to delete an article on Hindutva propaganda just because there are a couple of editors on Wikipedia who attempt to abuse the project as a propaganda tool? Much to the contrary, it requires an extra effort to screen out the propagandist pov-pushing and create a solid and well-referenced article describing their approaches. "Indigenous Aryan" is just one central aspect of this propaganda stunt, and I agree the article could be moved to Hindutva propaganda, Hindutva pseudoscience, Hindutva revisionism or whatever you prefer, but Wikipedia will not allow propagandists, or those misled by propagandists, succeed in pretending that their propaganda does not in fact exist and its discussion belongs "deleted". Quoth the arbcom, "use of Wikipedia for political propaganda is prohibited." Yet this is constantly done by our resident "Hindutva half-dozen". It is time we protected Wikipedia more effectively against such attacks, since attacks they are. This AfD is just a little incident in this epic story, of course, but it is very instructive on the present state of things. dab (𒁳) 11:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  - We already have an article for historical, ideological and socio-political aspects of this controversy as Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) (AIT). That article was a featured aritcle [[8]] due to hard work of lots of editors. So what exactly is the point of creating another article for same topic. There is some good content in this article that should be moved to AIT article.Sbhushan 14:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    - then argue for merging, what is this doing on AfD?? I am discussing possible merges and splits on the talkpage you know. Regarding "formerly featured", that's a joke. See here: That was back in 2004, under the title Aryan invasion theory. FAC criteria were rather different back then. this is what it looked like. FACing something like this today would violate WP:SNOW. But of course, if Wikipedia wasn't spammed by Hindutva trolls, it would be much easier to reach FA quality again. dab (𒁳) 19:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      - merging with OIT and AIT is proposed as per original request [[9]]. Interesting comment about "trolls", since you are sole source of the OR in this article.Sbhushan 19:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Dab, you said that this article was the equivalet of Hindutva and historical revisionism. I have no problems with your views being included on the article saying that "The theory is associated by some as Hindutva propaganda". But the fact that you believe this article is worthy of moving to Hindutva and historical revisionism means that it is just a POV-fork of Out of India theory where you can show everyone who Hindutvavaadis are evil historical revisionists while the 19th Western people that made the idea of a migration into India are learned and had no political motivations. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

if you would please read the article, you will note that this is not the case. "out of India" can be proposed without "indigenous Aryans" ideology (Schlegel; Elst at least claims to not follow this ideology. Funny tough he should write a dissertation on Hindutva (sympathetic), and then, for completely unrelated reasons, come up with a "out of India" suggestion), and "indigenous Aryans" can be proposed without any sort of "out of India" concepts (such as, by ideologues who ignore linguistics or reject Indo-European as a colonialist conspiracy). Neither article is a true sub-topic of the other. dab (𒁳) 14:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case can you demonstrate couple of things 1) How is this article different from AIT and why should it not be included as subsection there. AIT is better referenced article, more encyclopedic article for same content. 2) Why does the article not say upfront that this is about sentimennt that rejects linguistic relations and the only theory this can be compatible with is "Out of India". Bryant made this clear statment (2001 page 6), that I have explained to you number of times with exact words from Bryant. I also explained to you yesterday why joining 2 words and creating argument is OR, we need peer reviewed material [[10]]. Sbhushan 14:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep, does a good job at discussing the connections and differences between the various strands of thinking involved. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep The fact that the issue is loaded with political implications is not a criterion for deletion (I know it's not cited as one, but it's obvious what's going on here). There's northing wrong with the article, it looks very referenced to me.--Domitius 20:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The term is an inherent neologism, not being cited in any of the works explicitly.Baka man 02:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep per WeniWidiWiki, I would have said similar but in a more toned down manner.Mathmo ^Talk 05:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep : There is nothing wrong with this article and entire world agree for this fact. Afd proposed to achieve political agendas, discriminatory to millions of people in India, especially the minorities, 'Lower' castes. This theory is OR and had been debated thoroughly and rejected by academics and progressive political parties in India."world specialists on ancient India", voicing "mainstream academic opinion in India, Pakistan, the United States, Europe, Australia, Taiwan and Japan" on the issue, is now part of a concerted campaign encompassing well-known scholars and hundreds of teachers and parents against this 20th Century idea.John Paul 06:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments: Turn the pages of elementry school pages of any Indian school syllabus you will learn the truth, I believe those who are proposing Afd too know the truth. "If history was easy to change, Man would not have been using internet".Those who made efforts to change history are themself wiped off from history.

wow, Indian elementary school syllabus is now "Truth"? Would that be before or after the 1998-2004 indoctrination stunt by the BJP government? I suppose we should turn to Turkish elementary school syllabus to establish the Truth of Pan-Turkism, then? And, it would follow, to pre-2005 Dover Area School District curriculum to learn the Truth on Creation science? I think you'll need to WP:FORK (conservapedia.com? -- hindutvapedia.com!) if that's what you want. dab (𒁳) 13:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It looks to me well-sourced and well-written.--Yannismarou 07:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Apart from the article having it's merits and being well sourced, the proposer has since decided to retire from wikipedia on the same day as this afd. He Had also ~~raised~~ particpated in a rfc against the creator of this article, and taken sides with a person in dispute with the creator- the motive seems suspect. Haphar 08:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please clarify who do you refer to when you mention "retire from Wikipedia". I initiated RfC against the creator of the article (after making effort for 4 months on different article to remove OR and explain basic policy like WP:ATT to an admin). The article only has some sources NOW since I kept pushing to include sources (look at the previous version to see how many citation you can find [[11]]). Dab is STILL misquoting the sources in the article (items ref in (3) and (7)). He refuses to provide correct citation for controversial statements in the article or to remove the statements. I have been working with a third party mediator to tackle one issue at a time. Dab refuses to participate in the mediation effort. The question is do we need 2 article on Wikipedia to discuss same content? AIT is long established article for same content that is better referenced than this article and includes efforts of lot more than 1 editor.Sbhushan 14:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I refer to user Rayfield, or RF as the User signs. I correct my above statement-RF had "particpated" in a rfc and taken a stance opposed to dab.- Haphar 15:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)- Also in light with the request for deletion, it is misplaced as in the same request a suggestion to "merge" is also made, merge has a seperate template than afd, and if merge was the objective than the appropriate tags and discussion should have been placed and made. If the content can be added to the other article, then deletion / redirection suggestions can be looked at, but I think that should precede a request for deletion.Haphar 15:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify Rayfield (RF) has neither "certified" or "endorsed" the RfC. On talk page of RfC he has provided some advice (which any fair person would have difficulty disagreeing with) to Dab [[12]]. It would definately make it easy to work with Dab if he followed WP:CIVIL policy. I made effort over 4 months to resolve this, how long can I keep clapping with one hand. I am still having difficulty understanding how enforcing WP:ATT on all editors evenly is not the best solution to this controversial problem. Don't allow anyone's POV.Sbhushan 15:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Out of India Theory. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 12:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep or merge. "Indigenous Aryanism" gets enough Google results to be notable on its own, and it looks like there are good sources for describing Indigenous Aryanism as an ideological position. However, it may be more useful to have this material in the same article as the Out of India stuff, as that might give the reader a better idea of the role these theories play in contemporary Indian politics and culture, as well as international Vedic scholarship. I have to say I'm disturbed by the tone of this discussion, the AfD seems like it's about attacking a particular author rather than a sincere discussion of the content of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Out of India Theory. — goethean ॐ 17:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Rama's Arrow. way pov--D-Boy 23:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge and Delete Per rama's and others. This page is way too POV. THe existing pages can use what's here and assimilate it in a more NPOV manner. ThuranX 04:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep as a matter of course. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge and Delete - Merge with OIT and delete. Article reads like a POV fork in parts. Title is neologism. Sarvagnya 21:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by RHaworth. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 19:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historymon

Unclear or insufficient evidence of notability. Contested prod. Strangerer (Talk) 17:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete' per WP:NFT Danski14 17:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, WP:NFT isn't a speedy deletion criterion. However, speedy delete per CSD A7 (no assertion of notability). Will tag accordingly. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per notability guidelines. I can find no evidence of this game outside this entry. Lcarscad 17:53, 3 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

[edit] Richard Vobes

Contested WP:PROD, sending here for discussion. Original PROD rationale is here. Procedural nom, no opinion. Chick Bowen 17:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete - all external links are to sites affiliated with Vobes; no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Also possible issues with WP:COI as per prod rationale. Delete unless sourced by end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete , unsourced and unreferenced. If it changes by end of this AfD change to Keep Alf^Photoman 20:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep The original PROD says that the article was created by Richard Vobes himself for commercial gain. This is clearly not the case as the article was not created by Richard. The article contains information about Richard's contribution to podcasting. This is further supported by his contribution to Podcast User Magazine. Besides, he is quite well known in the Podcasting industry. Hohohob 22:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep. I doubt the BBC is affiliated with Vobes and their profiling him as an example of UK podcasting is significant. However, I'd prefer more than one source. Nuttah68 10:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Richard has been an extremely influential member of the podcasting community, has won awards for his "soundseeing tours" in the vobes.com show and has been part of the "audio blog" genre, via the nakeenglishman.co.uk. He has inspired many other peiople to podcast (including myself) and provides uniqueu content, which is consumed worldwide. All in all Richard has created over 1,000 prodcasts, which is more than the "podfather" himself, Mr Adam Curry. To consider "deleting" Richard's contribution would be like proving George Orwell correct. Ignore the doublethink: Keep the Vobe!pcogle 09:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete This page does seem rather like a self serving promotion. Since the original Wiki article was created, he has strayed from his original show concept which endured a small (as claimed) but loyal following and he never discusses exact listener figures. It's not apparent how he has been any sort of pioneer in anything watershed; the show is still similar to '70's radio morning shows. Many, many others have inspired others to become podcasters -- not just Vobes. Judging from the same contributors emails being constantly read, apparently the listener base remains stagnant.To echo an earlier commenter, where are the references and sources? BIGGUY 22:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC) note - edited to remove subjective qualitative statements
Keep. Richard Vobes provides listeners a window into English versus American culture, and therefore provides a valuable cross-cultural exchange which trancends any debate as to his value as a broadcaster. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.134.164.37 (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC).Vobes is a pioneer in podcasting and audio blogging - deleting him is deleting history - do not let it happen
Keep. Richard Vobes can justifably be seen as notable in that he has created children's Television programmes and produced his long running, regular, podcast. Earlier versions of the Wiki were certainly self-publicising but this situation has since improved. Subjective opinion as to the quality of his work do not add to this discussion. PRichards14 11:44, 7 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 02:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Miah

Autobiographical article with a big conflict of interest problem. Sources are primarily by the subject/primary editor of the article. Prod was contested (by the subject of the article}. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete - long list of publications may make him notable, but no evidence of multiple coverage in independent sources to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. Delete unless sourced by end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep - tacky self-promotion. The book section is inflated with book reviews. But his one book has got attention in the outside world according to a google search. Bobanny 18:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~, article lacks non-trivial second party sources and references, therefore failing WP:V, if sources are added i.a.w. WP:BIO change to Keep Alf^Photoman 23:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep, after being advised that there were in fact sources hidden in the article but not marked as such. Someone should clean it up Alf^Photoman 14:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - okay disclaimer: I have some professional connection with Miah (though I have never met him) and I would not comment if this were a less clear-cut case. The closing admin can take that into account and perhaps even discount my commnent. That said, he would be notable just for his book Genetically Modified Athletes, so I'm a bit puzzled as to why the article on him is up for deletion. Metamagician3000 23:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep (I was the one who removed the prod, and also edited the article, removing a great deal of the over-extensive list of references, etc.) In addition to the book, most of the articles in the list are in high-quality journals, and an outside source is provided by the book reviews at least. But they should have exact references for the purpose. It is not unusual for people to nominate articles by clearly notable scientists on the basis they wrote much of the article. But the question is the quality of the article, not who wrote it, and at this point I don't think there's much COI left.DGG 23:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge with the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies article. --Loremaster 18:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Upon some detailed exploration, one can find that references are indeed tucked away in the article. The article has improved quite a bit since it was AfD'd and even more since it was prodded (see diff). My reading of the current version reveals no real COI issues, and a look at the edit history shows that they were removed over the past few days. -- Black Falcon 21:57, 7 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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of calculators

Although I confess to accessing this page while looking for a list of casio calculators, WP:NOT a collection of links, or a directory. The page is almost useless, at least 95% of the links are redlinks, and few of the articles would ever contain any useful information without becoming instruction manuals, which WP:NOT. Most of the lists are in neither numerical or chronological order, and there is no consistency of style or content. It's unknown and difficult to determine whether the lists are current or comprehensive, as there are no references or cited sources. All in all, this list needs an enormous amount of work itself, and the effort needed to establish the hundreds of articles it links to is simply titanic. Without all those redlinks linking to functional articles, the list is useless, and even if the faries were to accomplish that, and remain within the confines of WP:NOT, what would we be have then? A glorified category which can't update itself. Useless. Happy-melon 18:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete or change to a category - unnecessary list, too broad, unsourced. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. As the nominator says, a category would be better as it can update itself automatically; a broad range of devices can be described as "calculators" and more are developed every year, making it hard to keep this list accurate and up-to-date. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom - Happy-melon 19:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 19:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - something like "Calculators through History" might be an encyclopedia article, but this definitely isn't. In fact, that's a really interesting idea for an article. --Haemo 00:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - i have also accessed this list in the past. It is a useful list, with a number of redlinks so that people can create articles on these calculators in the future - something with a category can't do. THE KING 00:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete in current form as too unencyclopaedic. Suriel1981 23:49, 5 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 11:29Z

[edit] Computer Concepts (USA)

Seems relatively non-notable (WP:N), and self-promotional (WP:Vanity). Rebroad 18:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete - no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:CORP. Delete unless sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No assertion of notability. Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. -- MarcoTolo 20:05, 3 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: fails WP:MUSIC, non notable. Also a copyvio of the band's homepage, so speedy delete as well. Fram 13:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ligion

The subject of the article does not meet any of the criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 18:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep - I just did Google search and it seems slightly notable. Needs massive cleanup though--양복⁴² 18:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - It's a press release, not an article. Notability is not established in the article; in fact, it asserts non-notability by pointing out they're unsigned. Sounds like band members spend a lot of time phoning in requests to the local radio station. Bobanny 18:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Band is not notable enough yet. May become so in the near future but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also this article fails WP:Advert at present as well. Therefore delete the article now and the creator or others may re-post it in the correct style if/when the band become notbale enough to warrant it. A1octopus 16:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The band is in fact signed, though what will become of them in the future is in fact unknown. The article does require a lot of clean up, and should be started from scratch - it appears that it was taken directly from the band's official site. Shinigami Niko 23:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The criteria is the band has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels. Who is Maple Jam Records? -Nv8200p talk 01:56, 8 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 11:32Z

[edit] Carlos Rivero

Not notable

Delete. single sentence, no notability. Bobanny 18:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete.. Potential canidate for CSD:A1 and CSD:A7.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 19:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as above, does not even try to establish notability Alf^Photoman 20:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete under CSD:A1 and A7. --Dookama 20:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete I deleted this once before and it came back. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 20:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete or speedy - I originally prodded this as I thought that calling him an "author" and "composer" might imply an assertion of notability. However, I will accept speedy delete per CSD A7 (no assertion of notability). Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete violation of WP:BIO. No notability --K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 23:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
delete non-important artist from Argentina. --Mariano(t/c) 11:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Deleted. No assertion of notability, self-referential tone, conflict of interest (from both editors), borderline spam - overall, it has to go. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skylab exhibition

Contested speedy deletion... whatever this is, it needs to cite some published sources and explain its importance or it should be deleted. Article may be a conflict of interest autobiography. --W.marsh 19:07, 3 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: unsourced, unverifiable. Fram 13:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beep talking

Appears to be a non-notable phenomenon, consisting entirely of WP:OR, with serious WP:V issues. I've found nothing with a quick perusal on google: [13] and [14] Part Deux 19:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete appears to be unverifiable. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, NN although an interesting addition to busy signal if a source could be found. I'm pretty sure this was possible only on some non-standard, non-Bell phone systems.--Dhartung | Talk 19:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep important part of culture in areas with low-tech phone switching equipment. Nardman1 20:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Nardman. Is there any chance you could come up with a source for that? Even print sources would be better than nothing. Part Deux 21:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Unsourced and Google returns nothing but this article and mirrors on this subject. If someone could provide sources I would reconsider. Nuttah68 10:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete I can't find anything on this, if someone adds some sources, I'd change my vote. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:05, 9 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-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CAWs.ws

Non-notable forum and fansite. Was kept at the previous AfD without many !voters, but I don't feel it meets notability guidelines. The mention in Gamesmaster magazine is trivial coverage per WP:WEB, and states "Our favourite is www.caws.ws, which has CAWs so realistic they look like they've been photographed - and, um, some slightly less realistic ones. Check these out..." with a few pictures of images. The article fails WP:ATT as the entire article is written from the primary source, there is no non-trivial coverage in secondary sources from which an encyclopedic article can be created. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION!

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

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

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Delete as original research and failing to establish notability by reference to on-trivial secondary independent sources. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep the website certainly is a notable one and should be kept. It is the largest fansite serving users of wrestling games with a CAW mode. Since the article was created, the site has tripled in size. As an example the main community areas have had more than 1.4 million messages posted to them in just under a year and the website as a whole has gone from 2m hits a month to more than 2m a day. Can be verified at johnb [at] caws.ws.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.11.253 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 3 March 2007.— 86.143.11.253 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - This is not an argument for inclusion under WP:WEB. The number of user and messages posted does not apply for notability under WP:WEB. Unless you can find independent, reliable sources that assert and support notability this article should be deleted. --Haemo 00:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete - This article may or may not be original research. Answers.com has pretty much the same information, but I'm betting that it was simply copied from Wikipedia. However, there is still little attribution and I don't see too much in the way of Notability. The only media coverage is a weak mention in a magazine. Kopf1988 16:59, 4 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 11:27Z

[edit] Doc Marten Skins

The article does not assert that the subject meets any criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 19:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete They aren't actually a band anyway, so shouldn't meet WP:MUSIC. The name DMS is quite widespread in hardcore, Madball frequently reference it and have released albums called Droppin' Many Suckers and Demonstrating My Style, but I don't think they are notable enough for an article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unsourcable band, so fails WP:Music. A1octopus 19:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Deleted, copyvio. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific immortology

Neologism and original research. --Lambiam ^Talk 19:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete There are 4 hits for it on Google. - PoliticalJunkie 20:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete immortology?... not for this one Alf^Photoman 20:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete The text is also just pasted from the homepage for "Scientific immortology". Meaningful username 20:15, 3 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 11:27Z

[edit] Mohammad Yaghoobi

There is no assertion of notability for the subject that meets the criteria of WP:BIO. Nv8200p talk 20:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO or WP:PROF by end of this AfD. Due to the total lack of secondary sources this article fails WP:ATT Alf^Photoman 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 01:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete. The subject should be cited more by other professionals and needs more than a handful of minor awards to reach the notability threshold. Vassyana 10:25, 8 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 11:23Z

[edit] Chemfluence

Contested prod. Upcoming festival with no real assertion of notability, no independent sources. 31 unique Ghits, and couldn't find any reliable sources among them. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ugh delete this spam. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 3 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 11:34Z

[edit] Michael Chaney (Australian businessman)

Reads like a resume, no sources cited, deleted once as CSD A7. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Although the article needs to be cleaned up, Michael Chaney seems rather notable. Being chairman of the largest bank in Australia (National Australia Bank) and a director of the world's largest mining company (BHP Billiton) seems pretty significant. - PoliticalJunkie 20:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD. This article lacks totally second party sources and therefore fails WP:ATT Alf^Photoman 23:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep per sources found by Black Falcon Alf^Photoman 01:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep per the following sources: [15][16][17][18]. I will incorporate the sources into the article at my first opportunity (unless someone beats me to it). Btw, the NAB is the equivalent of Bank of America in the US, so it's chairman is sure to be notable. -- Black Falcon 00:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per PoliticalJunkie and Black Falcon. Certainly notable but needs clean up. --Bduke 01:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. On the board of two of the top 10 Australian companies and the director of another notable Australian company Wesfarmers see [19]. While the article needs a cleanup, Chaney definitely meets WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 01:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, clearly a notable business personality. Lankiveil 11:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
Keep This is DEFINATELY notable, and a quality stub on a quality person. Smbarnzy 12:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 01:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and seriously think about sanctioning nominator if he keeps making ludicrous nominations like this, let alone trying to speedy delete them first. Rebecca 00:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I have cleaned up the entry a little. I agree with Bec's comments. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Highly notable, but in need of fixing. NAB is the biggest of Australia's "big four", and his role at Wesfarmers, a prominent Australian company, adds to this. Orderinchaos78 13:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Notable enough. —Moondyne 00:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. As per above I elliot 13:53, 6 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slovio

A constructed language. No evidence of notability, seems to be part of a walled garden of articles relating to Mark Hucko, some of which are already deleted, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multi-level cosmology. Article is completely unsourced, presumably original research. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I'm a bit skeptical, but most of the googlehits are wikipedia and other similar sites. I get the impression that this might become more popular in the future, but right now I don't think it's notable. fraggle 22:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Actually, Slovio is one of the more well-known international auxiliary languages. I don't see why Slovio shouldn't have the right to have it's article, when much lesser known conlangs like Novial, Interlingue and Solresol may stay. I even came to the article to look up information on the language. It would be a loss for Wikipedia if it got deleted. — N-true 22:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Through a Google search, I found 2 (seemingly independent and reliable) sources that address the language non-trivially: [20] and [21]. Based on this, I would say the subject meets WP:N, even if only just. -- Black Falcon 00:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The first link is short overview of grammar, the second link is a very NN website. Pavel Vozenilek 15:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability does not require that the sources themselves be notable, only that they be reliable. -- Black Falcon 18:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment WP:N requires the sources be non-trivial. I'd argue the omniglot article is trivial, as it's nothing but a short overview, and is nothing but an internet website. A non-trivial source, by contrast, would be a mention in a published book or magazine. I haven't found any in a google books search. Also, "non-trivial" would mean saying more than just "here is a constructed language we found on the internet." In this case, though, if there is something like a medium (newspaper, even bulletin board system) where writers seriously USE Slovio, I can see that making this article notable. Basically, let's try to prove that someone other than Mark Hucko finds this language useful. Davidicke 21:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I will readily admit that the article has/had notability concerns, but disagree with some of your statements above. Like you, I too prefer physically-published or publishable materials (books, journals, news) over websites. But, an internet website, as long as it reliable, is still a source. I believe the overview in the Omniglot page satisfies "non-triviality" because Slovio is the page's primary (nay, sole) focus. A trivial overview would be limited to: "Slovio is a constructed language invented by Mark Hucko.". It may be appropriate to merge this article into Mark Hucko, or vice versa, but I view that to be an editorial issue, which I would rather leave to those articles' talk pages and their editors (who are probably more specialised in matters related to constructed languages and their inventors). -- Black Falcon 21:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:MADEUP. And from WP:N, "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Thus, I would like to see more than an Omniglot overview. But I agree with you that merge into Mark Hucko might work, if Mark Hucko is notable himself at all. Davidicke 18:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the article is not original research (it does not invent anything new and does not claim Slovio is used). I am not aware of Slovio being mentioned in any Czech media and AFAICS in Slovak media. A text written in Slovio is marginally understandable to me (a Czech who had learned (and forgot) Russian long ago) but IMHO it has snowball in the hell chance to be actually used. Pavel Vozenilek 15:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment 2: If kept, clean up the ext. links section and add http://www.zvestia.com/, which is a currently active news site in Slovio. Pavel Vozenilek 16:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The nominator has suggested that the article is is "completely unsourced" and "presumably original research". Neither of these assertions are accurate: the links provided in the "External links" section account for a significant portion of the text (and the existence of published material, however little, dispels concerns of OR). The article should have in-text references, but this is not equivalent to "completely unsourced". -- Black Falcon 18:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 18:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with N-true, this would be a loss for wiki if deleted. THE KING 01:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. There is a clear reference to Slovio's Omniglot page, which for me is a good source and a big indicator of notability. Poeloq 01:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, Omniglot also lists many alphabets for languages that were created by visitors to this site (an aspect of Omniglot, that I absolutely dislike) and still wouldn't qualify for Wikipedia; but Slovio does not belong to them, of course. — N-true 01:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete this article, reconsider if a full article is written. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 11:22Z

[edit] The Highway Beautiful

Band with only one album and very few informations about it. -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 20:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. There are quite a few google hits for this. If there was more information in the article I would vote to keep it, but as it is, I vote to delete it. fraggle 22:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Nothing notable claimed unless it's "intelligent pop" --Richhoncho 23:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete Band appears to be borderline notable but this article is hopeless. Perhaps it could be improved? A1octopus 19:25, 6 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Beal (composer)

Tihs article was deleted once as an autobiography, created by User:Johnbeal. It was re-created by a new user, User:Bsteph1, who started editing after Johnbeal stopped. I believe they are one and the same. The article is pretty much completely unsourced. IMDB [22] shows Beal to be a jobbing composer of music for minor productions - "specializing in composition for theatrical marketing", i.e. writing advertising soundtracks. Check also the links to reeltime music, this person;s company. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment this isn't a copyvio? [23]. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Hi, I'm brand new at this. I did not know there was already an article about John Beal. Where is the article? I created this because I could not find one. I am not John Beal. I became a fan of his when he was the composer for the hit TV shows "Vega$" and "Eight is Enough." I have listed a few articles I found about him. I have tried to rewrite the facts and avoid plagiarism, but... Would someone like to help me edit this to make it okay? There are bios of him all over the internet. According to this bio you cited, he's scored 35 theatrical or television films and documentaries, 26 major network television series or specials, and has been music director for over 20 major network specials. If you look at his credits on the IMDb for the 70's and 80's they're almost all hit shows. That's hardly minor. Bsteph1 07:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
comment I notice the rather short lengths of the relevant sections in the references, and commend the creator for his honesty in retaining such data..DGG 00:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep unless the Holywood Symphony Orchestra is also a hoax. But the article needs better referencing. NBeale 23:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. While the article needs some work, the subject is certainly notable. Vassyana 10:31, 8 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 blatant hoax = vandalism ~ trialsanderrors 01:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neddia

Supposedly a hurricane that hit Tahiti aka Otaheite. No references: only reference is to page that doesn't exist. No google hits: searched for Neddia & hurricane. Possible WP:HOAX. Prod removed by only author. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Such a precise date gives it away. "March 6, AD 165" Hoax. --Richhoncho 23:30, 3 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. — CharlotteWebb 01:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zenzizenzizenzic

Delete - dictionary definition. I hear tell of "transwiki" to Wictionary but I don't knwo how that works, but if this is not there already it probably should be. Otto4711 21:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep This article is more than a dictionary definition. It is part of the history of mathematics and the way numbers were represented historically. Lumos3 22:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
weak keep per Lumos. Does seem to be more than a dictdef. Grutness...wha? 00:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary. The external link says about this word, "It turns up from time to time as one of those weird words which is best known for being held up as an example of a weird word." The Oxford English Dictionary does include this word, but the only citation for this particular word comes from the mathematical work published in 1557 in which it was apparently coined, and which doesn't even use the same spelling; "zenzizenzizenzic" is how the word would be spelled if it had survived into modern English (as opposed to "Zenzizenzizenzikes"). The most recent OED cite for any of the "zenzi..." exponentials is from 1674. This word is most relevant as a word which should be in the dictionary, rather than as a mathematical concept which should be in the encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 02:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. The graphic image alone makes this article encyclopedic. If you enlarge it, you can actually read two pages that were printed when Mary I was Queen of England and Queen of Ireland. Fascinating! DavidCBryant 12:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:INTERESTING. Otto4711 03:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I agree with Lumos - it's part of the history of mathematics. It's also part of the history of writing - early efforts to find appropriate symbols for mathematical concepts. I do think it's too short to stand as an article in its own right, so really should be moved to a section on some more encyclopedic page. How would anyone ever find this page if they did not know the word to begin with? I don't agree with DavidCBryant, though. Simply having a fascinating image isn't enough to merit inclusion. If that were the case, every single Pharaonic papyrus fragment would have its own page, and so would each of the clay tablets from each of the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia and surrounding areas. Cbdorsett 04:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
week keep more than a dict def. Some historical significance in the naming of mathematical concepts. --Salix alba (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - more than a dict def, referenced and notable. Gandalf61 19:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Notable actually has a meaning here. Can you show that this has been the subject of in-depth reliable secondary sources? Otto4711 03:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Otto, I know all about WP:NOTE - that's why I said "notable". Etymological study in Michael Quinion's World Wide Words here. Published references in Much Ado About English by Richard Watson Todd ISBN 978-1857883725 and Measure for Measure: The Story of Imperial, Metric, and Other Units by Alexius J. Hebra ISBN 978-0801870729. Gandalf61 14:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not having copies of the latter two references, I can only guess based on the titles but I have certain reservations that Zenzizenzizenzic was their sole subject or even a major subject. Otto4711 23:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I claimed. Zenzizenzizenzic is mentioned in both books in the context of Robert Recorde and his place in the history of mathematics and development of modern mathematical terminology and notation. So we have:

Primary source.
Secondary in-depth source (the Michael Quinion reference).
Mentions in other multiple independent published secondary sources.

which, taken all together, support the argument that zenzizenzizenzic has a sufficently notable place in the history of mathematics and the English language to merit inclusion in Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gandalf61 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

I think it's plenty notable, but don't think it should be an article all on its lonesome. I also don't think it should be shunted off to the last page of Wiktionary. Its notability is not in its placement in the alphabet, but its role in history. It may not be a big role, but it's there. Salix alba (below) makes a good point - we need an article on the history of the development of mathematical notation, and this "word" belongs right in there. Has anyone run across a page which deals with this issue? I have a lot of info about it, but I'm not sure how extensive my references are. Cbdorsett 14:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

comment Weirdword has an interesting paragraph discussing the problems of expressing the powers of numbers before our

a b

notation was invented. The adoption of the modern notation is quite a significant event in the history of mathematical notation, and Zenzizenzizenzic achieves its notability as a precursor to this notation. Now there is nowhere in wikipedia where we document this transition or even who invented the

a b

, this seems precisely the sort of thing which wikipedia should address. --Salix alba (talk) 23:53, 6 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 as admitted hoax. gadfium 22:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tu Pounamu IV

Appears to be a hoax. The following discussion about it appeared on the NZ Wikipedians' notice board:

Tu Pounamu IV does not ring true. Not one of the names mentioned on the page gets a google hit, the language is unusual for an article about a Māori leader (Aboriginal, prince), Ngāti Awa do not come from Gisborne, etc. This not only needs references, it needs verification of the references. (The book is real, according to National Library catalogue, but its subject matter does not appear relevant). dramatic 09:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally bogus. BTW the creator of the article has made a reference to Tu Pounamu IV in Aquinas College, Tauranga, giving Grey's Polynesian Mythology as a source for the family having converted from Ringatuism to Catholicism. Grey is purely and simply a collection of traditional stories, and makes no mention of Catholicism or Ringatuism - in fact Grey, first published around 1854, predates Ringatuism which was started AFAIK by Te Kooti who was much later in the 19th C. Kahuroa 14:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

For these reasons I suggest deletion. Grutness...wha? 22:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless attribution of the claims made in the article is provided, and notability is further explained. Being third in line to chieftainship of an iwi does not appear to be enough. I can find no google hits for either '"Tu Pounamu IV"' or '"Jade Gray" "Ngati Awa"'-gadfium 00:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless sources can be made. Why does the picture appear so blurry as well? bibliomaniac 1 5 05:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I second the deletion request. Sir-George-Grey was a 19th century governor general several erras ago. I think the author is either severly mislead or misunderstood when it comes to accuracy and citations. Johannesemmanuelle 08:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There has been much debate amooung my peers at Otago as to the legitamacy of the scrutiny and investigation of wikipedia articles. This "hoax" was the created (by me and a collegue) for the purpous of the investigation of the reliability and to find out how much time it would take for wikipedian articles to be identified as hoaxes. Congradulations. it has taken a fortenight.Tu Pounamu IV is simply non existant. "Jade Gray" was a randomly selected student from the old school yearbook. Aquinas College was randomly selected as his "school". (mainly because I board in a bording house that shares the name).The picture was scanned from out of the local news paper and the image was picked because the character was the darkest most maori looking in it. (hence the blurr). so dont get your heckles up, atleast you managed to prove the reliability of wikipedia and change the minds of some of your harshest critics. GerradPier 08:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete this is really cute and all, but it's not cool to harass Wikipedia to make a point. JuJube 09:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Well then, can we speedily delete this one now? - Axver 21:49, 4 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 11:20Z

[edit] Scott Long (Reality TV contestant)

Delete - thre do not appear to be independent sources to establish notability. Should he actually appear in that "SAG film" the article hints at, in a substantial role, then perhaps he'll pass but for now he should go. Otto4711 23:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. He may becomes a notable actor in the future, but he certainly is not at the current time. Vassyana 10:19, 8 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 11:19Z

[edit] UNIT dating controversy

Consists by definition of fan speculation. Indiscriminate jumble of dates and contradictory "evidence." Compare to a similar, now-deleted article for The West Wing. Andrew Levine 23:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I confess WP:ILIKEIT, but perhaps this is material best suited for Wikia's Tardis. Quelle surprise! Unit dating controversy. Delete. --Dhartung | Talk 00:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Just because an unrelated article on The West Wing (which has really no similarities to this one) was deleted on its third nomination, does not set a precedent that this must be. The UNIT dating controversy is a major element of discussion regarding Doctor Who and I believe was created in order to prevent the main article on UNIT becoming overlong. It's sourced, and it is not OR nor is it a fanon concept. I'd support renaming the article if people think the title is a bit too POV-ish. 23skidoo 01:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - Your description of the article is very inaccurate, Andrew Levine. The page is not jumbled, as you say, and even if it was, that would be a reason to cleanup the article, not delete it. By you putting quotes around evidence, you presumably mean that most of this stuff is just made up, but in fact each and every fact as a direct link to an episode of Doctor Who or other spin-off media, confirming the fact's verifiability. I say the same for 'fan speculation', this article just states the facts as they appear. Unless a proper reason is seen for deletion, other than 'It happened somewhere else so it automatically happens here', you do not have a case for AfD. Smomo 01:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - It's not OR - the evidence is contradictory because it has to be; any attempts to reconcile it would be OR. I'd like to see the off-screen evidence section expanded, and the sources cleaned up a bit, but I don't see this a candidate for deletion. --Brian Olsen 01:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Information is detailed and relevant. The separate page is justified given its length and that of its parent page. I think that whether or not the details on this page are duplicated elsewhere online is largely irrelevant. --The Missing Hour 02:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep — the West Wing page was deleted in part because of OR concerns. This page cites two published works which have dealt extensively with this controversy. The article could be reorganized to rely more heavily on the secondary sources (AHistory and About Time) and less heavily on the primary sources (the conflicting evidence from Doctor Who episodes, etc.), but that's an argument for improvement, not deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge anything useful into the United Nations Intelligence Taskforce article. The bulk of this article is trivia/speculation, and come on, is it really a "Controversy" that there is continuity errors across series of a long-running TV show? - fchd 08:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Just take a look at Star Trek: Enterprise... DrWho42 23:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep page is necessary per The Missing Hour and not OR per Josiah Rowe. Probably should be renamed to avoid "controversy", though. Percy Snoodle 11:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - cites reliable secondary sources, plenty of content to justify a page of its own. Matthew 11:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - This has been written about in quite a number of secondary sources, plus several of the stories that contradict each other have tried to cover this on their own pages but it proved a mess that got out of sync. Even putting it on the UNIT page got out of hand and distorted an article that should be about the organisation. Timrollpickering 12:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep with Comment Regarding the sources, above all else this article needs a footnote right at the end of the first sentence to verify that the controversy exists and is notable enough to warrant an article. I respect the references as published works on the overall subject of Doctor Who, and in and of themselves those references satisfy WP:V but a direct page citation regarding this specific subtopic is desperately needed for WP:N. Show me this is an ongoing controvery, don't tell me. -Markeer 17:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment ~~Four~~Seven such footnotes have now been provided. Incidentally, I was considering the argument that "controversy" was too strong a term to use for this fan debate, but it turns out that it's pretty much what the two most significant sources use (see the footnotes). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment Well, I wish all AfD critiques got that level of quality response, excellent footnotes. Far as I'm concerned those completely eliminate any question of WP:N, WP:OR and WP:V. -Markeer 14:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This is fancruft that is suitable for a fan website, but has no place in a serious encyclopedia. And anyway, this article is of the kind that would only be started by someone participating in the debate, and the same is true of all subsequent edits - this is just a small number of fans talking to themselves, and since they all are all participants in the debate we have CoI, so this article should go. WMMartin 13:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Erm, did you see the footnotes and references? It is true that this is a controversy limited to Doctor Who fans, but there are many reliable sources who discuss this. To my knowledge, none of the authors mentioned in the article have edited the page, so there is no conflict of interest. If this were an article about an obscure academic controversy, the number of individuals in the discussion might be even smaller. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment, I saw the references, but for the life of me I still can't see why this discussion about a series of continuity errors merits an article in a general-purpose encyclopedia. - fchd 17:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment: Sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. "Arguments that the nature of the subject is unencyclopaedic (for example individual songs or episodes of a TV show) should also be avoided in the absence of clear policies or guidelines against articles on such subjects." —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment. I am content to rest on WP:IGNORE here. While this article may technically meet our guidelines, common sense tells me this has no place here, but would be better suited to a fan forum. Being an encyclopedia doesn't mean we have to cover everything in the universe that might be of interest to someone, somewhere. WMMartin 15:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. There are, after all, plenty of other places online where this sort of thing can be written about and / or debated. I'm not saying it shouldn't be here at all, but I think by far the best course of action would be to condense it and fold it back into United Nations Intelligence Taskforce, turning this page into a redirect there. Angmering 23:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Last itme that happened, that article got so over complex and confusing that this was article was created. This is just history repeating itself over and over, which is silly. Keep. Smomo 16:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. No delete vote. Pea ceNT 08:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Erdman

Prodded on grounds of non-notable, no google hits, article fails WP:COI, WP:V and WP:SPAM all links on site are back to Mr. Erdman's own webpage. Richhoncho 23:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep I fixed it up with external sources and removed things I couldn't verify (WP:V). I took out all links to his site except for one in external links (WP:SPAM). Also, how does this violate WP:COI. According to the first edit summary, the idea for the article came from WP:RA. There is nothing to suggest Erdman or a friend of his wrote it. And no Google hits? I got 15,600, and that was with his name in quotes. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

With the fine copyediting and adding of independent references by User:Mr.Z-man I have changed my mind and withdraw this nomination. --Richhoncho 00:51, 4 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 11:17Z

[edit] Left Behind (Lost)

All of the information in this article (except for it being a Kate flashback) is unofficial and has not been confirmed by the producers or stars of Lost or ABC. It is based upon rumour from Spoilerfix.com. S e rgeantBolt (t,c) 23:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because [absolutely none of the information purported in the articles is official - none of it has been confirmed. Also, the title for episode sixteen, The Truth About Lying, was revealed by Carlton Cuse in a televised interview, yet the page One of Us (Lost), has been created even though The Truth About Lying was created days before.]:

Speedy delete, as nominator and per reasons above. S e rgeantBolt (t,c) 23:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete --thedemonhog 02:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete -- Silva Storm
Delete all - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MER-C 09:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment The Truth About Lying was added midway through the AfD. I took it back out, if it needs deletion start a new AfD for it. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:21, 6 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 11:21Z

[edit] ECG, Inc.

I prodded this, prod removed on the grounds I did not notify the instigator of article. Reasons for listing include WP:COI, WP:SPAM , WP:NN and WP:CITE (not that I could find any independent sources, but somebody else might). Richhoncho 23:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per CSD G11 (spam) Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete an organisation with no claim to notability. Nuttah68 10:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree - reads like an advert for the company. Peterkingiron 00:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as copyvio (CSD G12). -- Merope 08:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] East Brunswick, NJ Public Saftey

Nom - Fails WP:N. Falls clearly under WP:NOT. Speedied once already. Rklawton 23:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Addendum - an anonymous user (User:69.248.74.237), presumably User:Cwk14724's IP due to his/her edit history, has removed the AfD tag from the nominated article as well as blanked this page. Rklawton 23:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, also, the way it is written, without any internal links, suggests a possible copyvio. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Copyvio - good call. Just about the whole article is a copyvio - pulled word from word from the eastbrunswick.org/publicsafety/ website. I've tagged it as a speedy copy-vio, so with luck, this AfD will become moot. Thanks for catching this. Rklawton 03:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. THis article was Speedy'd the first time it was made. If you examine my user talk, you'll see the author-editor claims to be operating with the knowledge and support of the mayor of East Brunswick. ThuranX 00:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 00:47, 4 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 11:21Z

[edit] Tobacco Bad Kids

non-notable article Guroadrunner 00:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Alvestrand 06:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete no claim to notability. Nuttah68 10:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete I found one reference here, but I don't think the orgnization or product has enough media coverage to be considered notable at this time. -Nv8200p talk 15:00, 4 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 11:17Z

[edit] Jan Cox (philosopher)

not a notable person and I can't find anything that says he was a philospher, anywhere outside of his own site. This bio has, though not currently, been a page full of debate. If you google this guy, you will note that only two places show up, his site and wikipedia. I went to the profile months ago to cool down the hostile debates and even after later posting on the Philosophy Wikproject, nothing[24]. I see no reason to keep an article that can't attract non-follower comments or even any reliable or verifiable sources. Addionally, most of the language was changed by me to remove the obvious POV, and I will not be offended to see it go. Additionally, I found that others agree here [25] --Maniwar (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete We are judging whether the subject is N. Obviously he wont be considered a philosopher by anyone else, but he might be considered N as a writer or a crank. However, I could not find any book review in Book Review Index for his book Dialogues of Gurdjieff,. DGG 22:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless the article becomes properly refed with real evidence of notability. And if kept, rename since he doesn't seem to be a philosopher in any meaningful sense NBeale 23:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless reliable non-trivial second party references are added by end of this AfD Alf^Photoman 23:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] List of famous people in The Sims series

[edit] August Donnelly

[edit] Keith barker-main

[edit] Olivier Réveillon

[edit] Circus of the Seed

[edit] Aminah Assilmi

[edit] Višnjica

[edit] Back to the Future themes

[edit] Grown At Home

[edit] Stephen Harper

[edit] Luther Buchele Cooperative House

[edit] Somewhere off Jazz Street

[edit] Crash Course in Science

[edit] Mathomat

[edit] Biochain

[edit] Yu gi oh Champions

[edit] Container Man Project

[edit] Johnny Mann (actor)

[edit] Mark Hatten

[edit] Bucklers mead

[edit] Brain function map

[edit] Single Supplement

[edit] Michael Dupee

[edit] Barbie and the Kens

[edit] Scraps & Heart Attacks

[edit] Dillon Dam Brewery

[edit] Bowerbirds (band)

[edit] Total Control

[edit] R. Jay Fisher

[edit] Militaryphotos

[edit] University of the East College of Computer Studies and System

[edit] Brian Smith (photographer)

[edit] Toyvesky Anomaly Coordinates

[edit] Sport teams by championships

[edit] Carole Goble

[edit] Alan Rector

[edit] Agnes (band)

[edit] Liverpool F.C.'s European Cup triumphs

[edit] DoylesRoom

[edit] Andrew Choi

[edit] VIOLATOR

[edit] List of YWAM bases

[edit] Profound Intent

[edit] Bob Mayo (news reporter)

[edit] Yumi Shimura

[edit] Paul Holt (second nomination)

[edit] People-counts

[edit] KEVIN ROLLE

[edit] Yuriy Leonovich

[edit] Indigenous Aryan Theory

[edit] Historymon

[edit] Richard Vobes

[edit] Andy Miah

[edit] List of calculators

[edit] Computer Concepts (USA)

[edit] Ligion

[edit] Carlos Rivero

[edit] Skylab exhibition

[edit] Beep talking

[edit] CAWs.ws

[edit] Doc Marten Skins

[edit] Scientific immortology

[edit] Mohammad Yaghoobi

[edit] Chemfluence

[edit] Michael Chaney (Australian businessman)

[edit] Slovio

[edit] The Highway Beautiful

[edit] John Beal (composer)

[edit] Neddia

[edit] Zenzizenzizenzic

[edit] Tu Pounamu IV

[edit] Scott Long (Reality TV contestant)

[edit] UNIT dating controversy

[edit] Derek Erdman

[edit] Left Behind (Lost)

[edit] ECG, Inc.

[edit] East Brunswick, NJ Public Saftey