Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 15

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Gardiner (television presenter)

Mark Gardiner (television presenter) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and woefully undersourced.Soo 23:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Non notable, and only outside link provides no information about the subject. KJS77 00:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless this can be better sourced. A quick googling makes me think it probably can't. Ford MF 06:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable in every respect.Tilefish 07:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Wow, he must be notable, having met all those famous people! Delete Quaint unsourced article of non-notable individual. Probable hoax, fails WP:A Ohconfucius 08:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cute Babulja

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

Non notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 21:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete... couldn't someone just IAR here and not relist this twice? -Amarkov moo! 00:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete google search runs about 850 results, half of which are wikipedia mirrors. --ROASTYTOAST 02:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Satisfies WP:BAND specifically, 2. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. CIreland 02:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Kosovo is not a nation. -- Y not? 02:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Not a single reliable source to prove they had a charted hit either. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Wholly unverified, fails WP:BAND even if all true. -- Y not? 02:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources, no verification of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 04:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 14:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Frankly, I am for tightening the restrictions on notability of bands. ---Cathal 15:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phillip Torrone

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

Non-notable. (I previously speedied it but was asked to bring it to AFD by Akadruid, and he/she is probably right: it deserves a debate.) —METS501 (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. cab 01:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete 258k GHits, but they all seem to be stuff written by him, or at best, profiles about him by organisations he worked for, rather than independent coverage in reliable sources. cab 01:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - NN - Crockspot 04:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Seems like a satisfactory article, I'd say it meets WP:BIO, with a couple of refs added it could be suitable.The Sunshine Man 12:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability. --Daniel J. Leivick 15:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete - needs independent resources. JoJan 17:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 18:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nn with no references. Also the article bears no meaningful content. Basically all it says is he's a writer. So? Ford MF 06:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable. None of the sources represents a reference. Even though makezine.com may be ranked 7523rd per Alexa, the subject would not necessarily qualify for an article if basic criteria or WP:BIO are not met. Ohconfucius 08:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No sources. If verifiable, reliable sources are provided, I would reconsider. KrakatoaKatie 09:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. I am not seeing that this has the reliable sources to meet WP:WEB W.marsh 13:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gunter's Space Page

Gunter's Space Page (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notibility - Davandron | Talk 00:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Numerous references on Google for both reputable and reliable sources.Shoessss 01:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal: Appearing in google isn't reputable; read the things that pop up and they are people listing sites or just garbage. - Davandron | Talk 03:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying: Please show us the links that you find reputable. When I look at this google search, I only see one result that is an accolade, where Gunter was a "space site of the week for May 1997" and that site (Students for the Exploration and Development of Space) was promoting two sites every week for a decade (not exact exclusive). - Davandron | Talk 13:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

**Comment: :Please note that the first is actually here in Wikipedia where Gunter's Space Page is actually listed in the reference material. I would also point out the Aerospaceguide as a reliable source. Do I need to continue:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaur_(rocket_stage) seds.org/spaceviews/award/9705.html www.firstmatter.com/newsletter/sidebar.asp www.astronautix.com/craft/uraeptor.htm www.aerospaceguide.net/spacelinks.html Shoessss 13:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For example following NASA and governmental Sites and documents use Gunter's Space Flight as References

• NASA's space flight calendar [1]
• US Centennial Of Flight Commission: [2]
• http://www.dodig.osd.mil/Audit/reports/fy02/02-154.pdf
• https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2003/afit/AFIT-GSO-ENY-03-01.pdf
• US Airforce High Frontier Magazine: [3]
• http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc/smith.pdf

i hope this helps. --Armchair Astronaut 14:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am confused; it seems you are saying since the site is used as a reference, then it should be an article entry? How does this satisfy the notibility criteria? - Davandron | Talk 01:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Davandron | Talk, No, you are right in that aspect. However, I thought I complied with your request for additional reliable sources as both I and --Armchair Astronaut provided in our response. Let me ask it in a different way. Would you like additional sources cited other than the ones mentioned above? Shoessss ^talk

• Keep Satisfies WP:WEB for notability. CIreland 02:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above -Drdisque 06:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notebale. No reason to delete. Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 18:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal WP:WEB says

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself

I see no proof of this, nor is it mentioned in the article.

2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization

I haven't seen this on the site or in the article entry.

3. < doesn't appear relivent. >

Additionally, WP:WEB states: Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance.

At current, the article is minimal / missing in this regard.

I love the site and have used it as a reference, but don't think it warrents its own wiki entry, based on the above. - Davandron | Talk 03:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• The following is copied from User talk:Armchair Astronaut's user page: Hi there, welcome to wikipedia. I'm going to flag [the Gunter's Space Page] you made as recommended for delete; it doesn't seem to be appropriate for the wikipedia and almost like an ad for the website. Perhaps you can help explain why you felt this article should be created? - Davandron | Talk 00:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Davandron. LanceBarber 05:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, if i my entry does not follow the rules for pages on wikipedia. As i am doing research on the topic of the history of spaceflight, i think, that Gunter's Space Page, as well as the already included Encyclopedia Astronautica and Jonathan's Space Report are the most comprehensive and reliable sources for data on spaceflight. Although it is a privat website (as well as the other two mentioned) i think it is worth mentioning as a reference work on this admittedly very special topic. I have noticed, that this page is mentioned as reference also on a large number of spaceflight articles here in Wikipedia (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Gunter's_Space_Page) ---Armchair Astronaut 08:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is very good that Gunter's external site is referenced by many internal articles, along with thousands of other external references, but that does not constitute the reasoning for Gunter's having it own Wiki article. Think of this... would you be able to write an article on Gunter's that could be of significance such one might find the information important enough to be in Britannica or World Book or Funk and Wagnalls? If so, charge ahead. Just because a external site is very popular does not warrant being an article on its own. Side note, I added a new article a few months ago and was challenged as you are; this forced me to rewrite the aritcle in such of way it as it added to an encyclopedia environment. Find other articles that parallel the scope of Gunter's and persue its development. Good Luck. LanceBarber 15:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete as per Davandron. I'd really like to keep this one, but can't really think of a good Wiki reason to do so. Ford MF 06:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BPP Professional Education

BPP Professional Education (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable educational institution. Article has been tagged as unreferenced since Sept 2006 and still has no reliable sources. Caknuck 20:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Should have been tagged with a “Speedy Delete” as spam.Shoessss 02:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability (even on their own website). CIreland 02:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete spam -Drdisque 06:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that this page is of little importance and not notable. The editing seems careless (Capitalization errors) from this, I assume that this might be a piece of Vandalisim. GreaterWikiholic 00:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Speedy Delete under CSDA7 -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 00:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is an overwhelming consensus to delete, and there are no arguments to keep, so closing early. --Coredesat 03:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of popular tourist regions

List of popular tourist regions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - an unmaintainable, unsourced collection of 191 kb of data that is more-or-less a list of anyone's and everyone's personal preferences of what tourist regions are "popular". There are no objective criteria, no sourcing to see whether each entry has met those criteria, and while a couple of editors have suggested depopulating and merging or questioning why countries without much tourism get an undue number of "popular" regions listed, this list in not useful; we have plenty of articles of the Tourism in Fooland, so this monster list is unneeded and the data (unsourced as it is) is "captured" or "capturable" elsewhere. Carlossuarez46 00:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No sources, POV (what is considered a "popular" region?). TJ Spyke 02:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per TJ Spyke. Popular is a POV. --ROASTYTOAST 02:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. - Crockspot 04:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete might as well be Exhaustive list of places. Lists places like Johnston Atoll which cannot even be visited by tourists. Lists approx 20 different locations in Vanuatu. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drdisque (talk • contribs) 06:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
• Delete An unnecessary list, could be incomplete, seems unreliable as well, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Regards — The Sunshine Man 15:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. List has vague and subjective inclusion criteria. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think we already have a Wikitravel which pretty much covers this better. Slavlin 16:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 18:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. LaraLove^T/_C 19:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. --Random ^{Say it here!} 21:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per WP:NOT Thunderwing 21:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per nom--Cryo921 00:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, oh good god already. RFerreira 05:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone. This one's a no-brainer. Ford MF 06:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pine-Light

Pine-Light (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Created back in December and still no supporting references, or even so much as a bibliography. I have never heard of this creature, and neither has Google apart from Wikipedia mirrors. Probably unverifiable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete seems like original research. --ROASTYTOAST 02:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No sources to indicate supposed legend has any notability. Mwelch 02:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Couldn't find a single non-Wikipedia reference to this using Google (except as a less dark shade of 'pine' coloured varnish) CIreland 02:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced and probable hoax. DarkAudit 03:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per above Sens08 04:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced fantasy. - Crockspot 04:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No sources, sounds absurd, probably a hoax. ---Cathal 15:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unless it can be shown that it is NOT a hoax and IS notable. Slavlin 17:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 18:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. LaraLove^T/_C 19:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No refs, and claims are improbable at best. Horologium talk - contrib 21:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unless it can be shown that it is the new low-calorie version of Pine-Sol, made with Splenda.pinotgris 22:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, for all we know this is just another wikihoax. RFerreira 05:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hard to even give this one the benefit of the doubt. I can't find any proof it's not a wikihoax. Ford MF 07:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shit sandwich

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

The only source is Urban Dictionary, and the South Park, Spinal Tap, and MST3K references seem sketchy at best Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 02:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. In fact, automatically delete any and all articles whose only source is Urban Dictionary. I can vouch for these two words indeed appearing next to each other in dialogue in Spinal Tap, but it's a one-off pun (on "Shark Sandwich", an album title) and doesn't support the article as written. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a slang usage guide, or a compendium of instances where slang has occurred in popular culture. --Haemo 02:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. Wikipedia is not urban dictionary. DarkAudit 03:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopedic. Why do you need an article to describe this subject, the title is self-explanatory. — MichaelLinnear 03:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Funny, but its simply not important enough to create an article about. Sens08 04:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per MichaelLinnear. - Crockspot 04:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or move to Wiktionary - I could see defining it, but not writing an article about it. Anynobody 05:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; highly unencyclopedic. --PaxEquilibrium 07:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I actually found a reputable source for this usage-- an interview of Berni Wrightson in The Comics Journal. Rhinoracer 07:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism, per DarkAudit GDonato (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per WP:NEO Thunderwing 11:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There are entirely too many neologism articles created every day, and I think we need to adopt a scorched earth policy when it comes to this nonsense. ---Cathal 15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think that a shit sandwich sums it up nicely. Slavlin 16:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. LaraLove^T/_C 19:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. --Random ^{Say it here!} 21:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Salt. WP is not Urban Dictionary. Horologium talk - contrib 21:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Who's getting the idea that we're Urban Dictionary? There's a lot of this crud on here today. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nn neologism and dicdef. Ford MF 07:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Urban Dictionary, much like Usenet, does not constitute our definition of a reliable source. Burntsauce 16:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Haemo. Not a neologism, though--common phrase. JJL 23:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. awgh 18:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn -- Y not? 12:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tatyana Dyachenko

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

Notability by association. No secondary sources. Delete. -- Y not? 02:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. -- Y not? 03:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep one of the most important figures in the political life of Russia of later 90ies Alex Bakharev 04:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Dyachenko was widely covered in the media during her tenure. Google News Archive results. 48 references in the NYT alone. --Dhartung | Talk 04:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The personal advisor to the president of a major world power is notable, and one with dozens of non-trivial third-party references is notable. This may not be attributed, but it's attributable. --Charlene 04:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• keep per previous arguments, in addition we have articles for such people in the clinton and bush regimes. Chris 06:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep She was an influential advisor to President Yeltsin and very well known in Russia at the time. This is not simply 'notability by association'. The article is now expanded and referenced. Nick mallory 09:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- notability has been established Thunderwing 11:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chya

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

UD=only source Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 02:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism. Wikipedia is not urban dictionary. DarkAudit 03:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• But..but..its the best Wikipedia article ever! I'm gonna cry! Closetosomethingreal 05:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Your criteria for what constitutes "best" are faulty. Please see Wikipedia:Featured articles, Wikipedia:Article development, and Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles for what you should be aiming for in articles. Please also read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research. Uncle G 11:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I STRONGLY oppose this article's deletion. Not only is it accurate (both historically and contemporarily), it provides insight as to the origins of one of the most popular and used words of today's society. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.146.5.134 (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Your "strong" opposition is beside the point, as you provide no basis for said opposition. Furthermore, your vandalism to this AfD discussion does nothing to help your case, and will only result in the blocking of your account. Knock it off! ---Cathal 16:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Drdisque 06:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete "local" slang term = schoolkid silliness. WP:NFT. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. As I have said previously, 90% of neologism articles should be shot on sight. As DarkAudit has correctly pointed out Wikipedia is not urban dictionary. ---Cathal 15:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete "local" slang term = schoolkid silliness. WP:NFT.
• Transwiki to Wikitionary. Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 18:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. NN, dicdef, neologism. Wikipedia is not UrbanDictionary. Is that even a source we should be trans-wiki'ing from? Ford MF 07:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete as dicdef, WP:NFT, WP:OR, and a big ol' violation of WP:NPOV. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 00:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per DarkAudit. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 20:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was an uncompromisingly harsh delete. Krimpet (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harsh talent show judge

Harsh talent show judge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original research. Article was tagged within 3 minutes of its creation as original research, and a comment asking for sources was made in the edit summary. That was 4 months ago, since then the creator and only contributor to the article has continued to edit it, but of course no sources have been added. Even if sources were found, this isn't a notable enough phenomenon in itself to warrant a stand-alone article. Are we going to have Reassuring female talent show judge as well? Masaruemoto 01:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Hmmm, if it's really a notable cliche, and not just something someone made up, there would be some references. --Haemo 02:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not even very good original research. They left out the mean judge from Canadian Idol. - Crockspot 04:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete could be a notable topic if sources could be found, but I don't think they can. -Drdisque 06:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, this is something of a stock character in any narrative about struggling actors, dancers, and so on, but I doubt there are that many sources for it. --Dhartung | Talk 09:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: not much of a cliché if "harsh talent show judge" only produces 52 google hits. Violates WP:NOR -- MisterHand 12:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ---Cathal 15:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not to judge this article too harshly, but .. it's all unsourced WP:OR. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I can't see why to keep this if there is nothing to show that it is a common item in culture. Slavlin 16:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is quite possibly the worst most unsourced article I have ever seen. BassoProfundo 19:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced WP:OR. Ford MF 07:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HoYay

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

UnsouYay Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 02:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources and the greater part of the article fails WP:OR. CIreland 03:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. Wikipedia is not urban dictionary. DarkAudit 03:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete OR. - Crockspot 04:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above -Drdisque 06:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. As I have said previously, 90% of neologism articles should be shot on sight. As DarkAudit has correctly pointed out Wikipedia is not urban dictionary. ---Cathal 15:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Apparently a term used on blogs by viewers of TV shows. No refs presented to show it has reached the level of a commonly used word, and that would only get it a spot in Wiktionary, not a Wikipedia article. Full of weaselwords and O.R.Edison 15:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 18:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR and failing any kind of notability. Article is just a list of very POV ways homoeroticism could be (rather pruriently) interpreted in a number of television shows. It might as well be titled "Times I have watched TV and thought it was totally gay". Ford MF 07:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a neologism but it's not exactly OR. But the fact that it's used by some people in the industry and commonly used on one major website's forums doesn't make it notable in my book. -- Seed 2.0 17:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no secondary "sauces" were found --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk

[edit] Mambo sauce

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

unsourced, only exlink is UD Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 02:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism. DarkAudit 03:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete - According to my google fu, Mambo Sauce was invented by John Mack Young, inventor of the Buffalo Wing, in Buffalo NY. Not opposed to recreation if it is reliably sourced, and not DC-centric. - Crockspot 05:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Buffalo wings were not invented by John Young. They were invented by Teressa Bellissimo. I grew up in Buffalo and own property less than a mile from the Anchor Bar. That being said, google seems to credit this garnish. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as uncited neologism and dicdef. The only ref is UrbanDictionary, which is a crappy sub-wiki source (and moreover features a racist Asian caricature in its "mambo sauce" definition) that's been popping up a lot as a source, when it shouldn't ever be used as such, forbidden as per Talk:List of Internet slang phrases and Wikipedia's rule against using other Wikis as references. Google doesn't help either. A few references testifying to the existence of the sauce, but very, very little discussion of what it is. Ford MF 07:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• weak Keep - I don't think it is that new, and mambo sauce is a BBQ ingredient lots of places Kansas City, for example. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I got a Chinese menu in DC and it said to "Ask for mumble sauce" and had no idea what it meant until reading this article.70.88.231.185 23:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was rename to Beer can pyramid. Sr13 03:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beeramid

Beeramid was nominated for deletion on 2005-06-10. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beeramid (old).

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

no reliable sources, neologism, etc Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 02:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Neologism. CIreland 03:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. Wikipedia is not urban dictionary. DarkAudit 03:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Culturally significant. The Simpsons episode is from 1993, so this is hardly a neologism. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete 1993 is not ancient Rome: a slang term used since then and barely ever since except in one episode of an American television program is not notable. --Charlene 06:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Culturally significant, well sourced -Drdisque 06:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• rename per Uncle G -Drdisque 18:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep per said above. - Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 11:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - completely culturally INsignificant. Mentioned in one episode of the Simpsons - big deal. - fchd 12:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Long-established concept, and hence not a neologism. Particularly relevant to those people who can build an icosahedron with thread and drinking straws. My father doesn't drink beer, but he has been known to build a pyramid out of empty soft drink cans. --Eastmain 13:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename, per Uncle G's comments. --Eastmain 15:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, the title is a neologism. But fixing that doesn't require an administrator to hit a delete button. That just involves ordinary editors using ordinary editing tools, in this case the rename button to rename the article to beer can pyramid, the more common name for this thing, and the name under which one will find things such as the Syracuse Herald-American article from 1976-06-27 discussing people's attempts to break records for the tallest beer can pyramid. I encourage DarkAudit, CIreland, Charlene.fic, and Richard Rundle to take more than just the article's title into consideration. Uncle G 13:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Cites sources. Noteable. Also very prominent in society. Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 18:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The sources are the Urban Dictionary and the reference to the Simpsons episode. Needs a lot more for me to change my mind. Still can't see where the significance of this that makes it worthy of an article is. - fchd 19:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Uncle G's proposed Rename is fine by me as well. References for that will be easy to find (any activity that qualifies for a Guiness record-holder is inherently notable). bd2412 T 02:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename Per Uncle G.
• Keep. Uncle G has changed my opinion on things once again. RFerreira 05:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename per Uncle G, although remove the UrbanDictionary link. Ford MF 07:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep & Rename per Uncle G. AgentPeppermint 05:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was shoot on sight. Krimpet (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ch00n

Ch00n (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

neologism Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 02:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism. Wikipedia is not urban dictionary. DarkAudit 03:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: slang dictionary definitions are not best suited to Wikipedia. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Notable slang with non-trivial third party notice from reliable, unrelated sources may very well have a home on Wikipedia, but this should not. Fails WP:NOTE and WP:ATT. --Charlene 06:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like an nonsense article, inappropriate for encyclopedia usage. Note: The articles AfD links to a non-existent discussion - unsure whats happening there. Regards — The Sunshine Man 15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. As I have said previously, 90% of neologism articles should be shot on sight. As DarkAudit has correctly pointed out Wikipedia is not urban dictionary. ---Cathal 15:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 14:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Life Less Plagued

A Life Less Plagued (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article claims notability for the album but is unreferenced and, frankly, absurd ("one of the best/most influential records of the decade") Dchall1 00:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The band itself is currently prodded for non-notability; their album appears to be of even less significance. CIreland 03:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete First and only(?) album from a non-notable band on a non-notable label. Label's article claims to have released at least one album, but this one is not it. DarkAudit 03:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, post haste. Ford MF 07:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this is not the bands first album and is not only album. You would actually know this if you took the time to read their pages. I will update the page to change the "absurd notability claims"—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpete510 (talk • contribs)
• Keep Notability rationale has been added to the band's talk page, and as such, albums by a band that meets the notability requirement are subsequently notable.AndyMcKay 22:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Rationale maybe, but still absolutely no sources that aren't the band or the record label's website. Zero coverage in reputable secondary sources equals zero notability, whatever might be asserted. Saying "They're notable, trust me" is not sufficient. Ford MF 17:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• I have added some references to this CD's page. The track listing and some other info about the album can be pulled from there. I also changed the wording on the description of the album and added a reference. I am trying. Mpete510 18:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hoodrat (slang)

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

no RS Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 02:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism. Wikipedia is not urban dictionary. DarkAudit 03:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is not the place for this. - Richfife 03:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Google search indicates neologism. BTLizard 05:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If you wish to delete this article, then you must delete the entry slut as well, being as how they are essentially the same word.--Helgers7 05:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal Slut is a notable term that has existed over 600 years and is in common use across the english speaking world. Hoodrat isn't. Words are removed based on notability and popularity, not meaning. - Richfife 05:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Numerous independent non-trivial articles have been written specifically about the word slut and its meaning has changed over time. These two facts mean that mean a properly sourced encyclopedic article can be written. Hoodrat is just another neologism. --Charlene 06:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument for obvious reasons. If you want to make an argument that actually holds water, unlike the one that you made above, you should argue about the concept denoted by the word, not about the word (Wikipedia is not a dictionary.), and demonstrate that that concept has been documented in depth outside of Wikipedia by multiple reliable sources. Uncle G 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
      • RebuttalWell with your logic, it would be acceptable to say "just because african americans get equal right, doesn't mean we should give them to other minorities", so I'm afraid its your argument that doesn't hold water. Also the idea that wikipedia should not be used for specific words is also flawed since countless other words are defined here, however, it is acceptable that that this entry should have more background and typical uses. As far as it being neologism, just becuase it is a relatively new word doesn't mean it should be deleted. I wouldn't be surprised if it appears in the dictionary in a few years. In any case, what about the entry for truthiness? I can remember the first night that term was used and yet I don't see any deletion discussions on its page. Finally, being as how almost 200 songs use the word, I'd say its not so unpopular as people on here would like to make it seem.--Helgers7 20:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. No reliable, independent third-party sources are discussing this specific word. --Charlene 06:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and transwiki to Wiktionary. Has over 100k google hits. It is not simply a neologism, but there is also not enough content for an article about this. Drdisque 06:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary already has hood rat. Please check before nominating something for transwikification. Uncle G 09:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I did check, I typed it like the article we're voting on though, not with the space. -Drdisque 15:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. As I have said previously, 90% of neologism articles should be shot on sight. As DarkAudit has correctly pointed out Wikipedia is not urban dictionary. ---Cathal 15:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete slang neologism with UD listed as a source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• The version of Hoodrat (AfD discussion) that was deleted via PROD on 2006-05-17 was quite similar to the current content of this article. Uncle G 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Need more credible dic defs. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per no credible references. Sens08 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nn neologism. Ford MF 07:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was disambiguate. WjBscribe 13:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rico Suavé

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

only source is UD Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 02:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism. Trailer Park Boys and Gerardo are not reliable sources. DarkAudit 03:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I have actually heard the term used this way here and there, but... I'm not a reliable source, am I? - Richfife 03:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete current contents, then redirect to Gerardo. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to Gerardo until an article about the song itself or the album (which are notable) are written. -Drdisque 06:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gerardo per Drdisque, Starblind etc. Sens08 21:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a dicdef, then redirect to Gerardo. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gerardo. Ford MF 07:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There is an article Rico Suave (wrestler), so I'm not sure if rd to Gerardo might mislead. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Disambiguate between Rico Suave (wrestler) and Gerardo? Burntsauce 23:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Concur on disambiguation. - Richfife 06:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zonino

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

UD and vanity sources. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 03:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism. Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source, The Zonino site is hype in search of substance. Even if it were notable, wiktionary would be the place for it. - Richfife 03:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. Wikipedia is not urban dictionary. DarkAudit 03:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete neologism; we are not a dictionary. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be an attempt to create a word by using Wikipedia, which makes it advertising in a way. --Charlene 04:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not a dictionary. -- MightyWarrior 11:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. As I have said previously, 90% of neologism articles should be shot on sight. As DarkAudit has correctly pointed out Wikipedia is not urban dictionary. ---Cathal 15:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Listing a "source" of Urbandictionary is a sure sign that something belongs in the rubbish bin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per WP:NEO. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nn neologism. Man, what is this, the feast day of Urban-Dictionary-related AfD's? Ford MF 07:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 14:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Theis

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

Contested prod. Non notable wrestler who had 15 minutes in a big league, no reliable sources except wrestling fan sites, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. If he was a World Wrestling Federation wrestler, even briefly, doesn't that count as "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming and tennis"? --Eastmain 05:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Surely the actors part would be more appropriate? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Actually, aside from appearing at the first WWF Raw, he competed frequently in the WWF during the early 1990s and participated in the Royal Rumble (1993). He also competed in Extreme Championship Wrestling before his retirement. Regardless of the nominator's opinions on professional wrestling, the article contains two independent, non trivial, reliable references (in particular his Wrestlecrap entry). I believe WWE Raw magazine also did a cover story on him in 2005 as well. MadMax 06:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The Wrestlecrap entry is a blatant lie by MadMax. A search of the site in question shows this is the article in question, and apart from in the title there is no mention of him at all. What pray tell is the other reliable non trivial reference? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Given the lack of reply, I'll assume he means the book which can be viewed here. The relevant part reads A few, such as Mondo Kleen-who was briefly featured in a series of WWF matches as Damien Demento-I am told have come to wrestling from professional football, although later I learn this bit of biography is a fiction. So one source doesn't mention him at all except in the title, and the other perfectly fits the definition of trivial according to WP:BIO. So contrary to the claim, there are no non trivial reliable sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. As I've explained on Dean Peters, Wrestlecrap.com no longer has their articles only save for weekly "classic crap" updates (see: [4]). Again, if you refer to the search results Hackney refers to, his article "Damien Demento: He's Crazy...CRAZY, I Tells Ya!" was recently posted in last weeks "classic crap". For those unfamilar with the website, R.D. Reynolds has written a large number of wrestling articles over the past several years which can be seen here. I would hope this settles anyone's doubts regarding his inclusion into the website. MadMax 09:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The link provided on the list of search results goes directly to the article I've linked above, which has the same title but no content about Demian Demento. If as you've claimed above it was posted in a "classic crap" update, why isn't it on the site as you claimed it should be? Also if it's no longer on the site, it's not a source is it? Nobody can verify any of the information from it can they? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, unless I am mistaken, just cause it was removed from a site does not mean that the source never existed. That is why it is wise to take your sources with access dates. I've seen several articles on Wikipedia whose sources are web pages that are no longer active, but their last access date is listed in the references and the concensus is that is acceptable. Theophilus75 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It no longer goes to the article because, as I've explained, it was reposted last week will not be available until the next time it is reposted. However, in regards to your comments, I never claimed an article would be at the address for this weeks repost nor did I even cite the address in the article or this discussion. What I had said was that there had been a Wrestlecrap entry previously written on Damien Demento. If you'll notice, I included a list of prior inductions from the website prior to its brief shutdown in 2001. This does verify that an independent relable biography was written about him, as the list I provided shows. However, if believe it nessessary, you're certainly free to contact R.D. Reynolds himself to confirm he has written a biography on Damien Demento as his e-mail address is available through his website. MadMax 09:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment What "list"? You provided an alleged source that nobody can see, and falsely claimed a book was a non-trivial source. We've only got your word that the alleged biography is non-trivial, and based on you claiming the book was non-trivial I'm unwilling to assume good faith. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• COMMENT WHAT LIST!!!! WHAT LIST!!!! I'm trying to remain civil towards yo Hackney, but you question that things are there that are OBVIOUSLY there, you call MadMax a lier, and you don't seem open to being wrong...EVER! I'm beginning to wonder if you are a few cards short of a full deck or intentionally being a dick. MadMax provided a link to the page listing previous articles (and said as much), and the page lists the article he referred to. If you are a few cards short, then please re-read things a few time and scrutinize articles a little more before make Afd recommendations or commenting on Afd comment pages. If you are just plain being a dick...STOP! Theophilus75 17:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It's because of people like you Hackney that WP:IAR is a policy (I believe the first policy) here at Wikipedia. Theophilus75 17:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think you all need to step back and take a breath. And possibly read WP:CHILL and Wikipedia:No angry mastodons. Ford MF 08:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Madmax -Drdisque 06:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless more reliable secondary sources are found. The 'wrestlecrap.com' source appears to be unverifiable per the above discussion (we do not require readers to contact information sources directly to verify the information in Wikipedia), and the other source in the article sounds like a trivial mention (although I admit to not having read it). JulesH 15:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment He was NOT only on TV once. He was on TV dozens of times, however his most NOTABLE appearance when was he was jobber squashed in the first episode of Raw. He was on Raw six times through 1993 and wrestled in the Royal Rumble, the main event of what was WWF's third biggest PPV at the time. As only 30 men were in the Rumble, that meant that at that point in time, he was in the WWF's top 30 wrestlers and by default since the WWF had most of the name wrestlers at the time, in the top 50 wrestlers in the world. -Drdisque 16:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps you'd like to provide some non-trivial sources, rather than ones with his name on a page then? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Those sources were intended to show the extent of his performance on worldwide television, not to stand up as literary works devoted to the guy. -Drdisque 16:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm aware of that, just without reliable sources it's impossible for an encyclopedic article to be written. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You just went from saying the source was trivial to then saying it was unreliable. Those are completely different things. I have no reason to believe that the source is not reliable. What incentive would one have to lie about who was in the 1993 Royal Rumble? Also, please note that three non-list article-space articles link to the one in question. Deleting this article would break those links. Isn't that the opposite of what we're trying to do here? -Drdisque 16:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment No I didn't. I said the existing sources were trivial, and asked for other sources. Those were the reliable source being referred to, which have yet to be provided. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• I provided two reliable sources. Get off your high horse and open your eyes. -Drdisque 07:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Surely, our standards have to be a bit higher than a wrestling fan site, yes? Someone who appeared on tv for 15 minutes is not notable. ---Cathal 15:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctant keep - seems to just scrape by notability criteria by having participated in a professional league. There's no time limit there so we can't say "15 minutes was not enough". Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment which exact notability criteria are you talking about? I don't see any that apply here. JulesH 18:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Expanding on my above comment, "Athletes - Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming and tennis" does not apply here because the subject is not an athlete and did not compete in a competition. The appropriate section to look in would be "entertainers". JulesH 18:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment JulesH wrestling is a sport! Govvy 18:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment No, it isn't. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep sourced, encyclopaedic, guy passes WP:BIO, under the assumption he's an athelete. WilyD 19:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• KeepThe external links covers all the information provided. Phil Theis (Damien Demento) is a notable wrestler from the 1990s. The article seems to be lacking in accolades know. Govvy 10:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If professional wrestlers are classed as athletes then the subject passes WP:BIO. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:BIO is flawed and disputed for sportspeople. He was a short-lived, nn wrestler, does not need own article. Biggspowd 21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. I believe I remember the pre-fight hype over the Damien Demento vs. The Undertaker main-event fight, just from the TV commercials and people talking about it, well nigh to 15 years ago; and not from being a wrestling fan (which I am not). Anyay his entry at IMDB has additional examples of possible notability, which can be incorporated into the article. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 14:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pamlico Ravine

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

Original research/neologism plus a class or group of people that does not asset notability. Despite the appearance of at least the first paragraph, there is no such place as Pamlico Ravine. A Google search reveals only Wikipedia, mirrors, blogs, and Urban Dictionary. Serpent's Choice 04:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Unattributed and unattributable. The only non-trivial reference given doesn't actually refer to the Pamlico Ravine. May be an elaborate hoax or may be slang used by a minuscule group of people. --Charlene 04:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It is a neologism for the area and does not have enough verifiable info anyway to deserve its own article. The area is already covered by the Inner Banks article anyway and that term is much much more recognizable. Besides, urban dictionary is hardly a good source and Myspace, unless it has to deal with actual bands, is also a bad source. --Triadian 06:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• The quote, "This group, hailing itself by various names including "Team PAMRAV" may be responsible for the dissemination of the term Pamlico Ravine, as its members purportedly coined the phrase." says it all. Delete. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. Unverifiable. Ford MF 21:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Krimpet (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silver Surfer in popular media

Silver Surfer in popular media (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A cluttered list of trivial information at best. A prod was removed, with this reason: Removing "useless trivia" notice as every other comic character has such a page. See Batman in popular media. If copyediting, referencing etc required then will do the same. Deletion not required. But in the case of Batman in popular media, it's an actual decent list of Batman movies and so on. This list is just mentions/references to Silver Surfer from what I can see. Silver_Surfer#In_other_media already does a fine job of listing the information. RobJ1981 04:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Entirely trivia. Batman in popular media is completely different as mentioned above as it is a list of Batman movies, video games, etc, not just things that reference Batman. Wickethewok 08:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge merge with silver surfer. DBZROCKS 12:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this is an indiscriminate collection of information and a directory of loosely-associated topics that have no relation to each other past someone saying the words "silver surfer" or a picture of the character appearing on the screen. Strongly oppose merging any of this back to the Silver Surfer article as it is worthless trivia that tells us nothing about the character, the things in which the character appeared or the real world. Otto4711 13:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. If it is thought that the mostly self-verifying information in this article is too disorganized, the right thing to do then and now is not to delete it outright, but rather to move it to a subpage of the talk page for the convenience of future editors. Data serventur et ruat cælum. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• I am confused as to why one would want to make it more convenient for future editors to add this garbage back to the main article. Otto4711 14:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• First, because it isn't garbage. Much of it, like the extended version Joe Satriani material, never should have been removed in the first instance.

  Second, because this is an established function for subpages. If it is thought that this information is entirely unorganized trivia or "garbage," and somehow unworthy of appearing in the article in chief, the right and respectful thing to do would be to keep it somewhere so that it could be made into something useful, rather than to first ghettoize it by moving it to an article like this, and then proposing its deletion outright. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Yet another trivia-fluff fork of a legitimate article. I've said it before but I'll say it again - if your room gets full of junk you take it out to the garbage bin, not build another room in your house to store it in. These are all just pop-culture trivia references and nothing encyclopedic. Does not warrant its own article, does not warrant moving back into the parent article. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Arkyan above said it very well, and I will echo the fact that merging would be a mistake as the parent article will become bloated and unencyclopedic. This info is trivial and is not necessary and is complete and other fancruft. María (habla conmigo) 12:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Just a list of many non noatable and uncited trival apperances of the Silver Surfer. The Placebo Effect 13:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Silver Surfer.--Bluescolor 14:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as far as I can tell, none of this information is important enough to Silver Surfer to warrant mentioning in that context. The Satriani reference, for instance, exists (and rightly so) at Joe Satriani. Similarly, the reference in Heroes (TV series) can be covered at that episode. The only depiction of importance to the Silver Surfer is the upcoming film (which isn't even in this article). Per WP:AVTRIV, information should be presented in a proper context rather than miscellaneous facts like this. And I think the number of references to NN bands in this article should be convincing as to its deletion: this article is not going to improve. (Oh, and oppose merging, too: there's nothing here worth preserving in the main article). Mangojuice^talk 15:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and oppose merge, as this stuff falls well below the notability threshold, and would only be useless fluff cluttering up the main article. Ford MF 21:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kush Lash

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

Informal game or sport sourced to urban dictionary and other unreliable sources. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Serpent's Choice 04:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as something made up in school one day. Blogs and YouTube are not reliable sources. DarkAudit 04:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsourced, unverified. BTLizard 08:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NFT. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per Starblind. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review) 17:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)}
• Delete as per WP:NFT and non-notable. Ford MF 21:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jook music

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

Appears to be a protologism. No references from reliable sources evident. One of many articles primarily depending on Urban Dictionary. Serpent's Choice 04:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Closest I could come to a source was this, and that refers to a record label name, not a music style. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I thought I heard something about this on NPR recently, but I could not find it quickly. Slavlin 16:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This expression is not (yet) in wide enough usage to be notable. A1octopus 21:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no doubt derived from Juke, and does not supersede it. Or redirect to Juke joint. Ohconfucius 08:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced. None of those citations is satisfactory. Ford MF 21:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John High

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

The guy hasn't done anything particularly notable. Clarityfiend 04:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing here seems to come remotely close to passing WP:BIO. DarkAudit 04:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of notability outside the college. -- MightyWarrior 11:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Probably excellent at his job but so are million others. JoJan 17:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems a decent enough chappie, but no real assertion of notability. Ford MF 21:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. But most people wanting to keep want to merge, so I will redirect for now and the history is still there for people to merge content. W.marsh 14:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gordon Terrace Elementary School

Gordon Terrace Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Primary (k-12) school, fails wp:n. Article does not establish notability, nor does it cite any independent sources. Work permit 04:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and *gulp* someone needs to weed out Category:Elementary schools in British Columbia. Chris 06:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article's been around for a year and still fails to do more than assert the existence of its subject. Given the widespread view on default non-notability of primary schools that makes it ready for the chop. BTLizard 08:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Nothing special about this school; fails to establish notability. JoJan 17:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Neutral. Not very noteable, but does cite reliable sources. Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 18:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree it cites sources that are reliable for what they are. They are Ministry of Education school reports confirming class size, performance, etc. They confirm data, but don't help establish notability. --Work permit 01:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 03:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to School District 5 Southeast Kootenay since reliable sources are present, redirects are cheap. RFerreira 05:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to school district, so as to preserve valid content. -- Visviva 06:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge whatever useful content can be salvaged (such as it is), and redirect. Doesn't even attempt to assert notability. Ford MF 21:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Pretty much just says "i exist". maaybe redirect, but why not delete?--Wizardman 02:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All BC schools are notable. Eclecticology 21:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete' Absolutely no notability. Also, Who says all BC schools are notable? --TREYWiki 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to the respective school district or community as appropriate. Not even a sniff of independent notability, per WP:SCHOOL (unique history, notable alumni, unusual architecture, athletic accomplishments, national recognition, etc.). Sorry kids. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 14:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jersey Devil 02:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ECW The Doctor Is In

ECW The Doctor Is In (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a one-time wrestling event. No assertion of notability is made in the article and also fails to provide any sources. -- bulletproof ^3:16 04:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep major pro wrestling PPV (their largest events). Most ECW events were one-offs as opposed to the annual events of the same name used by WCW and WWF. -Drdisque 07:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This was not a PPV, it was just an arena show which they gave a fancy name to...... ChrisTheDude 08:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN wrestling event. No assertion of why this is notable, it's not a PPV and ECW tended to give most of their events unique names (similar to what Ring of Honor does). TJ Spyke 23:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This was more than the average night at the ECW Arena. I believe this was one of Steve William's rare appearances in North America. The 2 Cold Scorpio vs. Chris Jericho match was a runner up in the top 20 matches of ECW by DeathValleyDriver.com as well [5] (although that may not be notable itself) and who could forget the the Jackson 5/Kiss appearance ? ;) MadMax 01:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I question what you mean by notability, but really, you don't need this page on the encyclopaedia. Govvy 11:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as scorecard, insofar as professional wrestling can be thought of as having winners and losers in the normal athletic sense. Tantamount to an article about a one-day concert that 1) asserts no notability, 2) consists only of the names of bands that appeared there. Ford MF 21:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Acually that was only a reference to Stevie Richards, The Blue Meanie and Super Nova which might be considered humorus among ECW fans. Also I only mentioned events such as Steve Williams appearance out of passing, not as an indicator of notability. MadMax 03:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete RoH individual shows have been deleted in the past. I know this sounds like WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST but I don't see this event standing out. The Steve Williams appearance would be fine for mentioning on his own article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result wasDeleted as redundant. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Japanese heavy metal bands

List of Japanese heavy metal bands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prod removed by IP without comment. Bare list, fails WP:NOT, redundant to Category:Japanese heavy metal musical groups. Deiz talk 04:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Provides no information that a category does not. --Charlene 05:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Category is sufficient. -- MightyWarrior 11:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant. Punkmorten 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - much better as a category. A1octopus 21:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 01:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (weakly) and flag for expansion. Most categories, particularly ones such as this, should have an accompanying list. Lists do have the power to do many things that categories cannot, although at present this one is not doing any of those things. -- Visviva 06:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• keep per Visvisa, and comment Originally I had no opinion on this AfD until User Deiz deleted the entire article for Fatima Hill under speedy, without putting it up for AfD like a normal polite Wikipedian would do. Dirty pool way to get this AfD to pass. Chris 07:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF anyone? Articles that fail WP:CSD don't need to take up community time at AfD. To imply that I'm trying to achieve some kind of victory by "getting this AfD to pass" is insulting in the extreme. "...most days it frustrates the piss out of me"? Yeah. Deiz talk 09:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Lists can do things categories can't, true, but, as mentioned above, this list is doing none of these things. There is no content here that couldn't be recreated in ten seconds if someone were to actually write a proper list article for this. As such, the cat is sufficient. Ford MF 21:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NWA Ireland

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

Contested prod. Non notable minor league wrestling promotion, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:CORP and WP:V. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Oi! Enough with the wrestling-cruft already. You boys need another hobby... ---Cathal 15:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. WP:VSCA. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, the cruft is strong with this one. RFerreira 05:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Cathal. Ford MF 21:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete per reduncdacnyc. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Iraqi Dinar

Old Iraqi Dinar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is not a distinct currency. Unlike the Turkish new lira and the Turkish old lira, where 1 new lira = 1 million old lira, 1 pre-Saddam dinar can be exchanged for 1 post-Saddam dinar. It is just a redesign of the physical currency, like the new color bills in the U.S., or the new 20 pound sterling note. ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to say, Iraqi dinar should contain info of the currency from ca. 1930 to present. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Information in this article appears to be untrue, as the dinar is still used in Iraq. The currency was not dissolved. --Charlene 05:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful into the Iraqi dinar article if it exists, otherwise just delete. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This information is already contained in the article Iraqi dinar. JoJan 17:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Iraqi dinar since this article has very little info and can be easily been put into the main Iraq dinar article,--JForget 19:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per JoJan --ROASTYTOAST 20:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge anything useful (if there is anything; honestly I can't tell) into the proper dinar article. Ford MF 21:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Redirect - no new info, same iso 4217 code, same currency. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Takeji Nara

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

This contextless and unsourced stub looked just about the same when created about a year ago. Since then, nobody has found any sources that confirm the existence of this person (or that indicate in which time he lived), and nobody has fixed the confused spelling. Fails WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:N. Sandstein 05:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Nomination retracted as the man and his status are now verified. Sandstein 08:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Takeji Nara did exist; he was chief aide-de-camp to the Emperor for 11 years per this site[6] and others, and was also the commander of the China Garrison Army during part of the First World War. I suspect these positions (especially the first) would make their holders notable, but knowing nothing about the Japanese military prior to World War II I'm unable to give an informed opinion as to whether this is the case. I hate to harp on Wikiprojects, but is there a Japanese military wikiproject this could be brought up at? --Charlene 05:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Japanese military history task force contacted. -- saberwyn 05:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• keep per Charlene-notable, just hard to find English language sourcing. Chris 06:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Then you'll have to find sources, either in English or in Japanese, or the article must be deleted. Per WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. ... If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Sandstein 07:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. One source is listed above. [7] is another. He had a series of diaries published (Amazon link on the talk page of the article), so, he is notable enough. Neier 07:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. cab 08:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I've added full citations for his diaries, which were reprinted in 1990 and again in 2000; a variety of scholarly sources even in English have used these diaries in various discussions about the war (per Google Books search [8][9]) cab 08:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Man crush

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

Contested prod, removed without comment. Little more than a dictionary definition cited to Urban Dictionary. Already transwikied. Serpent's Choice 05:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, not really expandable, this is leaking into the media but few real treatments of the term, just drive-bys. --Dhartung | Talk 09:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Reminds me of that one Seinfeld where George develops a friendship with some guy and Jerry describes it as a "non-sexual crush" at one point. Delete as neologism, although I could reasonably see this being a redirect to Platonic love or something. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to male bonding to discourage recreation. Placeholder account 03:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stella Maris Hospice

Stella Maris Hospice (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

doesn't meet notability, but doesn't quite make it to advert for speedy Chris 06:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no assertion of any notability. JoJan 17:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable and no outside sources. KJS77 00:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "delete and merge" is not a valid option, if you want to merge this content I will have to undelete the article. It does not seem like there is any support for keeping these as standalone articles. W.marsh 14:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bezerenbam

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

Delete and Merge information into other articles. This is the product of original research, meant to extend the history of Wallachia back before the country was founded. The fact is that historiography does not mention this supposed "ruler", and this relies on a mention in an Arab chronicle which is most likely unreliable (it presumably is viewed as unreliable, since most historians do not bother mentioning it). All the google hits it gets link back to wikipedia talk pages and various mirrors (as well as a minuscule number of ultra-nationalist chats). [10] Dahn 06:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. With the given date of 1241, the military quote provided would have to refer to the Mongol invasion of 1241-2. However, I can find no reference to any Mongol active in the region — or anywhere else — named "Ordul", nor of anything, anywhere, that might be referred to as "Kara-Ulag". I view the quoted support as suspect at best; based on available resources, this appears simply fictional. Serpent's Choice 06:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Holding determination upon better evaluation of sources. Serpent's Choice 08:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone discuss these two rulers, under these names, without referring to the Persian work? My Romanian literacy level is ill-suited to read medeival histories, but I found Histoire des Mongols depuis Tchinguiz-Khan jusqu'à Timour Bey ou Tamerlan (1834) which I can handle without much trouble. It also refers to the same Persian work, but the author, Constantin Mouradgea d'Ohsson, seems to have some doubts about the accuracy of the names in the original. With that said, the Mongol that has been translated from the Romanian as "Ordul" is represented in the French as Orda. That makes sense, Orda Khan was leader of the White Horde in 1241. But his assault was into Poland, at the Battle of Legnica. And I don't see mention of Bezerenbam in the index of the Tartar Relation (no access to an actual copy tonight). I worry that both of these names are simply misidentifications due to multiple translations. Serpent's Choice 08:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank's God! But you do have Bezerenbam and Mischelav at page 628. --Alex:Dan 09:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To Serpent's Choice: As indicated, all comments made available do not refer to the "rulers" independently from the Persian chronicle, and there a minimum level of methodology in respect to primary sources is to be respected (Xenopol, Djuvara, and the Histoire des Mongols all refer to the chronicle using that methodology, and reject the notion that it should be taken for granted). Dahn 09:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. I can find plenty of people who quote the Persian source, but no one who seems very certain of its accuracy. I can't find reference to these figures in the other major primary source about the Mongol activity in the period, the Tartar Relation, which is generally considered accurate. Not to mention that all of these references are just later authors quoting (and translating) the single primary source, which is a discomforting basis for an article ... especially when no two of them seem to read the passage the same way! I don't have any problem with their mention in another article, though I'm not certain which is the correct merge destination. Is this text meant to refer to the Battle of Legnica or the initial Mongol victories of the Battle of Mohi? Do any of the sources even say? Serpent's Choice 09:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have suggested possible inclusions in other articles below (sorry for my answers being all over the place). I myself don't see any clear mention of the previous battle. Dahn 09:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This is ridiculous. Djuvara Mentions it, Xenopol also. Please take your time and read these two chapters of Xenopol's History of Romanians: vol I, chapter II.2, p. 531 - 532 and vol I, chapter III.2, p. 550 - 552 (in Romanian unfortunately). You can see that Bezerenbam and Mislau are there, well known and accepted.--Alex:Dan 07:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Xenopol clearly states, in the second quote provided above (p.552), that Bezerenbam is to be considered the same as Basarab I of Wallachia. Djuvara, as already stated, considered Mislau and Seneslau to be one and the same. Wikipedians who have pushed this "information" have relied on their own interpretation of texts, and have ignored the conclusion of the very scholarship they used (instead, they appealed to primary sources, publishing original research). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dahn (talk • contribs) 08:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

I must remind you that Litovoi is not Basarab I Intemeitorul. Read again! Also, Litovoi is spelled here Lirtyoi (1247) or Lythen (cca. 1275). Mislau is omitted (I don't know why) but he can be found at Djuvara. We can, indeed, add that some historians consider Bezeren-bam = Litovoi and Mislau = Seneslau. --Alex:Dan 08:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR. Dahn 08:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not original research. I'm not inventing facts. Xenopol sais the same thing, word by word, but he goes further and sais poate că era Lyrtioy el însuşi (maybe he was Litovoi himself). This can be added to the article. I want you to come with arguments, Dahn, don't hide behind OR's, it's simply ridiculous. --Alex:Dan 08:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". What we have is a mention in a Persian chronicle, that all historians you mention consider not to be accurate in itself, but to represent the result of verious confusions between the names of documented princes. No secondary or tertiary source mentions either Bezerenbam or Mislau as actual rulers. This is what Xenopol says (loc. cit.): Bezerenbam is the corruption of the name Basarab and the title of Ban; he might be the same as Litovoi (in either case, he certainly does not say a ruler of that name existed). Djuvara says Mislau was the same as Seneslau. So, in short, the only time these people are mentioned by professional historians serves to indicate that their existence is questionable. Aside from a chronicle written on another continent, thousands of kilometers away, that relies on hearsay and, as both sources you use indicate, confuses data, the only places where these people are mentioned as rulers are internet chatrooms for fringe ideologies. Dahn 08:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You're mistranslating again. Djuvara sais probably, not certainly. And also, you have almost a page in which Xenopol demonstrates that the persian chronicle is definitely accurate (Conclusion: Raschid era foarte bine informat, din documentele ce le avea la indemana, asupra locurilor si a imprejurarilor, si ca putem da o deplină crezare si celorlalte arătări ale sale, care nu pot fi verificate prin alte izvoare), yet the names are corrupted. [And since you wanted an OR, I must tell you that Arabs, as Hebrews, have a writing system that doesn't note every vowel, that's why Bezerenbam can also be read as Bazarambam.]. Brief: Xenpol and Djuvara confirm their existence in The Persian Chronicle. Give me a better translation for căpetenia popoarelor ulagh and I'll be happy to modify that. --Alex:Dan 08:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As you will note, Xenopol says that the names "cannot be verified through other sources". If you look at his argument, he says: I trust the events depicted, but there is no reason to assume that Bezerenbam can be considered a ruler other than Litovoi, and his name should be understood as standing for "Basarab". I repeat the point, also made by Serpent's Choice, that there is no source making mention of these "rulers" without making mention of the chronicle - which means that these people are not "rulers", but words in a text that has the same level of accuracy as anything in Herodotus (i.e.: quite low). What Djuvara and Xenopol confirm is their mention in the Persian chronicle, not their factual existence. Wikipedians are not allowed to draw their own conclusions from sources. Dahn 09:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This could be mentioned in an article about Wallachians in Persian chronicles, but claiming they were princes just on a primary source is OR.bogdan 08:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have modified those articles. Bezerenbam is now the leader of a valachian army, ban after Xenopol, and Mislau a căpetenie of ulagh people (how woud you translate that?). My impediment was the absence of a correct and complete quotation. --Alex:Dan 09:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Bogdan, these two articles could probably constitute notes in the Origin of the Romanians or some other such place, clearly indicating both that they are to be found in a certain source, and that those historians who discuss the mention tend to agree that they are corrupt. In this case, a note could also be slipped in the article on Litovoi (and perhaps another one in the article on Basarab). Dahn 09:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merge. As Bogdan said, in an article about romanians in The Persian Chronicle, with some development concerning Xenopol's theories (or as Dahn sais, as a separate paragraph in Origin of the Romanians?). I also want to ask for your opinion if it would be beter to replace the existent quotation with the translation from Serpent's Choice's link (p. 628) ? Also, I'd like to stress that not the information but the names could be corrupt, according to historians. --Alex:Dan 09:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Er... I think you may want to rename your original vote to "merge" (not "keep as"), and probably erase it. Because you only get one vote. You erase previous comments either by deleting them or striking them out. Also: the Serpent's chronicle is not actually the chronicle, but a rendition of it (unlike the direct quote in Xenopol). Dahn 09:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Xenopol quotes, at page 550, a fragment from D'Ohsson (according to note nr. 4), so the french original is closer to the source (first hand translation as I see it). --Alex:Dan 09:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right: it is a direct quote (I missed the quotation marks on the previous page). Dahn 09:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per bogdan Horvat Den 19:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Wallachia. Note added ref: [11] mentions the guy in passing, under Wallachia information. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 14:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "delete and merge" is not a valid option, if you want to merge this content I will have to undelete the article. It does not seem like there is any support for keeping these as standalone articles. W.marsh 14:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mislau

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

Delete and Merge information into other articles. Like its friend Bezerenbam, this is the product of original research, meant to extend the history of Wallachia back before the country was founded. The fact is that historiography does not mention this supposed "ruler", and this relies on a mention in an Arab chronicle which is most likely unreliable (it presumably is viewed as unreliable, since most historians do not bother mentioning it). All the restricted google hits it gets link back to wikipedia talk pages and various mirrors (as well as a minuscule number of ultra-nationalist chats) [12], [13]. Additionally, what is indicated as a "source" for the article actually states that he was the same as Seneslau. Dahn 06:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As with its sibling article above, with the given date of 1241, the military quote provided would have to refer to the Mongol invasion of 1241-2. However, I can find no reference to any Mongol active in the region — or anywhere else — named "Ordul", nor of anything, anywhere, that might be referred to as "Kara-Ulag". I view the quoted support as suspect at best; based on available resources, this appears simply fictional. Serpent's Choice 06:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is ridiculous. Djuvara Mentions it, Xenopol also. Please take your time and read these two chapters of Xenopol's History of Romanians: vol I, chapter II.2, p. 531 - 532 and vol I, chapter III.2, p. 550 - 552 (in Romanian unfortunately). You can see that Bezerenbam and Mislau are there, well known and accepted.--Alex:Dan 07:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the quotes provided from Xenopol are not actually about Mislau, but about "Bezerenbam". Xenopol clearly states, in the second quote provided above (p.552), that Bezerenbam is to be considered the same as Basarab I of Wallachia. Djuvara, as already stated, considered Mislau and Seneslau to be one and the same. Wikipedians who have pushed this "information" have relied on their own interpretation of texts, and have ignored the conclusion of the very scholarship they used (instead, they appealed to primary sources, publishing original research). Dahn 08:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I must remind you that Litovoi is not Basarab I Intemeitorul. Read again! Also, Litovoi is spelled here Lirtyoi (1247) or Lythen (cca. 1275). Mislau is omitted (I don't know why) but he can be found at Djuvara. We can, indeed, add that some historians consider Bezeren-bam = Litovoi and Mislau = Seneslau. --Alex:Dan 08:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR. Dahn 08:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not original research. I'm not inventing facts. Djuvara sais the same thing, word by word: probabil [că Seneslav era] acelasi cu "Miselav", "capetenia popoarelor Ulagh" (vlahe), de care cronica orientala a lui Rasid-ed-din zice ca a înfruntat coloana cea mai sudica a invaziei mongole din 1241 (probably [Seneslav was] the same person with Miselav "the head of Ulagh (vlach) people" whom the persian chronicle of Rasid-ed-din sais that he faced the southern column of Mongolian invasion of 1241). This can be added to the article. I want you to come with arguments, Dahn, don't hide behind OR's, it's simply ridiculous. --Alex:Dan 08:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". What we have is a mention in a Persian chronicle, that all historians you mention consider not to be accurate in itself, but to represent the result of verious confusions between the names of documented princes. No secondary or tertiary source mentions either Bezerenbam or Mislau as actual rulers. This is what Xenopol says (loc. cit.): Bezerenbam is the corruption of the name Basarab and the title of Ban; he might be the same as Litovoi (in either case, he certainly does not say a ruler of that name existed). Djuvara says Mislau was the same as Seneslau. So, in short, the only time these people are mentioned by professional historians serves to indicate that their existence is questionable. Aside from a chronicle written on another continent, thousands of kilometers away, that relies on hearsay and, as both sources you use indicate, confuses data, the only places where these people are mentioned as rulers are internet chatrooms for fringe ideologies. Dahn 08:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You're mistranslating again. Djuvara sais probably, not certainly. And also, you have almost a page in which Xenopol demonstrates that the persian chronicle is definitely accurate (Conclusion: Raschid era foarte bine informat, din documentele ce le avea la indemana, asupra locurilor si a imprejurarilor, si ca putem da o deplină crezare si celorlalte arătări ale sale, care nu pot fi verificate prin alte izvoare), yet the names are corrupted. [And since you wanted an OR, I must tell you that Arabs, as Hebrews, have a writing system that doesn't note every vowel, that's why Bezerenbam can also be read as Bazarambam.]. Brief: Xenpol and Djuvara confirm their existence in The Persian Chronicle. Give me a better translation for căpetenia popoarelor ulagh and I'll be happy to modify that. --Alex:Dan 08:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Answered in the Bezerenbam AfD entry. Dahn 09:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, just like Bezerenbam. bogdan 09:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have modified those articles. Bezerenbam is now the leader of a valachian army, ban after Xenopol, and Mislau a căpetenie of ulagh people (how woud you translate that?). My impediment was the absence of a correct and complete quotation. --Alex:Dan 09:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Bogdan, these two articles could probably constitute notes in the Origin of the Romanians or some other such place, clearly indicating both that they are to be found in a certain source, and that those historians who discuss the mention tend to agree that they are corrupt. In this case, a note could also be slipped in the article on Seneslau. Dahn 09:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merge as Bogdan said, in an article about romanians in The Persian Chronicle, with some development concerning Xenopol's theories (or as Dahn sais, as a separate paragraph in Origin of the Romanians?). I also want to ask for your opinion if it would be beter to replace the existent quotation with the translation from Serpent's Choice's link (p. 628) ? Also, I'd like to stress that not the information but the names could be corrupt, according to historians. --Alex:Dan 09:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

See comment above. Dahn 09:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was 40-man delete. Krimpet (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World of Warcraft - The Freezing Blockade

World of Warcraft - The Freezing Blockade (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article is 100% speculation, and so are all the sources. Can be recreated later, when decent sources become available. SuperDT 06:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Less substantive that even crystalballing at this point, Wikipedia is also not for things made up while waiting to raid one day. Serpent's Choice 06:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as speculation not even worthy of the name crystalballism. Just someone asking a bunch of questions. I suspect this is just someone with time to kill since today's a big patch day. DarkAudit 11:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As per above. DBZROCKS 12:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wow-expansion plans may be discussed in the main article (there's enough existing speculation from reputable sources that it can be documented to exist, so a short paragraph wouldn't be unwarranted), but this isn't the way to do it. FrozenPurpleCube 15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Serpent's Choice. ---Cathal 15:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, blatant speculation, wholly unsourced. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Serpent's Choice.Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless I can have a Having a monkey would be cool page. Slavlin 19:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator, pure World of Warcruft speculation. Burntsauce 23:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. "World of Warcruft" -- cute. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 00:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: The likelihood of the article being a hoax is considerably high. After all, why would a game developer give such an odd name that doesn't make any sense? Either way, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Kylohk 16:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch Lobster

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

Article is little more than a series of dictionary definitions about a term that probably lacks independant notability. Of the three, the first is self-evident. The second is a one-off insult used in a relatively obscure 1908 book (which itself does not have an article). The third is a protolistic coining by Simon Travaglia, discussion of which rapidly devolves into original research and uncited self-reference. Serpent's Choice 07:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As far as I can see the only unqualified statement here is "Dutch lobster is the name given to lobster taken from the coastal areas of The Netherlands.", which is fine but not the basis for an article. BTLizard 08:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the article needs some work. If it could get to the level of Maryland Crab that would be O.K. Right now it is not encyclopedic. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (talk | meet) 14:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Father Thomas Judge

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

Text is copied, almost verbatim, from the Trinity Mission Center site, without acknowledging source; public domain or copyleft status of information cannot be verified, although copyright information exists elsewhere on site. Original article author appears to be inactive, and is unlikely to be contactable. --Liveste 07:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as copyvio. DarkAudit 13:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baillie Thomas Arbuthnot

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

I don't think there is anything notable here. Perhaps it can be expanded but being the factor of a Scottish estate and advocating a cause is not that spectacular. Giano 07:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable.--padraig3uk 08:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing notable to see here. --Dhartung | Talk 09:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- no assertion of notability and fails WP:BIO Thunderwing 11:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: A quartermaster, it seems, who reproduced. That's all we learn. That surely isn't all there is, but what there might be does not seem to pass the bar. Geogre 12:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Having written some Jacobite biographies - I was quite excited by this - and the possibilities for expansion. Unfortunately, we have zero sources - so until we do, I suggest we delete.-Doc^g 13:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - until we have some sources showing that he actually did anything of note (he might be notable for "rallying" forces for James VIII, whatever that means - he was 34 in 1715: did he lead the group that he "rallied" in combat, for example? I suspect he unable to do much of interest by 1745.) -- ALoan (Talk) 14:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unless references can be added showing satisfaction of WP:BIO. Edison 15:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ---Cathal 16:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 19:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. When considered among the group of Arbuthnots who were recently scrutinized in other AfDs he's clearly not notable. EdJohnston 04:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep He probably is. The local gentry participating in the 45 were as notable as any later revolutionary leaders--being around to do it both in 15 and 45 was quite exceptional. Baille is mayor, and Peterborough was a small city (large town by modern standards, but this was the 18th century. The Lord Marischal before he lost his title had one of the largest estates in Scotland--factor to him was a position of political and economic influence. it's just that this article doesn't show the notability, because the author was much more interested in getting in the maximum number of relatives from the sources immediately at hand, than in actually doing any research or any thoughtful writing. If his family has figures worth entering, they're worth doing well, and better to do one good one a month than one like this a day. Of course, doing figures like this properly takes going to actual libraries, and in the UK. We can't correct all of this work in 4 or 5 days--perhaps we should hold off for a wikiproject. DGG 05:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure from where you have derived this information the subject was neither gentry not a mayor and Peterborough? Is nowhere near Scotland. Giano 06:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If we can get sources, I'd write the article myself. But as it stands we have none.--Doc^g 07:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And there I was assuming that Baillie was his first name! He was a minor municipal official (Baillie, equivalent to alderman or magistrate) of Peterhead (not Peterborough). As for being a factor - the notable person is the organ grinder, not the monkey. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. RFerreira 05:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. KrakatoaKatie 09:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak keep - Some reputable citations, more would be needed with article expansion to really make a case for more notability. Smee 09:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
• Weak delete. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO, and of the three listed sources, one (Mrs Arbuthnot's "memories") is not independent, and the reference to the National Library is a primary source, rather than the required secondary source per WP:N and WP:NOR. There may be adequate secondary sources to write a valid article, which is why I say a "weak" delete; but the uncertainty about their availability in relation to a relatively minor 18th century figure leads me to conclude that it is better to delete than to keep the article in the hope that someone may find them and rewrite the article. If the article is deleted, then a new one can of course be written if and when someone has the necessary sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kiwijet

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

No sources, airline's web site at www.kiwijet.net is not even active yet. Prod was removed along with other templates with no improvements to the article. gadfium 08:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. BTLizard 08:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article is talking about what they are planning to do and gives accusations with no support for them. Needs to go or be sourced. Slavlin 18:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Needs to be sourced if kept, here's a start: [14]. -- Hawaiian717 23:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That's just a reprinted press release. All it proves is that the airline actually exists, at least on paper. I think the article is premature until such time as the airline starts hiring staff and leasing planes.-gadfium 01:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed, probably not the best source but it's something to get started with. Google News has more: [15] Hawaiian717 15:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Hawaiian717 has the source. It's one, but it is probably enough to get out of crystalballery. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has been cleaned up, retagged and gotten a few references. Still needs work. Vegaswikian 01:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the cleanup, but it looks like we are reading the sources differently. Kiwijet is a proposed competitor to Air New Zealand, and ANZ is considering launching its own low-cost airline in response. I've adjusted the article according to my understanding. I still think this article is premature.-gadfium 06:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish Wrestling Alliance

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

Non notable wrestling promotion with cruft and COI problems, fails WP:CORP and WP:V. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page:

NWA Scottish Heavyweight Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete, suggest addition of NWA Scottish Heavyweight Championship to this listing. Deiz talk 08:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Done. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- Mais oui! 08:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It seems to be advertising Lurker 10:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ---Cathal 17:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. RFerreira 05:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite. --MacRusgail 16:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Any comments about the validity of the article or nomination reasons (WP:V, WP:CORP)? Bear in mind your opinion may be discounted without reference to policy or practice. Deiz talk 04:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Seiuli

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

No idea if this is true, probable, or whatever, but there's no sources and I only get 1 non-useful Google hit. Not sure if its a speedy candidate and PROD was removed without explanation. Wickethewok 08:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Only one ghit, which appears to relate to a different person. If this article were accurate I'd expect quite a bit of internet presence. BTLizard 08:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's all just fantasy I'm afraid. Nick mallory 10:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete complete and utter fiction. --Xorkl000 10:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as nonsense. DarkAudit 11:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as fiction. Sens08 21:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Obligatory Delete probable hoax. Completely fails WP:A and thus WP:BLP. Ohconfucius 08:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly fictional. xC | ☎ 19:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (or should we say, "nelete": neologism delete.) Krimpet (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neek

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

Neologism, dicdef and unnotable band member. Delete swiftly. JFW | T@lk 08:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism based on the unverifiable nickname of an obscure or non-existent individual. BTLizard 08:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom-—arf! 11:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism apparently made up during a round of D&D one day. DarkAudit 11:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Yes, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but I think we can agree that CAN and SHOULD are not the same thing. Slavlin 19:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. RFerreira 05:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Doc^g 01:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extraterrestrial Encounter Therapy

Extraterrestrial Encounter Therapy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Appears non-notable. Sources do not seem to support article's claims. Zero ghits. Contested prod, without comment. Serpent's Choice 09:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unreferenced and not notable. Nick mallory 09:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please consider the revisions being made to the current article in respect to referencing in particular. Also feel free to edit the page or send me information of any sort regarding how to make this page a meaningful contribution to wikipedia. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roughpikey (talk • contribs)

Regarding the references at the current time. I don't have a clue what the Akaroa News is; it gets no valid ghits, and it's certainly not the newspaper for Akaroa, which is the Akaroa Mail. The Journal of Regressive Therapy is not a scholarly journal; the only ghit is the ZoomInfo profile of its "editor", suggesting it is some sort of unreviewed religious publication. Spirituality and Healing is too noisy to Google easily, although this focused search comes up blank. Rose Hargrove is real, but her paper doesn't appear to have been published anywhere except aliensandchildren.org (don't miss the bit at the bottom about building thought screens!!). Serpent's Choice 11:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless the sources listed can be verified - a "Extraterrestrial Encounter Therapy" web search produces no unique hits, also no results on google books, news archive or scholar. Addhoc 11:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Article is a fine example of credible looking nonsense. Endorsing something non-notable based on something that may not even exist is crazy! Boston2austin 12:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• My apologies I have erroneously listed the Akaroa Mail as the Akaroa News. With regards to remarks made by Serpent's choice I find the criticism of one of the sources being "some sort of unreviewed religious publication' to be unfair. Wikipedia has many pages that have almost no references e.g MoPy Fish, or references from one website. Finding papers or journals that are "scientific" or 'academic' for the topic of alien abduction is not really possible. It is a totally different paradigm and therefore to judge it's legitimacy based on this is truly unfair. So please consider that I am trying to bring as much legitimacy to this page as possible. Also in regards to Boston2Austin's comments regarding "Endorsing something non-notable based on soemthings that may not even exist", I do not belive that by publishing an article wikipedia by any means endorses the subject. Take for example the "cock and ball torture" page, which remarkably has one reference. Does wikipedia endorse this?

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. meshach 16:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Science deals with reality. This article only deals with a different 'paradigm' because its subject doesn't exist in reality. If there really were alien craft buzzing this small Australian town I think 'science' would be all over it. The only way it could be included would be if it was discussed by third parties e.g. major newspapers and books. It isn't. There aren't any credible references for this article, it's not a concept discussed elsewhere, therefore it shouldn't be on wikipedia because it's not 'notable'. Nick mallory 03:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• With regards to the comments made by Nick Mallroy there is a paradigm that deals with events that are not part of what the general public would class as reality. Paranomal psychology explores the phenomen of alien aductions, ghost sightings and even astral travel just to name a few. Please google this topic for further information. As for "alien craft buzzing this small Australian town", alien craft do not neccesarily make their presence known to the everyday Australian by "buzzing" their way into town. Often alien craft will operate on stealth mode when coming within close range of human settlements. Obviously aliens wouldn't want scientists to know of their forays into towns such as Coober Pedy. This would bring unwanted attention to their scientifc experiments and possibly even a military prescence. Just quickly another thing to point out is that your comments are actually quite insensitive to the experiences of those who have been lucky enough to survive an extraterrestrial encounter. By dissmissing their experience in no more than a few sentences, you effectively demoralise and retraumatize these indiviudals.

I fully agree with you that such 'individuals' are in dire need of urgent treatment by properly qualified mental health practitioners. On another point, if the aliens want to keep their visits to Coober Pedy a secret, you know, by flying in on 'stealth mode', then what are they going to make of an article on Wikipedia revealing their covert activities to the world? Is it safe to keep this article? Nick mallory 14:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I am tempted by the mere fact that this article pretends extraterrestrial encounters are real. I am convinced to vote delete, though, for the lack of notability assertion and lack of independent sources. Someguy1221 09:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please note the amendments made to the current article. Namely the use of 'scientific' sources such as the Jounal for the Scientific Study of Religion and Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. I hope this remedies the "lack of independent sources". Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roughpikey (talk • contribs) 13:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Comment - none of the web links you have provided mention Extraterrestrial Encounter Therapy. Addhoc 14:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As ad hoc has just pointed out the new sources in the article don't have anything to do with 'extraterrestrial encounter therapy' so don't affect the case for the retention of this article. That there is definitely a positive correlation between educational achievement and belief in pseudo-science doesn't prove that pseudo-science is true. Science is a method of thinking, not an attribute of a person. Use of 'alternative therapies' is overwhelmingly middle class for instance but it doesn't mean that distilled water cures cancer. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than seeing a UFO, even on 'stealth mode' land in Australia but there's just no hard evidence to suggest that this has happened. There isn't a different 'paradigm' regarding notability on wikipedia I'm afraid. Where are the non trivial, reputable sources for "Extraterrestrial Encounter Therapy" regarding these supposed alien visitations in this small Australian town? Nick mallory 14:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Before I respond to Nick Mallroy's comments in defense of the article on EET, I would like to firmly state that this article should not be deleted. I feel that most people's reasons for deletion come from a lack of belief in extraterrestrials or related phenomena. Nick Mallroy has stated that "a positive correlation between educational achievement and belief in pseudo-science doesn't prove that pseudo-science is true". I don't believe the evidence presented in this article, and please correct me if I'm wrong Roughpikey, was intended to prove the "truth" of pseudo-science namely extraterrestrial contact. Rather the evidence is really a demonstration that there are flaws in the arguement often used that alien abductees are in fact poorly educated and mentally unstable. Also let's be careful with the use of the word "truth". Firstly what exactly is the truth, is it not simply what people believe to be true? Rather than something that is absolute. The intellectuals of the past believed it to be the truth that the world was flat. Was this the truth? Also let's be careful with using 'hard evidence' as a means of judging the existence of something. The many religions of the world cannot provide 'hard evidence' of the existence of their deities. Sure there is a dearth of literature chronicling the existence of God and the many other deities, but in the same respect there is an abdundance of literature on alien aductions and contact. Therefore what 'hard evidence' can be provided of alien contact in Coober Pedy other than the word of people who have experienced this event? I am hoping Roughpikey that either yourself or someone you know will lend their story to the EET article as 'hard evidence'. Thank you for your this article Roughpikey and I hope you don't mind if I make some additions or conduct some editing. Thanks again.
• Comment. There is no hard evidence, not even light evidence (witness reports are not evidence, Scientifically, as humans can lie and forget) that extraterrestrials have actually visited the Earth, let alone abduct anyone. There are a number of confusing, seemingly inexplicable events that have occured in the past, but not being able to explain something is not evidence of anything except that you lack a good explanation, or a good amount of information on what happened. As far as religious belief goes, no, there is no hard evidence that alleged histories are correct. However, I think you misunderstand why we are having this discussion, so firstly I shall explain why we have articles on religious beliefs. It is not Wikipedia's mission to become an an arbiter of truth, but merely to record notable theories, beliefs, events, people, etc. Religious beliefs are here because they are considered notable, most simply for being held by so many people currently, and being so pivotal to understanding history. The reason this article is being nominated for deletion is the lack of evidence of notability, and the lack of reliable, independent sources confirming any possible notability. And true, your article does not attempt to prove that people have actually been abducted, but rather it seems to assume that it's true. This is besides the point, however. Taking a fringe view like this makes the article look bad, but it's quite fixable. The actual issue, as I said, is one of notability. Someguy1221 07:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Science is the method we use to determine what the truth is. This involves testing a disprovable hypothesis against evidence and making predictions which can themselves be tested. You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts. The fact that you believe something to be true does not make it true. The Earth was a sphere even when people believed it to be flat. There should be an article about 'UFO's on Wikipedia because it's a subject which is widely discussed, even if there's no good evidence that extraterrestrials are visiting earth. There's no real coverage of this particular 'encounter therapy', so it shouldn't be on wikipedia. Why would ET visitations be exempt from the tenets of science anyway? Why would their existence be so mysterious if it was real? You ask if there's hard evidence to prove the truth of religions, well, no there isn't. Religions aren't science, they're notable for reasons which have nothing to do with the doubtful objective reality of their claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You can't argue, 'I believe in Coober Pety UFOs and you don't so it's equally likely either way'. The burden of evidence is on you, and you haven't got any. This discussion isn't about the existence or otherwise of UFOs, it's about the notability of this article and it's just not notable. Nick mallory 15:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all thank you for your comments Nick Mallroy, I appreciate you enlightening me on the topics of truth and science before getting to the meat of the problem as you see it - notability. I would really like to question the comments "The fact that you believe something to be true does not make it true" and "You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts". The truth as we know it for the most part is presented to us by science. When I say the 'truth' I mean things that can be tested via the scientific method. However the problem is that like any field, the weakest link in science is the human factor. Any scientist could carry out research with the utmost rigour and yet still not have his or her findings published. Why? The answer is quite simple - people. If a scientist presents a study that shows results of no statistical significance the likelihood of these findings being published decreases - the file-drawer problem [16]. Also if the major journals present research within a certain paradigm and the scientist who wants publication thinks in another, the article is not likely to be published. Therefore the findings are not published and we don't know about new evidence. Does this mean that the 'facts' this scientist presents are not facts? No, but it does mean that we do not know of them until a paradigm shift occurs or we don't find out about them at all. Therefore because science is so skeptical of the existence of aliens any literature suggesting it to be the truth will not likely be published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Therefore what we know as the 'truth' is limited to what people deem to be worthy of being a truth. This means that in many ways groups of scientists are entitled to their own opinions and 'their own facts'. These in turn become the facts of the general population who do not care to question, have a genuine faith in science or wouldn't have the knowledge to test them even if they wanted to. Also in many fields of science a principle of normalising data is employed in which outliers are removed as they do not fit data gained from what is deemed to be the normal population. Therefore anything that appears to be an anomaly is judged to be unworthy of being a 'truth'. Since alien abductions or sightings in fact fall outside of what is deemed to be the norm, these events are judged to be unworthy of being a truth. Finally one of the important factors in the scientific method is control[17]. To be able to stick the scientific process of research you need to be able to control the subject of your testing in some way. In this way you can get a broad sample of the data rather than an opportunistic collection of data. This is the problem alien abductees and those who have seen aliens face. They were not prepared with scientific equipment to record their encounters with aliens. Rather they have had to present to society with nothing more than a memory and then subsequently get ridiculed by society for their efforts. Scienctists are unlikely to ever be able to scientifically test the existence of aliens until they can control the appearance of aliens. Therefore we can see that in many ways science, with all its benefits, has become much like the Church once was, in it's control of the facts/truths people are allowed to believe. Thank you.

• Wikipedia concerns itself not with what is true in the universal sense, but with what is notable and published by reliable sources. It is a tertiary source. The encyclopedia does recognize that theories outside of mainstream science may — at times — have a place; guidelines for such situations are located here. But regardless of the presence or absence of underlaying truth, this article does not appear to meet those standards. Serpent's Choice 11:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ok so notability is the main problem and I have read Wikipedia's information on that but I don't really understand it. I really need someone to explain it to me because it seems like what 'notability' really is isn't something concrete. In advance, thanks for any help. Roughpikey

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton ^{Need some help?} 17:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adele Augusta Ayer Gardner

Adele Augusta Ayer Gardner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Seriously, are all relations of famous men notable? Gareth E Kegg 09:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. --Dhartung | Talk 09:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. No, they are not. But the grandmother of a President of the United States who helped raise him? Well, yes, I'm inclined to think so. This isn't random, indiscriminate information: it's not President Ford's half-brother's best friend's mailman or the grandmother of the random celebrity-du-jour we're talking about here. -- Seed 2.0 11:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Per above she helped raise Gerald Ford and is the reason that Ford wound up in Grand Rapids. Americasroof 13:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but : OK, point taken, but it took multiple re-readings of the article to spot that detail. This lack of clarity is probably the reason for the AFD. So to get this straight - her daughter's marriage split up, so the daughter-plus-child came to live at her house, and that child was President-Ford-to-be? I've added an explanatory line to the intro. Tearlach 17:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I can see where you're coming from. I think I only noticed that detail because it's something I already knew. -- Seed 2.0 18:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There was also an odd reference to "the Leslie's parent's home" that I've amended. It looks a lot clearer now who was who. Tearlach 19:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (now that article has been clarified) as ancestor of an American president. KrakatoaKatie 07:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It was her who raised him, but he who made himself become President! Why shouldn't her grandmother have an article on this basis? Gareth E Kegg 11:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for now, but might change to keep if information can be added on her relationship with her grandson. As of writing this the external source was offline, so additional sources should be found. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 03:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton ^{Need some help?} 17:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Watermark charm interaction

Watermark charm interaction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A variant on mouse gestures. I tagged it as original research. Non-notable, not-yet-widely implemented idea might be better. -- RHaworth 10:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• [Assumed keep.] Reason for deletion has changed from 'original research' to not being notable. Notability only being raised after deletion was queried. Also isnt it true that if there is a reference in a journal then it has notability, since it was raised to the awareness of the experts in the field through publishing.

Notability surely isn't an issue with an entry based on knowledge? The whole purpose of a reference is to access information that isn't known to the reader. For example some knowledge in physics is known only to a few, but would still be mentioned in a encyclopedia. If new knowledge is not referenced until it is noteworthy then the whole notion of a Wikipedia is flawed since it will not introduce factual entries until they are in common usage, making it by design lacking in innovation and one step behind other resources. Maybe there should be a mechanism to retrospectively assess notability to avoid this issue.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityzen451 (talk • contribs)

• "By design, lacking in innovation and one step behind other resources". Yes that sums up Wikipedia policy pretty well. -- RHaworth 15:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont feel that it is appropriate to obliquely and facetiously poke fun at a valid comments. Though I do have a sense of humor and do see the funny side. - Why not just explain that my point here is wrong, otherwise WP would fill up with junk entries?

• Delete per nom. Large parts of the article are almost word-for-word copies of Mouse gesture. The author Cityzen451 is presumably the owner of http://www.cityzen451.co.uk which is a software company that has a product using "Watermark charm" technology and has added a spam link to the site from Mouse gesture, which is in turn linked from this article, so there's a COI issue as well. andy 15:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There's precisely one reliable source for this, an academic paper that has apparently not been cited by any other papers in the two years since its publication (at least not papers that citeseer knows about). There are very few ghits for either "watermark charm" or "user interface overloading". This suggests the idea isn't an important one. JulesH 15:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

hey hold on this is getting a little libelous a word for word copy because I wrote that section!!! I'm an academic and that hurts:/ Note that I wrote that section even handedly enough that it was not thought to be my own work, suggesting the issue of conflict of interest has been handled appropriately. It shouldnt matter that I am the owner of cityzen451.co.uk, which I am and I make no bones about it, I'm obviously going to write an article that is of interest to me perhaps even relevant to me. A link is not a spam link if it is linking to a product that is comparable to other gesture tools, that are listed in that section. The other points of precisely one reference is irrelevant, precisely one should be enough, since it is related to a gesture tool that is in wide use. However, I cant put a link to mojo sidekick there because I'd straight off be accused of spamming, which would lead to an automatic delete. Type in mojo sidekick and check the download figures 10,000. Also I was very even handed in my assessment of Mojo Sidekick. It doesnt pay to think the worst in everyone's actions So please let's not call in the lynch mob just yet.

Hudson, J. and Parkes, A., Visual Overloading: Adjunct Proceedings HCI International2003 June 2003, 67-68.

Hudson, J. and Parkes, A., Novel Interaction Style for Handheld Devices: Adjunct Proceedings UBICOMP04, Oct 2003, 52-55. J. Hudson, A. Dix and A. Parkes.

User Interface Overloading, a Novel Approach for Handheld Device Text Input. Proceedings of HCI2004, 2004 Sept, Springer-Verlag.

User Interface Overloading, International Patent Application, no. PCT/GB2004/002538

Just because something is not on the internet doesnt mean it doesnt exist. And, may I politely ask that the accusation of plagiarism be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityzen451 (talk • contribs)

• The fact is that parts of Watermark charm interaction are copies of Mouse gesture, which would be OK if Watermark charm interaction had sufficient merit as an article in its own right and it expanded significantly on Mouse gesture. The purpose of this debate is to explore whether it does have merit. In addition your involvement with cityzen451.co.uk represents a potential conflict of interest, which is something that wikipedians are always wary of. And there is indeed a link to your site from Mouse gesture. andy 18:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Cityzen451 - please see our guideline pages WP:N (which requires a subject to have been covered by multiple sources before it is included in Wikipedia) and WP:COI (which gives guidelines on how to edit wikipedia if you have a conflict of interest). JulesH 18:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• It ought to be stated explictly that Cityzen451 is the J Hudson whose works are mentioned in the article and in this debate [18]. In other words the only references given are by the author of the article. There are no independent third party sources so this article totally fails notability. andy 18:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

HI Andy, I agree with your comments and I'm encouraged that Wikipedia has a heavy grain of integrity running through it. I was in two minds what to do here, I couldn't merge it with mouse gesture because it would distort the mouse gesture entry, so I decided to write a new entry. please do note that the entries in Mouse gestures and Watermark... are similar because they are discussing similar issues. Watermark does have particular merit because it addresses and solves the issues that are central to producing a satisfactory mouse gesture interaction model. I understand fully that Wikipedians are wary of COIs, however if a contributer is acting responsibly then there is no reason to be alarmed, and this I guess is where this very process comes in and the irresponsible are weeded out. Yes there is a link to my site from mouse gesture, but please note that only because it is very relevant, however in the other article watermarking article, you could note that I did refrain from adding a link due to potential accusations of spamming and conflicts of interest, however since the article is based on a notable issue, since a uk patent has been granted and there are a significant number of people using Mojo Sidekick, shouldn't the article be suitable for inclusion with a link to Mojo sidekick and mojo gesture to confirm its notability. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this issue with me. I'll check the references you mention and discuss my findings with you.

Thank you I agree, I have had the references validated by debating them in this forum, I have exercised caution and have avoided a conflict of interest, the section on COI doesn't preclude contributors only that they should exercise caution, I have and we are discussing this in this forum. The fact that I am the author and I'm available on Whois only goes to show that I have integrety and that I'm not in any way trying to conceal who I am(?) There is sufficient notability since, there are multiple sources, such as download sites, download figure that signify over 10,000 people have used Mojo, and a patent application (which in a sense has the same status as a geographic location) , three journal articles and I dare say everyone who looks at this page has heard of Mojo after listening to this racket I'm making about this.

Okay thank you for providing the links to notability, (though I dont really see the significance of notability of porn stars as a category or are we taking wikipedia too serious and havent noticed) the issue of independent and multiple sources seems to me to have been misinterpreted or that the understanding of a journal article is being mixed up. Submitting an article to a journal is not self publication, it is the reporting of knowledge to an accepted authoritative body who through a process of peer review, accept or decline an article. It is that body that publish the article not the author, and therefore such articles qualify as independent, this is the whole point of journal submission, the editors are compiling a resource and publishing it not the individual authors. Whereas submitting on citeseer is self publication since an article can be submitted by the individual.

• Delete Despite the creators objections, I don't see much evidence of notability per WP:N or WP:ATT. If all the info comes from the creator of this program then that is not independent verifiability. 10,000 downloads doesn't sound like much nor does a patent application as even a actual patent is not a definite sign of notability. Lastly posting a few thousand word on Wikipedia does not count towards notability in the least. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Daniel I didn't follow your last comment "few thousand words on Wikipedia", was it in reference to my joke, that was intended to maintain a light tone, apologies. This is not about a program but an about an entry for an interaction model. Please note that I have asked a question about the interpretation of a journal article as independent. I feel that this is not a debate if comments are summited disingenuously, I feel this is inappropriate. Also drawing from Wikipedia's own notes, Notoriety is not about fame but significance, I quote downloads as a way of stating that users are using the software because the model works, if there were 0 or < 100 then I would not have a case, this adds an independently verifiable reference. The mention of a UK patent is not for expressing notoriety but to verify the model, you can't have a patent based on a model that does not work, hence this serves as an independent and secondary source.

Comment if you want to make this AfD disapear, just add some independent verifiable sources it is as simple as that. No independent sources, no article and yes a source written by the creator of the subject in question no matter how it is published should not count towards. You are right notability and fame are not directly connected but notability in the Wikipedia sense means that someone apart from the owner/creator/subject has taken note and written something from which we can source the information in an article. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why the tone of every comment I have received has been, off handed, overly critical, libelous and on the whole brash? Is it that Wikipedia is a perpetual fest for internet trolls? I mean come on give a guy a break I am trying to have a 'debate' here, I'm not trying to bark on just get a straight answer from ppl. I am questioning the interpretation of notability and I have received a response with " should not count" not " does not count" but should. It is absurd that the opinion of a number of experts in a field who elect that an article is worthy of publication, hence notability, should be discounted, when all I have to do to get the article in Wiki is find some other article were any lobotomized zombie could have referred to these publications. Patent nonsense. The fact that 'should' instead of 'does' indicates lack of certainty and therefore you must refer the query to someone who can provide an authoritative ruling, instead of childishly trying to test an honest persons patience by antagonizing them. This begs the question why should people attempt to contribute to such a community that is so prickly and downright unapproachable. There should be a mechanism to reprimand such childish behavior and reduce should negativity. So I am left with the opinion that Wikipedia encourages trollisness, which detracts from what it aspires to be, but then again what does it actually aspire to be? But then I note with a bit of a humor to say no hard feelings I Suppose it keeps ticket inspectors off the streets. Thank you for considering my submission to Wikipedia

You're missing the point. WP has some very clear guidelines about what makes an acceptable article. This debate will be closed in a few days by an experienced administrator who will weigh up the various points raised against those guidelines. This debate is not an appropriate forum for questioning the guidelines - there are such fora and you may wish to contribute your point of view to them.

During the debate some important points have been made about this article. If you don't like the way in which those points have been expressed that's unfortunate but it doesn't invalidate them.

You might want to review AfD etiquette which requests that contributors should be civil and avoid the use of sarcastic language. How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette explains important aspects of the process of which you may not be aware, including the relative weight given to the opinions of editors and this point in particular: "If the reasons given in the nomination are addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin."

So please don't feel antagonised. Simply fix the article by adding the references that will establish notability. Otherwise, on present showing, the article is almost certain to be deleted. andy 22:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but you cannot expect anyone to accept that the comments I have received in this debate have been anything but 'off' There has not been any use of sarcastic language only constant attempts to lighten a tone that has been thoroughly discourteous. I agree strongly that there well may be many aspects that I am unaware of, but the whole theme of this debate has been one of impatience with an inexperienced contributor. Simply put there is an unnecessary lack of patience with newbies which is well not necessary and discourteous. I am sorry but seeming to accuse someone of plagiarism and then taking the moral high ground is exactly the issue I'm trying to raise here. As you say the comments made during this debate may still be valid but do they conform to Wikipedia etiquette policy? Thank you andy for clarifying these points but please note that I am inexperienced and I genuinely felt that the guidlines were misinterpreted. Instead of letting someone drone on why not clarify that these issuea should be debated elsewhere from the onset. My point is that the way this debate has been conducted, which includes yourself has been inappropriate and unhelpful. There is no reason why admin cant wear many hats, by being helpful, supportive, encouraging as well as ensuring policy is adhered to.

I am sorry that you found some of the responses to be discouteous. Please keep in mind that tone is very difficult to judge in writing. I don't think many of the comments from other editors were intended to be unfriendly, personally I have found Wikipedia a very friendly place. On a serious note you accused editors of libel, I am assuming in reference to the fact that it was pointed out that portions of this article were copied from the mouse gesture page, no one accused you of plagerism or said anything other than the truth so I don't see any evidence whatsoever of libel. Please try not to take anything from an AfD personally, it is a common problem for new editors to create pages on themselves or their own creations and then be insulted when the community decides that the article fail to meet policy. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Daniel first off please note that I apologize if I come over ruffled or insulted by you, this is not the case. I do respect your comments. Perhaps you are taking what I write the wrong way and are assuming I am barking when I was simply and light heartedly putting a point of view across.

The issue is not of having the article rejected, but simply the tone of this debate. Am I not insulted, I have only pointed out the way comments have been worded and presented, including your own postings, which perhaps were unnecessary. Perhaps you could have simply pointed me in the right direction.

I believe you cannot simply put "Large parts of the article are almost word-for-word copies of" without qualifying the comment. And, then obliquely qualify it is the work of the same editor after an eyebrow has been raised, especially given that it was glossed over that it was necessary that the parts should be the similar, and therefore not lacking in quality or effort. The wording of comments such as this are inappropriate on a public forum were it cannot be expected for the general reader to be well versed in WP procedure and operation.

I agree with you it is not clear if the statement is intended to be libelous and it wasn't actually taken as such, but that clearly shows a need for care to be taken when posting comments, and that care has not been taken. I have edited my comments accordingly. It should not be stated that "has added a spam link to the site from mouse gestures" without checking that the link is legitimate". Or to state, "It ought to be stated explictly that Cityzen451 is the J Hudson" which could be construed as an attempt at deception when it has already been clearly disclosed in many ways. My point is this has not been a debate at all just a process posting loaded opinionated comments. For example "common problem for new editors to create pages on themselves or their own creations and then be insulted when the community decides that the article fail to meet policy" is opinion, and dismisses my responses as bleating when all I am trying to do is clarify ambiguous and inaccurate comments.

Comments should be summited in such a way that they are perceived as they should be intended, so that there is no room for misconstruing them. Perhaps comments should not be patched over afterwards with "tone is very difficult to judge in writing". Comments should also be presented fairly and very even handedly. If an article were written in such a way it would be rejected because it were biased. I accept if by Wikipedia policy the content of the entry I propose is to be rejected. But there is no harm to try and clarify policy, however clumsily I may do it.

Suggestion

The contributors entry appears to be from research that he has contributed to. There is a conflict of interest - contributors should take particular care where there are clear COIs [Link]

It should be noted there are links to software products in the mouse gestures entry that are related to the author of this article.

The research does not appear to meet the criteria for notability [Link] to prove notability you should...

If you feel policy has been misinterpreted please note that this debate will be reviewed by someone who is more experienced and is well versed in WP policy. Issues of interpretation of policy are not handled in DfS, if you wish to read about and debate policy you could go to [link]

The entry is related to mouse gestures, the entries appear to overlap and cover similar issues. They are similarly worded.

though do note section in mouse gesture also contributed by author

Please consider the related independent references in the form of another product along with reviews, wholly unrelated to myself

http://www.iliumsoft.com/site/fp/inscribe.htm - floating translucent gesture keyboard

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=inscribe+ilium&btnG=Search&hl=en - Google search for keyboard

Again thank you for taking the time to consider my submission.

• Cityzen451: this is not a peer review process. It's a discussion. Have a look at some other AfDs here and you'll see how they're usually conducted. This is how WP works. Meanwhile you're not addressing the issue of whether your article should be kept according to WP's criteria. The links you've just given do not seems to relate to the notability issue - I can see no mention of "Watermark charm interaction". There are still no independent references within the article nor any other changes that relate to this AfD. andy 12:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you Andrew, but note I have not treated this AfD as a peer review, I have been debating, the point I have continually made is that this AfD has not been conducted as a discussion or appropriately. Perhaps my last comment should have read, thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments in this AfD.

The links show evidence of other products using the technique described, a technique that requires defining, and which has a recognized definition. The fact that it doesn't use the any of the terminology, only demonstrates it independence from the proposed WP contribution. It is still in use and it still remains that Watermark Charm interaction is the accepted terminology, since if anyone wanted to refer to it they would have to reference previous material. Surely, it is not necessary to have independent confirmation from specifically from and directly academic papers, if there is evidence from elsewhere. The existence of Inscribe demonstrates that this is not an idea but a technique in practical use. The fact that developers elsewhere have seen fit to implement the technique indicates notability and independent verifiability. The notability of the other articles I referenced are perhaps no longer relevant, since this could be interpreted that the notability of the technique/model is the issue not the term 'Watermark charm interaction'. At the least this is grounds to merge with the mouse gesture article, however I feel that would detract from its meaning. What is wrong with someone offering to take over the article and removing some of these issues of COI and notability anyway?

Perhaps it would be best to leave this to an administrator to decide, if you are only confident enough to comment that "this does not seem to be related to the notability issue"; then this is presenting a view as fact, in which case I respectfully dont see the purpose of it. Especially, given this debate is to be reviewed anyway. Note that I confirm that I am uncertain of my view and I have presented my argument in this debate as such.

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Anthony Freeman

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

Not notable; only claim to fame is notable father & grandfather MightyWarrior 11:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• delete (probably) Based of the somewhat confusing reference, there were three successive Ralph Freemans, and a third one, Ralph Anthony Freeman. The first two were distinguished, not the third, and this article is about the third. The obit. which is the reference is about the second one, and only mentions the third--who seems to have died the same year as the second. That's what got me confused, and unless there's stuff I don't know about, I agree he's not distinguished. DGG 20:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per explanation by DGG. No evidence of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 09:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 11:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Bentley

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

Non-notable: a cricketer who only played one first class match. Soobrickay 11:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolute KEEP The fact that he played one first class match makes him notable. This article is correctly referenced and perfectly legitimate according to wikipedia policy and precedent, as the nominator would have known had he checked up on this before nominating the article for deletion. Nick mallory 11:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment My apologies. I was unaware of the well defined guidlines at WP:CRICKET, which are satisfied for the cricketer in question. As such, I am more than happy for this discussion to be closed immediately ("speedy keep"?). Sorry again. Soobrickay 11:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Nick mallory 11:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thelma Harper

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

Written completely in-universe (going against WP:WAF), and the subject lacks sufficient outside commentary to improve it. CrazyLegsKC 11:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Also nominated for deletion are the following Mama's Family-related articles. They are all written predominantly or completely in an in-universe style and lack sufficient outside commentary to improve them to Wikipedia standards.

Raytown (Mama's Family) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Alvin Tutweiler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Alberta Meechum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Lloyd Meechum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Iola Lucille Boylan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Frances Marie Crowley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bubba Higgins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ed Higgins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Eunice Harper Higgins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ellen Harper Jackson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Sonja Harper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Vinton "Buzz" Harper the II (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Naomi Oakes Harper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Vinton Ray Harper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Keep all per WP:FICT major characters from works of fiction can have their own articles. Most of the names on the list I recognize as major characters from the series. Any that aren't major should be merged into a list article. Otto4711 13:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep for all --Philip Laurence 13:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all main characters on a notable, highly rated show. Could use some cleanup though. Specifying "Species: Human" in the infobox is a little silly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree that these characters (most of them, anyway) are notable; however, like I said above, I believe that they lack the kind of outside sources and commentary that would be necessary to write a good, out-of-universe article about fiction, in keeping with Wikipedia standards (WP:WAF)—which is the whole reason I nominated them. I personally am a fan of the show, and have seen very little, if any, of this kind of source material that could be used for articles on these characters, so I don't believe they could grow and improve beyond the simple in-universe "biographies" that they are now (with the possible exception of Thelma Harper herself). If anybody does think that they should be kept, I think they should also suggest possible sources and ways they could be improved to meet WP standards, because I don't see any. --CrazyLegsKC 15:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree. Sources are out there if you look for them. In just a few seconds I found this, this, and this, and that was without even bothering to dig into the archived stories from when when the show was actually on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Those are good sources, but they're all about the character of Mama, and they're all related to Vicki Lawrence's Two-Woman Show. I had a feeling there might be some stuff about that, which is why I noted Mama herself as a "possible exception" above. Are there any other sources for the other major characters, much less the minor characters (such as Buzz and the Mayor), or for Raytown, the show's setting—perhaps in the "archived stories" that you mentioned? If there are, so be it, but I still feel it's going to be very difficult to find whatever sources there may be and write them into good, beefed-up articles, especially for the more minor characters. --CrazyLegsKC 18:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all as major characters of a highly notable series. All of these articles are in desperate need of rework - none have sources and all need rewrites per WP:WAF but their notability is rather evident. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia does not consider a charcter major until it has the sources to provide real world context. Saying sources exist is not good enough, get them into the articles. If it's going to take a long time to put the full research together then it is better to delete the pages and make new ones later when ready. Jay32183 21:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you cite a source that defines when Wikipedia considers a character "major" enough for an article? One would think that the title role of a series (Thelma Harper being the "Mama" of Mama's Family) would qualify the character as major... Otto4711 13:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:FICT says its based on being able to provide encyclopedic coverage, which means sources. No judgement calls needed. The most insignificant character in a work of fiction could be major if it has the sources, and the most significant could be minor if it has no sources. Most importantly "Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an overall out-of-universe perspective." With no sources to establish the real world context, Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject. Jay32183 18:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all. If any individual character doesn't qualify for inclusion per WP:FICT, stick it in the root article for Mama's Family. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all per Arkyan. NTXweather 00:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, {{db-afd}}. This was conominated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pumkin. --Coredesat 01:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courtney Jackson

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

It seems that this article is pretty accurate about this person.

Given the proliferation of "Reality TV", and the fleeting "stardom" of its "contestants", my feeling is that Wikipedia is a good repository of information regarding these types of people.

Since, Ms. Jackson may still prove herself to be a successful comedianne given her opportunity to tour with Mo'Nique, my recommendation would be NOT to delete this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpgveg14 (talk • contribs) 2007/05/14 16:58:39

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - It seems to me that this was already discussed under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pumkin. --Tikiwont 13:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete G6 (housekeeping), for all intents - but because that's kind of generic, I stuck the {{db}} tag on with an explanation. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 20:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hollywood undead

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

Procedural nomination. This article has been created and speedy-deleted several times, but the band seems to have gained notability over the course of time, as noted by several citations from reliable sources. The article was salted after I tagged it for speedy-deletion, but the latest author asked for a review process, so I asked an admin to unsalt the page so that a formal AfD could take place (though it was speedied again before I could start the process). I have no position on this article; it is a procedural nomination only. Realkyhick 06:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry about that, Chief. Realkyhick 17:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All the references under Hollywood_undead#Notable_Media_Attention are articles about the band's label MySpace Records in which the band themselves are given only a brief mention as being the first to sign to that label. There seems to be nothing in the article to satisify WP:MUSIC CIreland 17:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think the basic consensus shown in the last three or four AFDs was to at least wait until they had released an album. I don't think they have yet. So...there you go. Bartleby 21:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• comment I thought the "upcoming release" part was crystal ball, until I saw the line-up section "Upcoming (possible) Members", you've got to be kidding me. Pete.Hurd 22:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete They still haven't done anything to meet WP:BAND. They have two self-produced CDs, according to GraceNote, and one song on a compilation from "Myspace Records", which hasn't released much else. They get attention because, for a while, they had an ad on every page of Myspace. Their Myspace page claims they're going to release an album Real Soon Now. When and if they do, we can reconsider this. --John Nagle 05:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A band that's signed even by a major label but doesn't put anything out or don't tour still fails WP:MUSIC, so just because it's the first to be signed by myspace records, it's no big deal. High on promise, but nothing since they signed. Agree with above: all the articles are about myspace records, and are trivial mentions of the band, so fails WP:N. Ohconfucius 09:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see the point in deleting an article that is notable enough to have page about them on Fuse TV. I don't understand the need to delete articles that are obviously in question, if anything the AfD should hold off until after the release of thier CD otherwise this article will be made again and again and again and if it is protected from recreation it will take a deletion review to get the article back once its gone, so whats the point in making it 20 times harder.--Joebengo 14:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mvomeka'a

Mvomeka'a (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There are no cited sources, and the text is very basic Monkeymox 18:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It is a city, let’s be realistic here, a city is notable in and of itself. I do agree it does need a rewrite and have notified the author of the situation. If he does not improve it within a week, I’ll take over the article and rewrite. Shoessss 18:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Fair enough, if somone can take responsibility for it, I'll remove the tag Monkeymox 18:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to be a fairly reasonable - if extremely short - city stub, and 9as pointed out) cities are inherently notable. I've added a tiny slip more info about its location. Grutness...wha? 01:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Cities, towns, villages are inherently notable. Could use expansion, though. --Oakshade 02:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep All places are notable, but I think this is closer to a village than a city to be honest. Nick mallory 12:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as real populated place. Should be sourced etc. Punkmorten 20:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as the subject is inherently notable, this is not the correct place for clean up. RFerreira 05:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious keep per above. - Darwinek 09:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Queen Anne, Maryland. Article is an exact duplicate and there is no need to go through the paces of letting this linger on AfD. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Queen Anne, Queen Anne's County, Maryland

Queen_Anne,_Queen_Anne's_County,_Maryland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

This article is redundant, it has the same information as Queen Anne, Maryland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dough4872 (talk • contribs) 2007/05/15 02:04:43

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom. MER-C 12:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect, even looks like a straight copy. *insert joke here about MD sure having a lot of Queen Annes for a state the size of your average person's driveway* -- Seed 2.0 13:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Queen Anne, Maryland. Same place. --Oakshade 15:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second single from Nightwish's sixth studio album

Second single from Nightwish's sixth studio album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 12:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because it's just a song - not even a single! - off this sixth-album-that-hasn't-got-a-name-yet. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The Poet and the Pendulum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete all, author has had serious notability issues in the past when creating articles and should really know better by now. Deiz talk 12:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. That the article can't even come up with a proper name is a bad sign in and of itself. Clearly speculative. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and beat the creator with a Wikistick I mean, really, give a real title to your article if you want people to use it. Slavlin 18:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it will probably be notable...when it comes out. --Haemo 01:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and list the article title at a list of very bad article names. Resolute 04:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and throw an assortment of crystal balls at the creator. I mean really who is ever going to type "Second studio single from Nightwish's sixth studio album" into the Wiki search box. When the album has a name, and the first single has name, and the second single is decided upon and then given a name, it might be notable under the title of the actual song. Until then it's balls. A1octopus 14:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per the octopus above. (Eww, tentacles octopus arms...) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 00:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE WP:BLP. -Doc^g 10:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elisa Prévot

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

Unsourced WP:BLP which doesn't seem to meet WP:PORNBIO. MER-C 12:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails both BIO and PORNBIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced and non-notable. KrakatoaKatie 08:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. There is no article here to comment on. Burntsauce 23:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 13:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frosty Jack Cider

Frosty Jack Cider (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unverified / unreferenced article about a brand of "white cider". Previous cleanup attempts ignored and tags removed Deiz talk 12:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as an advert. Ideally it should be redirected to an article about the brewery, which probably is notable, but unfortunately no-one has written that article yet. andy 13:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect - Article on Aston Manor Brewery has now appeared! -- MightyWarrior 14:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect - As above. There are a lot of brands of cheap cider... they can't all have articles. Bjrobinson 09:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result wasDelete does not meet the professional criteria as pointed out, as Kosovo is a province of a country, and also no unusual things or achievements that make him pass on other grounds. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haxhi Zeka

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

Someone named for speedy (CSD A7), but i think it should better use afd Matthew_hk tc 01:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Plays at professional level of sports. Satisfies athlete criteria. the_undertow ^talk 01:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment FWIW, the notability criteria requires that an athlete play in a fully professional league. Merely playing in a professional league isn't enough. Ytny (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep has played in top-level national soccer. That's notable enough. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-08 02:32Z
  • Not according to our guidelines. Punkmorten 10:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the Kosovo First Division does not seem to be a professional league officially recognized by UEFA. --Angelo 02:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete Kosovo Superliga appears to be a regional league, not a UEFA member league, and even if the league is fully professional, I don't think he plays at a high enough level to be considered notable. Ytny (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Kosovo Superliga is not associated with Serbian Superliga (or the league system), there is no promotion nor Relegation between them (see United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo). But, with 2 million population, it is hardly to believe that it is a full-professional league.

Also, if this AfD pass, all Kosovar footballer without playing outside should be deleted. Matthew_hk tc 04:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep player and topscorer of top division of de facto nation. Matthew_hk tc 04:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete user:the_undertow said the biggest joke I have ever heard in wikipedia. There is no way to be even a semi-professional. Also plays in a de-facto national team. If internationals are accepted, they are only from the recognized national teams. Just to tell you, personally I am from Cyprus, where another league such Kosovo exist in Northern Cyprus. Northern Cyprus are by far on much lower level (worse than malta) and play so amature that if you watch their pitches and the level of football you will laugh and their level is lower than Cypriot Second Division. Imagine that Northen Cyprus football is better than Kosovo if you se how their fake national teams are doing. Also we had here a discussion for Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) about international players are notable and all we agreed that playing for non-recognized national team is not notability, --User:KRBN 02:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Relisted to get further consensus. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton ^{Need some help?} 17:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The LilsBoys

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

Vanispamcruftisement. Unsourced BLP. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO for journalists. Contested prod. MER-C 02:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete. A case could be made for the article if there were reliable sources. I'd revisit my recommendation if they were provided, but in their absence, I agree with the nom about BLP. —C.Fred (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I have added sources and external links to this. In terms of WP:BIO you only have to look how many wrestler's WikiPedia entries The Sun Newspaper is listed in to see that they certainly should be kept - as they are the authors of every piece. 22:18, 8 May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.160.244 (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
• Weak delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO, despite being a good article. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 23:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep If they are the principal writers for this sport on a major paper, they're probably N. DGG 02:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep WP:BIO says that "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." In the field of wrestling The LilsBoys articles are exactly that. Just on Wikipedia, either they or their articles for the UK Sun are mentioned in the entries for Dixie Carter, Dave Bautista, Jeff Jarrett, Matt Hardy, Maria Kanellis, Joanie Laurer, Jeff Hardy, Amy Dumas, Joel Ross, Greg Lambert, Dean Ayass (Rothstein 22:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)). I am the page author.

Relisting to get consensus. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Stebbings

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

Non-notable person, no reference found within google or IMDB Thurls 13:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Notability is given as two minor TV roles and one unsigned band. CIreland 17:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Also, the primary author has edited only one other article about a local high school, and may have a conflict of interest. Placeholder account 03:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Renata 03:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Touchpaper Software plc

Notability alone. Was listed for speedy, which I think was not quite right. Am taking this to AFD. Should note that I work for an IT Service Management company, though I've never heard of this firm. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This article has been created and speedied a few times already, created at least once by the same author. I can't really research this company right now so I abstain. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (and salt). Blatant advertising. Already speedied twice as spam and once for copyvio. andy 14:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy and salt Spam. DarkAudit 15:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete was originally created by User:Touchpaperadmin, who then created a new account to recreate the speedied article. I think I speedied the copyvio version, and then tagged a new version to get a second opinion (Thanks Ta bu shi da yu). There is zero to indicate why this company in notable over every other of the thousands of non-listed IT services company. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 22:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Connections between 24 and La Femme Nikita

Connections between 24 and La Femme Nikita (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - there do not appear to be any sources attesting to the notability of the alleged connections or similarities between the two series. Actors with any degree of success work on a number of projects and it's not unusual or notable for various television series to share elements of style or theme. In the absence of independent reliable sources attesting to the similarity of the two series or that, as asserted in the opening paragraph, any similarities are "even more pronounced than normal" (whatever the "normal" degree of similarity between series may be) the article is a solid mass of original research based in the opinion of whatever editor happens to decide that an element of one show constitutes a "similarity" to another. Finally, this information is trivia which would likely not stand as part of the main articles on either 24 or La Femme Nikita. A trivia section spun into its own article is still trivia. Otto4711 13:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Some of this information "may" qualify as reasonable information to include on certain pages (IOW, maybe, just maybe some of the people who have the shows in common might mention them both in one sentence), but there is no need for a compilation. And some of the information is just a stretch. Use of Black SUVs? A countdown clock? I doubt either is unique to these two shows. (In fact, I know the US Secret Service uses black SUVs...) This sort of thing may be appropriate for a fan-wiki, but in terms of enyclopedic content? I'd at least need an article in a major source connecting the two. FrozenPurpleCube 15:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems like WP:OR to me. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Original research based on primary sources. Yes, two TV programs worked on by the same team are going to be somewhat similar. Yes, those similarities are even interesting. It could make a good article if written with reference to reliable secondary sources, but I'm in no way convinced that any such sources that go beyond triviality exist. JulesH 16:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivia and WP:OR do not a good combination make. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree, this is pure WP:OR and trivia. It's like the similarities between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. (Did you know that their last names both had seven letters? Neither did I!) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 00:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is original research all the way. Slavlin 04:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This does not belong into encyclopedia. Pavel Vozenilek 02:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Moyse

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

Article reads as a dictionary definition of a slang term, perhaps better suited in Urban Dictionary. Prod removed by author as well. Wildthing61476 13:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Note from author
NPB2007 14:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC) The article no longer resembles a dictionary definition and is a work in progress. The article now has both content and context.

External sources added. Additionally, the Claire Swire entry was allowed to remain.

• Delete External sources are either unrelated, home pages of sites the author likes that don't use the term or a long forum thread in which a user that uses the term as their name has participated. Also, sex related slang terms come and go at lightning speed. Will it be in common use in 100 years? 10? 1? - Richfife 15:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Also The Claire Swire email received international coverage. The Moyse, no. - Richfife 15:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Possible hoax and/or self-promotion. Referenced in the first listed (non-reliable) source as the name of a user, rather than using the definition here. Not found at all in the second site listed; only used in the third site as the name of a user. A search of google found nothing in the first hundred results for either '"The Moyse"' or 'moyse slang' that appears to be relevant. JulesH 16:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete At best, this is inappropriate to Wikipedia. At worst, it is non-notable slang. Slavlin 16:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The great majority of slang/neologism articles are pure unadulterated rubbish which should be shot and burned on sight. ---Cathal 17:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• The article cites four sources. They all turn out to be bogus. Two are just pointers to the main pages of web discussion fora, one is a book that clearly pre-dates what is claimed here by almost two decades, and the remaining one is a pseudonymous post on a discussion forum by someone using the pseudonym indicated by this article's title. Searching, I found no sources at all documenting this purported concept. The article is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 17:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. WP is not Urban Dictionary. Horologium talk - contrib 21:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, charitably, the author does not understand Wikipedia. We can't throw in references to Richard Dawkins and "memes" and puff up our article to be more important than it is. That isn't a reference at all. --Dhartung | Talk 09:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• NPB2007 10:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC) We are documenting an internet phenomenon as it is happening. This is akin to the famous Clare Swires e-mail. I think wikipedia is the perfect place to record the process of events leading to the distribution of this story throughout the World by "word of e-mail". These are interesting (and sometimes funny, sometimes tragic) modern phenomena. The links have been updated and now point to the exact posts on internet forums.
  • Comment The Claire Swires e-mail however received worldwide coverage and was featured in a number of reliable sources. Again the burden of proof is on you to show where this term is being used in such a fashion that it is covered by reliable sources, and no internet forums about clubbing do NOT count. Wildthing61476 13:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What you think is wrong. Please read our Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policies. Wikipedia is not the place to come to first document the heretofore undocumented. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. If you want to document the undocumented, the place to do so is a book, an academic journal article, or your own web site. Uncle G 13:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, trying to use Wikipedia to bootstrap a nonnotable meme. NawlinWiki 18:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frenchs pub

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

article of probably a cosy pub, but totally unreferenced; looks like original research; phrases and words such as "he's rumoured to have" "unconfirmed" "unclear whereabouts" "unclear origins"; totally unencyclopedic JoJan 14:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete JoJan 14:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete reads like a hoax, too. DarkAudit 14:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete could be a hoax, but certainly not notable and sections are just junk. Hut 8.5 15:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Uh... what? Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira 05:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Perhaps if something was added to assert notability, it would be different. There is a French's pub in Gorey, generating quite a few Google hits. However, as the article stands, everything after the first sentence is essentially a collection of in-jokes that locals might get, but thw jokes don't quite work on Wikipedia. Flowerpotman talk|contribs 20:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as both nn and WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 00:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep Having checked Google, I have seen many independent restaurant websites mentioning this place. So the subject is notable. However, it still needs a complete rewrite so as not to sound like an ad.--Kylohk 19:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Gordus

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

There is little claim of notability for this subject or reasonable expectation that the article will grow beyond a stub. Perhaps this is a vanity page? Also see Gordus' Official Research Page. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 14:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability. andy 15:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - some evidence of notability. See here and here. --Kimon^talk 15:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  Ummm, the google scholar link you provide lists papers such as: "Silence and Celebration: Queer Markings in the Poetry of Abigael Bohorquez by: A Bohorquez & AM Gordus" and "Bird use of an evaporation basin and a mitigation wetland by AG Gordus, J Seay & SB Terrill". I'm not sure how these bear on the notability of the person this article is about. Pete.Hurd 22:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - His publications are notable. I invite a specialist in his field to add more material to this article. JoJan 17:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 21:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• DeleteComment graduate student, h-index=2. Pete.Hurd 22:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. A graduate student at Harvard. Graduate students have rarely accumulated the notability required to pass WP:PROF, and he seems no exception. He has two well cited pubs (according to Google scholar), and seems well on his way to a successful academic career, but hasn't yet had a chance to distinguish himself from his advisor and show that he can stand as a star of his field in his own right. —David Eppstein 22:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: I disagree with David Eppstein in part: he doesn't need to be a star of his field to warrant a Keep. But I agree that more than this level of work is needed to qualify under WP:PROF or other notability guidelines. I also think that while I'm a a believer in the "more than average professor" provision of WP:PROF (and fond of noting how little the average professor actually publishes) I do think that graduate students need go beyond this level because--through less teaching and service experience--they are less likely to have local notability--which to me might justify an otherwise borderline article--or interest on the part of students and other researchers in reading this article. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I think if you look at the pattern of my comments on academic AfDs you'll find that I also don't require them all to be stars. But maybe, for a grad student researcher, that threshhold would be appropriate: there's less research, so they have to make up for it with exceptional quality. In any case my point was more the same as what DGG alludes to below with the placement of his name in the author lists of his papers: we can't tell how much of the credit for his two well-received papers should go to him vs to others, and likely won't be able to tell such matters until he starts publishing independently of his advisor. —David Eppstein 21:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry, not sufficiently established to be notable and meet WP:PROF. --Bduke 22:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A graduate student with 2 published papers, and that is nowhere near enough. One excellent paper in PNAS with 49 GS citations, but only as one of eight authors, in the middle of the list. Another excellent one in Nature, cited by 42, one of four again in the middle. No indication of being principal author of either one. A very good start to your apprenticeship. DGG 00:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure he's got more than 2, but h-index is 2 (Gordus A & MacBeath G. 2006 J Am Chem Soc. 128:13668-9) makes 3... Pete.Hurd 02:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per DGG as he fails WP:PROF. GreenJoe 03:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete PubMed shows 3 papers, but it's still not enough for a GA (graduate assistant) to reach notability – yet. We may well have an article about him in the (near?) future for work still to come. KrakatoaKatie 08:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, doesnt pass PROF. John Vandenberg 15:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, even if his contributions are notable, the article fail to explain just what impact he's had, thus failing WP:BIO, and also per the above. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 01:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable at present. may become notable in future, but not right now xC | ☎ 19:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nonsense. Moreschi ^Talk 16:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mikestar

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

Original text of "Tik Tok of OZ" is here [19]. There is no mention of a Mikestar or Mike when you do a search. Hoax. Richfife 14:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as nonsense. DarkAudit 15:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The School Scoop

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

This is an article about a school newspaper which gives no indication of importance or notability outside of that particular school. I am sure its a very nice newspaper, but I see no reason it is deserving of an article on Wikipedia. It was speedy deleted four times in the month of March ([[20]]) for lack of notability, as an advert, and as the very definition of "something made up in school one day". I propose this AfD for those very same reasons. Cathal 14:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the nonnotable podcast that goes along with the nonnotable school newspaper.:

The School Scoop Podcast (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete non-notable school newspaper. Hut 8.5 15:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Monthly middle-school "newspaper". Nearly every school has one of these, they aren't notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:N TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NFT. I already deleted this at least once. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above. If something that has been deleted by an AFD is recreated, it should qualify for a speedy.--Kylohk 17:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last Chaos

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

Contested prod; prod reason was No independent references have been given. primarysources tag has been here since Februrary. Suggest deletion on basis of WP:ATT and WP:SOFTWARE (That's WP:V and WP:N now). Prod contest reason was that a search aggregate was enough to satisfy WP:N (in this case, Google - results are all download sites, forums and user-submitted reviews). When challenged to provide specific sources, there was no response. I'll also note that the MMOSite.com and MMORPG.com links are also both based on user-submitted scores. Marasmusine 15:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 15:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong, delete - Another article that cannot provide reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. As usual, requests for sources have been ignored on the basis that being listed on lots of download sites, forums and trivial sources such as MMORPG and MMOSite is enough. It's not. Search engine results are just as dubious a reason for keeping as it is for deleting.DarkSaber2k 15:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Week delete. Apparently-professional reviewer here gives it a good writeup, but I've failed to find any other pro reviews, and I think we need at least two to keep it (per analogy to the notability rules for books, which requires two reviews). JulesH 16:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources to demonstrate notability present in article (the four links there are MMOG funnel-sites of no use whatsoever), googling turned up nothing. As always, very happy to change position if good sources appear. QuagmireDog 16:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, per this discussion and author request --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 09:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hall Cricket

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

Delete per WP:NFT Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- is the very definition of WP:MADEUP. -- MisterHand 16:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Refer also another article Corridor cricket which was deleted 1 March 2006. It opened "What can only be described as a technically complex, physically demanding and mentally taxing experience. The relatively unknown distraction of Corridor Cricket is gaining momentum in corridors up and down England.". —Moondyne 16:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• We've been here twice before. See Corridor cricket (AfD discussion) and Cambridge corridor cricket (AfD discussion). Uncle G 16:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Please Note: This is not the same game as the two articles that are being referred to. Both of those related to the same game using a tennis ball in a long corridor. Apart from terminology it has little to do with cricket and should thus not be placed on the list of cricket related deletions. This will just confuse people --Emptyart 19:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• It's not a speedy candidate, but it's a definite delete for lack of notability and references. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As a hall cricket player, I would like to make some points: firstly, the game is very different from those in the deleted articles. the use of a table tennis ball allows the bowler to impart swing to an extent which would not be possible with a tennis ball, and radically alters the techniques required for both batting and bowling. Secondly, Hall Cricket is more than just a sport - Chestnut Avenue Cricket club was, and to some extent is, a cultural club. However, I do feel that few people are going to be looking for articles on Hall Cricket; there are probably less than two hundred registered players. If the C.A.C.C. committe had published some of the match reports, disciplinary decisions or even the constitution there would be more citations to support the article. Trying to get those load of stuffed shirts to change their ways seems, however, to be a hopeless task. Thehalfone 09:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thehalfone said "I do feel that few people are going to be looking for articles on Hall Cricket; there are probably less than two hundred registered players." I agree with this summation and the general feeling amongst members (though not a consensus) is that although Hall Cricket might one day deserve a full place in Wikipedia it does not at present fulfil the criteria. One member pointed out that if her novel is ever published, then hall cricket will have at least some of the necessary citations and bid me patience. I beg pardon for wasting your time and will delete the article.

One thing I would ask before I go, try a game with your sons, daughters, grandchildren, nephews or nieces. --Emptyart 15:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton ^{Need some help?} 17:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese miniaturization culture

Japanese miniaturization culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page makes no claim that this is in anyway an actual culture. Trying to find details on it just brought up tons of google hits on technology, but nothing that would be relevant to this article. Slavlin 16:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unsourced. Also, "Some people claim that....", "There are some who draw a connection between...." and "However, others argue that...." all sound like ways to disguise original research. CIreland 16:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and CIreland. ---Cathal 17:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete OR-ish article that makes seems to make sense if you just skim it, but really doesn't: a similar article could probably be written about any culture in the world, as making things smaller is hardly limited to the Japanese. Mini folding umbrellas, one of the things listed in the article, exist all over the place. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 01:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment — There's also Chibi and Super deformed, albeit those talk only about Manga & Anime.--Endroit 14:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This seem to be a widely accepted trend. See University courses [21]. It says: "Introduction to Japanese aesthetics in theory and practice, including study of ritual and specific trends in Japanese aesthetics such as imperfection asymmetry, suggestion, miniaturization, indirectness, wabi, sabi, hie-kare, yugen, especially as reflected and practiced in the tea ceremony." There are many unsourced articles in WP. Should we delete them all? Biophys 00:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC) O'K, I just included one reference to a book. There are many other sources.Biophys 00:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Fine, I just included reference to Encyclopedia Britannica online. Biophys 01:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Can you supply any re-writing of the article which would support miniaturization being a specific Japanese cultural phenomena based on those sources? Slavlin 15:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply. I understand that all sources (Encyclopedia Britannica, the book by Japanese Professor, and UCLA Japanese culture courses) claim this to be a specific Japanes phenomenon. Anyway, what is the problem with keeping this innocent article? This is not something inflammatory or politically charged, I hope.Biophys 22:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your reading of the sources you are giving. They indicated that Japanese style tends toward miniaturization. They do not say that this is a discrete Japanese phenomena. And keeping an article that does not belong on Wikipedia hurts Wikipedia. Slavlin 02:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Then just rename the article as Tendency of Japanese culture toward miniaturization if you like it better (I do not). There is no reason for deletion.Biophys 05:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Anyone that has ever been to Japan or studied the culture would recognise the phenomena enumerated by this stub. The stub will be expanded if allowed past infancy - although English language sources may be problematical - I suggest drawing it to the attention of some of our Japanese Wikipedians. W. Frank 18:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral - while such a culture may exist, I don't think that the version as of today (the 17th May) sufficiently asserts this. --Neo 18:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It is the responsability of the people wanting to retain the information to supply sources which assert that this is an actual cultural trend. I could easily create an article of American clothes-wearing culture and point out that you see people wearing clothes everywhere you go in America. That does not make it a phenomena of its own. Slavlin 20:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment But there is, nevertheless, a specific american dress culture: you must take your shoes off if you are to board a plane but put them on if you are to be served in an Arkansas store ("no shoes, no shirt, no service"). W. Frank 14:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. howcheng {chat} 17:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yellow cab

Yellow cab (stereotype) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article purports to be about a racial slur supposedly in common use in the United States. Unfortunately, it is devoid of references, the tone is POV, it looks like OR, and I've never heard of this term nor heard it used. I would hardly represent myself as being an expert on racial slurs, but if this is so common, why are there no sources? It reads like something that was just made up, and it seems downright silly. A representative quote: "term was coined by white American males who feel euphoria over their claimed popularity over Asian females." What? Cathal 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related term, again without sources, and also sounds like OR. This one was speedied last night, and recreated today, with hangon tag attached.:

Easy Japanesey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Redirect Yellow cab to Yellow Cab. Delete Easy Japanesey. Now if had been Easy-peasey-Japanesey, that would be a different story. I agree that they're entirely OR and POV, and possibly made up.Chunky Rice 16:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• and Keep Yellow cab (stereotype). Great job on the rewrite.Chunky Rice 13:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete both as unsourced. After deletion, Yellow cab should redirect to Yellow Cab as well. CIreland 16:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both per CIreland. I don't think we need to be a repository for poorly sourced ethnic slurs of limited use. They'll just become poorly sourced ethnic slurs of widespread use, which isn't the goal of an encyclopedia. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Neither of the articles cite any sources, and, searching, I can find no sources to support any such notion as described in either article. The articles are unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 17:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Excellent work. I've checked out a couple of the sources cited in the rewrite at random. They document this concept in some depth. Applause to CaliforniaAliBaba for continuing the long and honourable tradition of rewrites from sources at AFD, and thanks for finding sources that I did not. Keep. Uncle G 13:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both as violating WP:V. Based on the comments at Talk:Easy Japanesey, this appears to be an attempt at astroturfing the terms. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Yellow cab (stereotype), an excellent WP:HEY-style cleanup. Easy Japanesey needs/needed to go, though as unverifiable. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect Yellow cab as per Chunky Rice, Delete Easy Japanesey, also as per Chunky Rice. Horologium talk - contrib 21:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and move current Yellow cab article to Yellow cab (stereotype) and redirect Yellow cab to Yellow Cab. It's a notable stereotype which precedes Urban Dictionary by about a decade; I have rewritten and sourced the article. Not sure about Easy Japanesey; maybe redirect to Exodus (Utada Hikaru album) (one of the songs on the album uses that phrase, I think, which is probably how it got popularized)? No objection to deletion for that one either. cab 00:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Given the great improvements made in the article, I agree with cab's suggestion of a move to Yellow cab (stereotype). If there is no objection here, or other, alternative, suggestions, I will do so some time later tonight. ---Cathal 01:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I have redirected Yellow cab to Yellow Cab per the unanimous agreement suggestion by several users above, after boldly moving the article to Yellow cab (stereotype). The "taxicab" meaning is pretty clearly the primary usage; even the research I did for the stereotype article supports that (the telephone survey of 200 New Yorkers who had never heard of the term being used for anything but actual taxicabs). Please direct your comments to the matter of whether or not the Yellow cab (stereotype) article should be kept. Cheers, cab 03:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Easy Japanesey has been speedily deleted by John Reaves (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). cab 03:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Yellow cab (stereotype). Excellent WP:HEY by CaliforniaAliBaba aka cab. Eponysterical! --Dhartung | Talk 09:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Which article or articles is this AFD about? Fg2 11:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It's about Easy Japanesey (which got speedied after the AfD began) and Yellow cab (stereotype), which was at Yellow cab when the AfD began and looked like this. cab 22:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Yellow cab (stereotype). Per aboveMightyAtom 13:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - There's a fairly well-known Japanese talent agency for Gravure idols named Yellow Cab ja:イエローキャブ (芸能プロダクション). I've always wondered where they came up with the name. . . Neier 13:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Yellow cab (stereotype). Phrase is defined on Japanese Wikipedia [22] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.209.139.149 (talk • contribs)
• Keep Yellow cab (stereotype). It's a great article now Amake 12:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Sage School

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

While WP:SCHOOL was rejected, there are an extreme lack of ghits for the school, absolutely zero press coverage, and no hope of attribution to any reliable sources. As per our notability policy, "A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.", I have to argue that this article should be deleted. -Wooty Woot? contribs 21:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no indication of significance or notability, no outside or secondary sources, seesm like an ordinary undistinguished school. DES ^(talk) 23:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per above. Lack of coverage or reliable sources makes it hard to keep something like this. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Source it or lose it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] XCW Pro Wrestling

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

Contested prod. Non notable independent wrestling promotion, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:N. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete Weak because it's televised, or at least the article says so. No sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. There are several sources supporting the existance of its television series with the exception of its official website. A cursory search brings up for example [23], [24]. MadMax 19:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The company is also a TV production company then, perhaps you'd like to provide non-trivial sources about the company that allow an encyclopedic article to be written, rather than re-hashed press releases? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Corrected? Are the edits I made enought to remove this weak delete?Dannyfranks 03:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I am still confused as to why this article is up for deletion. It is an independent wrestling promotion that runs live shows weekly and has for 5 years. They have had the same PPV deal that Ring of Honor JUST signed for going on 2 years, and has television distribution in over 70 million US homes. On top of that, multiple territorial offshoots are opening up, with the first one having its first show in June. I challenge you to find many, if any, indy promotions with those credentials. That is why deletion is inappropriate. Dannyfranks 18:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please see WP:CORP and WP:V. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. From WP:CORP : "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". " Describes this instance perfectly. Just because, to you, it is not "famous" or "important" does not mean it is not "worthy of being noted". If you feel that something does not comply with WP:V , then address that. However I feel you are being over ambitious to try and use the lack of available internet sources as means to delete the enire article. Dannyfranks 14:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment On the contrary, it's not up to me to prove the company isn't notable, it's up to those wishing to retain the article. Here's the link to the relevant part of the guideline for you. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Hack, reasoning like your comment above is where this is where WP:IAR and M:Don't be a dick come into play. Theophilus75 15:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I seriously suggest you stop trolling me. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think you got an over inflated ego there buddy...I'm the one on the prowrestling project, not you...this is a pro wrestling article. I actually was going to voice my opinion, but decided against it based on a certain noms actions. Theophilus75 15:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, I think the MavTV link and other reference is sufficient, but there is still much room for improvement here. RFerreira 05:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator due to lack of non-trivial third party sources. Burntsauce 23:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Question How do you personally define "non-trivial"? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• 'Re:Delete' There are physically not online sources out there that can be referenced on here. It can all be validated by turning on MavTV, America One, or looking at your cable/sattelite provider's PPV section. All available third party sources (wrestling news sites) are not allowed by WP, which therefore eliminates all possibility as using them as references. Dannyfranks 16:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete - WP:COI and non notable. Aquarius • talk 04:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Vital Might

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

Article was previously speedied as A7; after a discussion on my talkpage, the article's creator showed me that they were in the top 8 in a contest sponsored by Ralph Lauren. However, I'm not sure if this is notable enough for WP:MUSIC. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The contest was sponsored by Ralph Lauren AND Atlantic Records.

Furthermore, we discussed that being selected to perform and compete in the WBCN Rock & Roll Rumble was tantamount to receiving an award, therefore establishing notability. Hundreds of bands each year hope to be selected and only 24 are selected per year.

Also, after reviewing The notability criteria for bands article, here are more assertions of notability. Although these weren't initially used to assert notability, they can and will be added if the article is published.
- Guest musician on album: Dana Colley of Morphine
- The Vital Might completed national tour, spanned 6 weeks and 15 states of the US. Tour schedule: http://www.sonicbids.com/thevitalmight
- Non-trivial Press:
Worcester Telegram & Gazette - March 2007, Scott McLennan - Review of Obsidian (prior to interview): http://wtedit.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070225/COLUMN14/70302006
The Hippo - December 2006 Eric W. Saeger - Review of Obsidian: http://www.hippopress.com/music/Vital%20Might.html
The Noise - December 2006 - Review of Obsidian: http://www.thevitalmight.com/press.html
Aquarian Magazine - March 2007 - Review of Obsidian before show announcement

Thanks, Thevitalmight 20:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Review in The Noise (which is the only non-trivial publication cited above) is all well and good (although the link is not as it goes to the band's website), but as WP:Music states a band needs to have more than just one bit of coverage to be notable. As this band already has an album out I would expect (for notability) to see lots of reviews all over the press and the web, chart positions on nationally recognised charts and (above all) I would expect to be able to buy it from Amazon (at the very least). As non of these are the case, I am not satisfied that this band is notable enough for inclusion. A1octopus 12:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Very well, noted that it is available on Amazon (although not, apparently, on a standard search for either "Vital Might" or "Obsidian"). Also noted sales rank is very low but my vote is now changed to Weak Delete for all the other reasons stated above. A1octopus 21:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Correction to above Standard search for "Vital Might" returns Obsidian as the 2nd item returned. On a search in Music for "Obsidian", Obsidian is returned as 3rd item.Thevitalmight 02:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The album is for sale at Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Obsidian-Vital-Might/dp/B000JFZ7C2/ref=sr_1_2/104-8079984-1813525?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1179335160&sr=8-2

It is also available at: iTunes, Rhapsody, Napster, SnoCap, and several other digital distributors

The Hippo, The Noise, Aquarian, and Worcester Telegram & Gazette are more than one bit of publicity/reviews.

Further press: - Northeaster Performer Magazine - February 2007 - http://www.performermag.com/nep.recordedreviews.0702.php

- Boston Herald - December 2006 - http://theedge.bostonherald.com/musicNews/view.bg?articleid=172085

- Boston Globe Sidekick section - December 2006 - Photo and blurb about CD release

- Boston Phoenix - September 2006 - Blurb

- Bostonist.com - December 2006 - CD release coverage

Another detail that might help towards proving notability: The Vital Might is endorsed by Gallien-Krueger amplifiers and Silverfox Percussion Thevitalmight 17:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• delete as non-notable. Most of the press listed is regional (Boston/Worcester) and therefore trivial, since any musician can get written up in local/regional press with a little understanding of promotion - I have, myself. In fact, booking agents require you to get press, or they won't hire you back. Also, some regional press outlets will simply run whatever copy you send them. I don't think Wikipedia should ever accept regional press as counting towards a band's notability. Their first release was indie, which in itself is insufficient for notability. Being in a contest is not sufficient for notability. BTW, I've been arguing to anyone who'll listen that notability, for a band, should require significant non-trivial press coverage, specifically in some form of national press (incl. notable specialty/genre-specific press), and specifically in press that has not been tarnished by pay-to-print scandals. Otherwise, my own band would get a page here, and that's a travesty. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as an attack page/redirect (CSD G10). MastCell ^Talk 18:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fag Santa

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

This is a redirect without a purpose. No pages are redirected by it and I can see intuitive reason for why it is redirected to Westboro Baptist Church Clerks. 18:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as an attack page/redirect (CSD G10). MastCell ^Talk 18:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fag Priests

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

See Fag Santa. This is a redirect that goes to Westboro Baptist Church for no intuitive reason. Nothing is currently being redirected. I'm guessing this had a purpose at one time, but I don't believe it does now. Clerks. 18:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The AntHillMob

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

Not a note worthly band, page has no encyclopedic value. Stuarthinde@gmail.com 18:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom - hired band for events, no apparent albums, no apparent notability. (The band two of the members were part of apparently had some success in the 'unsigned band' circles, according to the website. I don't think that quite meets WP:MUSIC.) Tony Fox (arf!)
• Delete I admire Tony Fox for his AGF. It's borderline CSD G11 (spam) in my eyes. Placeholder account 03:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Doc^g 01:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jane Orient (second nomination)