Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 1

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

The result was delete and redirect to East Gosford, New South Wales as there is no information to merge. --Coredesat 08:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St Patrick's Primary School East Gosford

St Patrick's Primary School East Gosford (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• Makes no attempt to establish notability Todd661 09:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Todd661 ~ G1ggy! _{...chatterbox...} 09:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no notable events listedSlideAndSlip 11:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 11:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:V, WP:N. A directed search on the Australian Google turns up a paltry 64 hits [1], the lead one being this article and the rest being trivial mentions. No notability, let alone assertions of notability.  RGTraynor  14:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as for not asserting notability. Ibanix 20:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as NN, and not WP:V. Imageboy1 21:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Google News Archive does come up with some references. [2] Perhaps a merge to a relevant Catholic school district might be appropriate. Capitalistroadster 02:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • On second thoughts, a merge/redirect per Alansohn is appropriate. Capitalistroadster 03:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to East Gosford, New South Wales or appropriate district article. Review of the school's website and web searches find no evidence of notability. Alansohn 03:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge / Redirect per Alansohn above.Garrie 23:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't look to be a notable school. Lankiveil 00:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
• Delete, no sources. John Vandenberg 09:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge, history page of school's website references something called "From the mountains to the Seas" which may be a secondary source, which would assist a claim of notability. Otherwise, it is hard to believe that some local newspaper hasn't written an article saying how notable the school is. Article needs further work. Assize 10:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Feel free to source it, in which case. We're claiming there aren't any reliable sources about the school out there.  RGTraynor  14:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to East Gosford, New South Wales per WP:LOCAL and various proposed school guidelines. RFerreira 05:51, 5 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 08:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gorokan High School

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

• Makes no attempt at establishing notability. Todd661 09:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete ~ G1ggy! _{...chatterbox...} 09:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete Would be suitable if it could get some refs, if not then delete per WP:V.Tellyaddict 17:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - empty of content! Not notable. Ibanix 20:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep School's special efforts to assist aboriginal students and its internationally-recognized wind orchestra, all supported by reliable and verifiable sources are an explicit demonstration of notability. Alansohn 02:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 03:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep based on the recent substantive additions to the article by Alansohn, specifically the 3rd party recognition of the woodwind orchestra (but not the school's own prospectus or the piece written by the school's principal at Dare to Lead), which satisfy WP:N and WP:V. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. High schools are always notable, and this article is also well-sourced. --Carioca 04:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment two external sources / two primary sources... primary sources are on claim that the orchestra is recognised internationally!Garrie 23:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  04:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, musical notability, well-sourced article. Euryalus 04:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Their wind orchestra passes WP:BAND. So write an article about them. The school is not notable outside of the orchestra.Garrie 23:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - high school + substantial secondary sources = notability. TerriersFan 01:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per TerriersFan Noroton 00:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; article provides several minor claims to fame, with sources, and doesnt stray far from the facts in those RS. John Vandenberg 09:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as notability is clearly demonstrated through the abundance of multiple non-trivial third party references. RFerreira 05:53, 6 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 Merge & redirect. — Scientizzle 15:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foamhenge (Stockton Down)

Foamhenge (Stockton Down) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable prop made for a TV show. Googling Foamhenge + "Stockton Down" confirms the lack of notability. Saikokira 01:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete no significant coverage that I can find, and (for non-UK editors) "subject of a programme on Channel 5" is a lot less impressive than it sounds, since at no point in the last year did their audience share rise above 5.5%. To preempt the WP:WAX arguments, Carhenge does have genuine multiple independent significant sources — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Stonehenge replicas and derivatives#Foamhenge. There's no reason this needs its own article. Someguy1221 22:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect per some guy. -- RHaworth 00:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per suggestion by Someguy1221. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 03:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Someguy1221. ~ G1ggy! _{...chatterbox...} 09:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per suggestion by Someguy1221.SlideAndSlip 11:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The information in this article already exists in Stonehenge replicas and derivatives, so more merging isn't necessary, it can just be turned into a redirect.Saikokira 01:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect, etc... --Infrangible 02:31, 2 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, you've got your citations now. — CharlotteWebb 00:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Walker School

Weak keep - "The school ranks as one of the state's top private schools" sounds like an assertion of notability to me. However, it is an assertion that definitely needs to be sourced if the article is to be a clear keeper. Essentially, what we have is a stub article that needs a lot of clean up... I agree that it does read like an advertisement at the moment. Re-nominate in a few months time if no work is done to improve the article. Blueboar 17:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Reads like self promotion article. Being one of the states top private schools is an assertion of notability that is not supported. Maybe they are the last on a list of 25 schools and I'm not sure that would be notable. The other option is to merge into the town article. The current lack of references says it should not be kept at this time. Vegaswikian 21:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Additional material added through brief research found strong claims of notability as a multi-year award-winner from the Columbia Scholastic Press Association for its school student magazine, as well as other notable awards won by students. A Google News search using "Walker School" AND Marietta found 468 separate articles, an excllent source of evidence of notability to be researched further. Alansohn 01:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Many high schools are notable, if people look carefully. DGG 02:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm pretty sure having to look carefully is pretty much a good sign of non-notability! Coren 22:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

apologies if I wasn't clear, but I meant: if people do a thorough and careful job of looking for sources, rather than treat sourcing n a casual and cavalier manner as unfortunately is the case with many articles on schools. DGG 01:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N. While the school's magazine may merit an article, as might certain of its current and former students, the school itself has not been shown to be notable. I might change my !vote if the statement "The school ranks as one of the state's top private schools year after year." can be properly sourced, depending on who is doing the ranking. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable school per the arguments laid out against most schools at the discussion at WP:SCHOOLS and elsewhere. Eusebeus 06:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The school holds notability from the students and magazine. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 06:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article has improved a lot since nom. I think it's OK now. ~ G1ggy! _{...chatterbox...} 09:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• keep if the notability claims can be sourced. WilliamKF 20:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The awards and notabilities listed in the article are for the school magazine, and former students; not the school itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ibanix (talk • contribs) 20:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
• Keep - faculty+students+activities=school. A school is the sum of its parts; if several of its parts are notable then so is the school. The test for keeping any such article is - is there notable, sourced, encyclopaedic content?; and here there is. TerriersFan 02:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Current version establishes notability in a verifiable fashion. RFerreira 05:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This article needs a lot of work done to it, but the current version is referenced and does appear to establish notability. Camaron1 | Chris 10:47, 6 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 11:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Sickert and The Army of Broken Toys

Walter Sickert and The Army of Broken Toys (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• CommentI feel you need to give them more time to edit - I have found several of the sources inclousing ther NPR coverage and golbe and phoenix - ifr I was a better user I woulod actually add them, but WIkipedia confuses me in how to edit so I only use it for research and almost never update - give them a chance

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.88.222.237 (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC). A band. Looks like self-promotion with a ridiculous link to Walter Sickert. Are they notable? -- RHaworth 16:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• CommentOk added the NPR thing but as a new user I am not sure I did it correctly - I have lost of other info to add, but let me practice a bit on other pages - please leave this here please!!!! THese guys are really important and introducing an important genre of music - differnt form so many. If you look at history the link to Walter Sickert (the leader of the band is named after him and is an artist in his own right - will find MoMa link with his art)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.116.222.46 (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

• Delete No current evidence that this band passes WP:BAND. --Dweller 16:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The article makes several claims which satisfy WP:BAND: receiving airplay on NPR, and featured in several newspapers and magazines including a cover story in one. The only problem is that none of these claims are sourced. Krimpet (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• delete - i wish we could speedy based on the influences section alone. there are no reliable sources to back up their claims. the_undertow ^talk 00:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non notable fails WP:MUSIC, unsourced, no info allmusic.com.--Dakota 03:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsourced material. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 06:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. not notable per WP:MUSICSlideAndSlip 11:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC.-- danntm ^T _C 19:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: added background to several of the claims - I haven't done it neatly - I hope tha twon't be penalized - I vote for community support —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.116.222.46 (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
• Keep there is a fair bit of info on this, we just need someone to write it up. ~ G1ggy! _{...chatterbox...} 23:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I thought it was useful information, good solid well known music that needed an entry. ~ User:doctormo 05:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• comment - part of the article appears to have been copied directly from http://thephoenix.com/bandguide/artistprofile2.aspx?id=3042 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 16:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
• comment* as good a place to start as any - how does one link pics here I've found a few good ones from some of the articles —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.180.130.80 (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
• Delete Per the_undertow —A • D ^Torque 11:55, 6 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 14:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] D. A. Clarke

D. A. Clarke (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article has been tagged with a notability tag since January, so clearly no-one has attempted to establish notability. I have no position on the article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't get why the "notability" tag was added in the first place. Looking at her list of publications, I see that one of her essays chosen at random appeared alongside popular feminist writers such as Dworkin and Steinem, in an anthology that was reviewed in both Publishers' Weekly and Kirkus Reviews. Notability is one of those funny words, indefinable, really, but this author's works do seem to have had a very broad exposure. I'd say this article has probably been listed for deletion in error. --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• speedy keep based on publications. the_undertow ^talk 00:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The presence of a notability tag need not necessarily lead to an AfD; it merely shows that one ed., has questioned it, or asked for further evidence. It shouldn't be nom. just on the procedural grounds of having been tagged; it is equally possible for a 2nd ed. to look at the article and remove the tag. DGG 02:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, anthologized author, but could use citations as to notability. A poem usually attributed to anonymous does look suspicious. --Dhartung | Talk 05:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, perhaps add a tag asking for improvements. ~ G1ggy! _{...chatterbox...} 09:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, not speedy - but could be on WP:SNOW at this point, maybe. Seems notable enough based on attributions. --63.64.30.2 20:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Apparently nontrivial works. --Infrangible 02:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Could be better constructed, but seems notable/accomplished enough. WikiFishy 02:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, the WP:SNOW clause now applies here. RFerreira 06:08, 5 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. --Coredesat 07:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Klone Records

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

NN label, spam, advert, etc Lugnuts 18:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails to assert notability or cite sources. Fourohfour 17:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete by combination of G11 and A7. Only 600 Google hits, and no reliable sources in the top 10. YechielMan 00:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per YechielMan. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 06:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete.SlideAndSlip 11:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per CSD A7. No sources to back up the claims in the article. --Cyrus Andiron 15:28, 1 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. --Coredesat 07:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Massive Black

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

Nonnotable media company, article reads like PR. One independent source which also appears to be a PR puff piece. NawlinWiki 18:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason this isn't a nonnotable media company is the attention it's gotten online. They use the success of their company to help artists in improvement by the community they've established at ConceptArt.org and by opening a real life school. They are a new company, which explains the lack of proper third party sources at the moment. I didn't mean to make it sound like PR - I'm not actually a part of the community or any efforts involved, maybe it's just English being my second language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Necrisque (talk • contribs).

• Comment Any article with a "lack of proper third party sources" fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. NawlinWiki 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Massive Delete lack of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

So what about all the articles on Wikipedia that state no sources at all, or are simple oneliners? What reasoning seperates those articles from this one in a sense that makes the article on Massive Black so bad it shouldn't exist at all? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Necrisque (talk • contribs).

Also, the article on CGSociety is an independent source - it has no affiliation with Massive Black. Unless writing an article on someone and interviewing them automatically makes you affiliated with their agenda?

That would be WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete it then. I still don't agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Necrisque (talk • contribs).

Wouldn't it just be possible to tag it as an article in need of sources? Is there an immediate need to delete the information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Necrisque (talk • contribs).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - this has now had the full five days for someone to add sources and no-one - not even the creator & sole editor who's arguing that it can be sourced, has managed to dig any legitimate sources out. While I don't mean to be rude about this company, this is a PR company and their entire job is getting things mentioned in the press - the lack of sources really isn't a great advert. Necrisque, do feel free to nominate all those other articles you don't approve of as long as you've got a reason — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

comment I think of it more as a producer of material for others to use--it therefore ought not to be getting its name in the press, but rathe those of the clients. It will be very hard in the nature of things for a ghostwriter to establish N. DGG 03:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, I've heard of them so they're not nobodies, but I couldn't find any notable coverage in Google News Archive (and I removed "black hole" and "black vote" from the results). --Dhartung | Talk 05:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Nawlin. Fails WP:V and WP:N if not cited. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 06:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced and unnotable. --RaiderAspect 10:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Wikipedia's purpose is not to Be Nice and help out fledgling young companies get the word out there. It's to be an encyclopedia. If no reliable sources exist, then this company has failed to demonstrate its notability.  RGTraynor  14:49, 1 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. --Coredesat 07:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secrets of the Alchemist Dar/Unsolved puzzles

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

A listing of the puzzles in the book Secrets of the Alchemist Dar. But Wikipedia is not a game guide. NawlinWiki 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as the content is only a listing of the puzzles and nothing more, though the subject might be appropriately covered at Secrets of the Alchemist Dar though I'm concerned about the style of that page myself. FrozenPurpleCube 21:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Alchemist Dar is not a 'game'. This wiki has provided useful neutral information to hundreds of people. Move it if you must to somewhere more appropriate. WikiOAF 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The information on this sub-page existed in the main article and is clearer by being moved to a sub-page. The main article is about both a notable book and a notable treasure hunt. The sub-page is about the puzzles which are a significant feature of this notable book. --AnotherDoth 20:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Stuff for a fanpage, but not encyclopedic material. Wikipedia's not here to help you solve puzzles. Even should the book be notable, the puzzles and their solutions are not. Phony Saint 00:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nor typically are any other parts of a book notable. DGG 03:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Although Wikipedia is collaborative, it is for collaborating on an encyclopedia, not on an armchair treasure hunt. Additionally, this is a violation of page naming policy, consisting of a subpage in mainspace. Also delete Secrets of the Alchemist Dar/Things worked out so far for the same reasons. Serpent's Choice 03:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as purely unencyclopedic material. Fails WP:NOT. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 06:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete looks like original research to me. Where are the reliable secondary sources for this material? JulesH 11:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: fails WP:OR, WP:NOT. "A game is a structured or semi-structured activity, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes also used as an educational tool." This qualifies as one. The Keep proponents have stated why they think this article is important, but not how it satisfies Wikipedia's requirements for an article.  RGTraynor  14:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and RGTraynor. Arbustoo 01:51, 2 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. --Coredesat 07:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncle Henry (commentator)

Uncle Henry (commentator) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced & unverifiable article (WP:ATT), non-notable fictional personality (WP:N), unresolved POV issues (WP:NPOV) /Blaxthos 21:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos 23:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete woefully unencyclopedic, and it has the telltale Myspace link. He's a living person if that helps. YechielMan 00:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - a minor character of a radio personality who doesn't have his own wikipedia article. Would probably qualify for db-spam as well. Hatch68 03:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Nom explains it all. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 06:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbustoo 01:51, 2 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. --Coredesat 07:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cast and crew of A Canterbury Tale

Cast and crew of A Canterbury Tale (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT - the important cast and crew should be mentioned in the main A Canterbury Tale article (as they already are). No need for a seperate article listing every extra, bit-part actor, and minor crew member. This list is already available on IMDb for anyone that would want to read it. Masaruemoto 00:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Belongs on an Archers website. Here it is just listcruft. -- RHaworth 00:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Readers can go to imdb from the external links if they want to learn about every single cast member. If we keep an article like this, then there are going to be hundreds of film articles that will start having the same thing. --Nehrams2020 04:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Jmlk17 05:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above comments. Loved the movie, but this is TMI. Bearian 00:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as the main article doesn't contain many of the actor or crew credits that I would not call "minor". While we should avoid cruft, I'm not sure how many people understand how involved some of these positions actually are. -- Ned Scott 02:02, 4 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. --Coredesat 07:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Net satisfaction index

Net satisfaction index (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A bit of a funny one this - everyone's familiar with the idea, and it may be a perfectly valid term for the concept (although I've a degree in economics & have never come across the term), and if it is it probably is more than a dicdef and just needs sourcing, but I'm having such trouble finding valid sources for it, taking the extreme option of bringing it here for a second opinion. Untouched for well over two months, so we can assume the creator's not going to improve it. Also, it seems the kind of thing that's probably already lurking here under another name, if anyone can think of something suitable to redirect it to - Market research maybe? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep, tag, and wait a bit http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Net+Satisfaction+Index%22+site%3A.edu&btnG=Google+Search. --Remi 00:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's had two and a half months already — how long do you propose to give it? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Once it is properly tagged then 2, perhaps, 3 more months, then maybe delete. Citation + expert needed templates have been added. --Remi 05:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, sufficiently covered by customer satisfaction. This is just one way to measure it, and Wikipedia is not a business manual. --Dhartung | Talk 05:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Dhartung ~ G1ggy! _{...chatterbox...} 10:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Dhartung. This makes two econ majors that have never heard of the term. Mystache 16:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete That this is the only article to the author's credit makes me believe someone had a not necessarily good faith agenda in creating this article. --Infrangible 02:43, 2 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 11:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FL-802nd AFJROTC

FL-802nd AFJROTC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to fit the notability guidelines; It's just an ROTC unit. mcr616 _Speak! 00:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fl-802, an abortive attempt by the creator of the FL-802nd AFJROTC article about the same topic should be added. If the latter article is deleted, the former should be also. If kept, Fl-802 should be a redirect. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It's a Junior ROTC unit - that's a big difference. Would it have been too much to give the author a tiny bit of time to add some references and establish notability before jumping straight into an AfD? --ElKevbo 00:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment No, I nominated it because it doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines imo. mcr616 _Speak! 19:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep this is a unit, not a program; I don't see any good reason to delete it. Hobby-horse time - this was nominated eleven minutes after creation, with the creator obviously still working on it (they'd already done five expansions prior to the AfD and are still working on it) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• It's tough to see how a JROTC unit can meet the notability guidelines, unless there's something that distinguishes it from other such units. Nevertheless, this was created by a new user and it may have been better to contact the user on his or her talk page and explained about notability, merger and such rather than just nominating it for deletion. If notability cannot be established, a merger of some of the content into West Orange High School, Winter Garden may be preferable to deleting. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:ORG, individual [J]ROTC units are, unless otherwise sourceable, non-notable outside of the scope of the parent organization and/or the school at which they are based. I believe there's precedent here, so if anyone can find some of the other AfDs for these, that would help. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've amended my rationale above by adding "unless otherwise sourceable" to it; perhaps categorizing "all" [J]ROTC units as non-notable is too much of a generalization and may be construed as too much of a WP:WAX-style argument. However, while there may be a couple that might meet notability standards, this topic and its article do not, so my ultimate recommendation remains unchanged. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete on the general grounds of non-notability--the only particular thing is that the were one of the 6 finalists among JROTCs in the state, and none of it is sourced. But it should run the full time. I agree with Iridescenti that it should not really have been nom. this early. We have no rule that articles must be written off-line. DGG 03:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Individual units would be rarely notable, if ever. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 03:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia is not a directory. I would have trouble seeing an individual ROTC program as notable enough for an article, let alone this, where we're verging on an article for a Boy Scout troop (a close analog to the program). --Dhartung | Talk 05:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's entirely unfair to leap on such an article so soon after its creation as it's clearly not a frivolous entry. If it hasn't established notability in a few days then fine, consider it for AdF, but let someone write the article first. Writing and sourcing articles is hard work, whereas nominating stuff for deletion is easy. It's new articles which make wikipedia grow though. Nick mallory 06:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: AfD runs for five days. That is more than enough time to demonstrate notability if those recommending to keep make the effort.... though for a JROTC unit, to reiterate my comments above, that might be difficult. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Agreed that individual groups are not, in themselves, notable (as per previous discussions about individual scout troops). Emeraude 12:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into West Orange High School, Winter Garden. Individual high school clubs are not notable, even if they register with the military and call themselves a "unit" instead of a club. -- Plutor ^talk 13:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Extremely Reluctant Delete/Merge: Like other editors, I'm deeply reluctant to give any credence whatsoever to an AfD filed eleven minutes after the article's creation, something I consider to be abusive and knee-jerk in any circumstance beyond CSD candidates. Nonetheless the Delete proponents are right; there's almost no circumstance conceivable where a high school club (and that's all junior high school ROTCs are, despite the bureaucratispeak) has notability distinct from the high school itself. While I'm itching to say Keep, it'd verge on WP:POINT to do so.  RGTraynor  15:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I wasn't trying to be "abusive"; I was going to tag it for Speedy, but I didn't think it met the CSD so I brought it to AfD. mcr616 _Speak! 19:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I just believe -- and demonstrably am not alone -- bringing an AfD mere minutes after an article's creation is objectionable on that very basis; it doesn't give an creator a chance to complete and source the article before a fist to the face which deters many from continuing, and the majority of such quick-draw AfDs happen without noms taking time to gauge a subject's notability themselves. IMHO, the only grounds for not waiting a day or two at least are those which would warrant a Speedy.  RGTraynor  20:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: In my experience, editors start by stating what they think is the most notable or exceptional fact about whatever the subject of the article is. If it isnt up in the first five edits, it usually only meets WP:N on some technicality. Hornplease 20:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, it's more like a homepage for the group than an encyclopedia article. We could have an article on an ROTC unit, but this isn't looking like one. If some sources and content are added, then I might change my vote. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm disturbed by the blanket statements made by some in this discussion asserting that a particular group can never be notable outside of its parent organization. That is terribly shortsighted. Notability should be judged on a case-by-case basis instead of with unjustifiable crystal ball judgments. --ElKevbo 15:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly. If you can get the reliable, nontrivial, independent sources to write about a topic, go ahead and do so. That's very unlikely to happen for a high school ROTC program, though. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: On that note, does anyone want to take a look at JROTC#Selected JROTC units? While blanket generalizations are bad, I'm willing to guess that few if any of these articles are sourced to show notability per WP:ORG (after all, at the end of the day, they are high school programs), and should be considered for inclusion or lack thereof (or merge to their respective high school articles) on their own merits. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • ElKevbo, what I see are implicit references to the proposed guideline WP:ORG and statements that individual clubs or units are not automatically notable. I doubt those same editors meant never, but the circumstances would need to be extraordinary. Say, the JROTC unit was on a training bivouac and rescued Kelly Clarkson from a bear attack. But just existing isn't notability, even getting awards within the organization ("JROTC unit of the year") isn't really notability. Context matters. --Dhartung | Talk 06:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree that it's unlikely. It's the explicit, outright, and blanket assertion that it can never happen to which I object. --ElKevbo 10:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I hadn't realised until I went to hunt for sources that this is a training programme rather than an actual military unit — the article doesn't actually mention that anywhere... — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's correct; I'm not sure what the Royal equivalent of the JROTC would be... my guess would be the Air Training Corps or something along those lines. Not an active military unit, but a voluntary cadet training group for secondary students (one step below and parallel to the university-level ROTC). --Kinu ^t/_c 06:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 17:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment related articles are up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CA-782nd AFJROTC. Madmedea 14:58, 5 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. --Coredesat 07:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of ancient reenactment groups

List of ancient reenactment groups (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#LINK - The same reasons that the similar articles were deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of medieval reenactment groups and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern reenactment groups. This is just a list of external links for these various groups. This was nominated for deletion in 2005, but it looked like this, so that doesn't have much relevance here. Masaruemoto 00:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I find it hard to imagine keeping it in 05, but such must have been the standards of the time. It is much better now. It is not just a collection of links, because it gives descriptions. DGG 03:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep.While the organizations listed may not be "notable", "notability" is not a criteria for content, but for articles.Nucleophilic 00:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or a collection of external links. This list of links does give descriptions, such as "our operational base is in Cork city. We aim to as accurately as possible show how a Roman soldier looked", and "We are interested in recreating the life and times of all Celtic people", so it looks like this list is only here to promote these non-notable groups, which is another good reason to delete it. Croxley 05:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete If the lists for other periods have gone, it would be inconsistent to keep this one. It does seem a pity, such a resource could be genuinely useful to readers. Gaius Cornelius 16:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP != YP. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:21, 1 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 deleted by Physicq210 (CSD G1). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD. Serpent's Choice 03:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Kippering Cup

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

Annual 5-a-side sponge football match. No context, no notability. -- RHaworth 00:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Appears to be something someone made up in school one day. JavaTenor 00:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as G1. So tagged — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete, violates WP:V, is likely WP:NFT. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:24, 1 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; apparent bad-faith nomination. Krimpet (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Hardman

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

Playing for sports is non notable Zoom throgh 20:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The Queensland Reds appear to be a professional team, such that notability conventions allow for this article. YechielMan 00:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note The nominator's only edits have been to nominate this page for deletion. It may be a bad-faith nom. YechielMan 00:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep "Playing for sports is non notable" - ridiculous nom. Patently passes WP:BIO as professional athlete in a fully professional league. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, appears to be bad-faith nomination by WP:SPA. S/he even attempted to get this deleted as {{db-nonsense}}... *rolls eyes*. Obviously notable per WP:BIO as a professional athlete. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:22, 1 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. --Coredesat 07:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Games and Users from ReBoot

List of Games and Users from ReBoot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#IINFO. Excessive minutiae. Masaruemoto 00:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not using the F-word but it really does apply. JuJube 01:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 06:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable information. Though JuJube, how does Featured Content apply here? Did you perhaps mean to link to WP:Fancruft? Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 17:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Whoops, I sure did. JuJube 04:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.Dave101→talk→contributions • 17:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Just because it's true doesn't mean we should have an article about it. Pax:Vobiscum 20:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I have no qualms about using it: pure, unadulterated fancruft! Coren 23:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DaveApter 16:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment Is it SNOWing? Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 15:39, 4 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. --Coredesat 07:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln City In 1987/88

Lincoln City In 1987/88 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a football results archive. -- RHaworth 00:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete What's the point of that article, and see above comment Whstchy 03:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional keep if, and only if, it is expanded. There's plenty of precedent for articles on individual clubs' seasons, there's even a category for them: Category:English football club seasons (and there are plenty of equivalent articles for baseball, American football, ice hockey, etc etc), but the articles there are much more in-depth and not just a "bare bones" list of results with minimal formatting ChrisTheDude 07:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not Wikipedia material. Punkmorten 08:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. An admin will happily recreate it if someone wishes to flesh it out into a proper article. --Dweller 09:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Punkmorten. HornetMike 10:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep there is nothing wrong with a professional club having a season article and I have added some content. I am also concerned that the nominator was too quick off the mark - with a new article such as this, that is perfectly capable of being extended, the preferred way forward is to mark it for expansion and allow time for this to happen. TerriersFan 15:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Punkmorten is correct, this is not what wikipedia is about. Ibanix 21:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If the view is that this article is not valid enough to stand on its own as an article, then rather than simply deleting it could it not be merged into the clubs article Lincoln City F.C.? Especially as upon reading it now, after the edits done by TerriersFan, that particular season does seem to have some merit and significance.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete sportcruft. WP != indiscriminate collection of subtrivial factoids. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think dividing by team and season is far too detailed and crufty, and all such articles should be deleted. Qwghlm 10:11, 4 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. --Coredesat 07:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] River Ridge (building)

River Ridge (building) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This building is of no historical importance and does not meet the notability requirements. Also it is mostly original research by high school students who attend classes in the building. Any important information is already contained in the article Trinity School at River Ridge. Theredhouse7 03:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This AfD appears to be connected to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People of Praise, the second tenant listed. --68.239.79.97 03:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- not any more remarkable than any other building in Bloomington, Minnesota. The notable part of this building is already contained in the Trinity School article. In fact, Bloomington has only four notable buildings: the Mall of America, the Gideon Pond House (listed on the National Register of Historic Places), Normandale Community College, and maybe the old town hall. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 00:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Schools may be N because of being in a historic building, but it is a rare school building that will be notable separately. In any case, the school has apparently just moved out. DGG 03:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The school will be moving out at the end of the year. Theredhouse7 04:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Just wondering, what does the picture of the grass add to the article? Wouldn't a picture of the actual building be more appropriate? --Infrangible 02:51, 2 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 and redirect to Command & Conquer: Generals series. --Coredesat 07:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jarmen Kell

Descriptive account of game character (in actuality a game unit), would require a line in the relevent C&C articles delete as per WP:NOT Fredrick day 08:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to Command & Conquer: Generals series. Punkmorten 09:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - it's difficult to ascertain if this is a major or minor character. If the former, I'd say keep. Otherwise, delete. I've therefore posted at the C&C talk page asking for help. --Dweller 17:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• redirect to Command & Conquer: Generals series.SlideAndSlip 15:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete then redirect --C56C 18:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 00:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to Command & Conquer: Generals series. SlideAndSlip 11:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --SkyWalker 07:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The problem with Jarmen Kell is that he only has appeared in one game, and it appears that there is no official infromation and detailed character history. Hence it is better to have it to be part of a character list.--Kylohk 14:36, 2 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 08:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Éire Nua Republican Flute Band

Éire Nua Republican Flute Band (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable flute band. No references given. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete - No real assertion of notability. --Dweller 11:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete They have traveled internationally, but jeez, they're just a flute band. YechielMan 14:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment, to be fair they are a little bit more than "just a flute band" - but I will wait for someone to add external refs proving notability before I make my !vote.--Vintagekits 15:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Not voting yet. Sounds like they might be notable, so get out there and find multiple reliable independent references with nontrivial coverage of the group. Their own website is far from a reliable and independent reference. The special guideline for bands and music is set up for rock and pop commercial bands and not less commercial groups such as concert bands, a capella groups and such bands as this, who might meet WP:N and WP:A. "Just a flute band" is an irrelevant and invalid reason for deletion. Edison 16:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment, possibly merge to Éire Nua could be considered.--Vintagekits 11:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 01:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't really think merging with Éire Nua would help. That page is about specific Sinn Fein policy proposals. The band may have named themselves after these but there's no evidence for it and it seems more likely to me that they're simply using the phrase for its literal meaning - in English: "New Ireland". As I said elsewhere, what's really needed here is a generic article on such bands in both the republican and loyalist traditions. BTLizard 09:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Still saying delete. I'll maybe start an article at Flute Band. I would intend this to be about the subject in general, not about individual bands unless they can be verified from reliable sources, which the Éire Nua Republican Flute Band and Vol. Sean Mcilvenná Republican Flute Band articles can't be. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless some evidence of notability is provided. Nuttah68 10:09, 5 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. --Coredesat 07:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of historical animals

List of historical animals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Duplicates lists already included in Category:Lists of historical animals. Any additional articles will be added to the lists themselves, rather than this list, so there is little point having both a category and a list for these. Masaruemoto 01:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Redefines listcruft. Mystache 02:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, and maybe redirect, but probably not since it's a cross namespace redirect. The article serves no purpose. YechielMan 02:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a copycat and listcruft. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 06:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per YechielMan, plus Commons redirects pages to cats. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 20:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DaveApter 16:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Categories are much more successful than lists. Peterkingiron 22:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, completely meaningless list. RFerreira 06:09, 5 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 nomination withdrawn by JuJube. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 06:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colombian comedy

Look, there is always a first time for everything, and since the wikipedia is such a large encyclopedia, i am sure there is always room for things that can be especialized from region to region. Just because there is not an article on an specific town on earth it doesn't mean that the town doesn't exist. We needto discuss this article very seriously. Thanks

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

The article looks well written, but I don't think the topic is notable. There is no article on Mexican comedy or even Spanish comedy, and the references don't look all that good to me. Prod removed by author. JuJube 01:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Argument is the coverse of other stuff exists. Following the same precedent, note the existence of German humour, Argentine humour, New Zealand humour, Canadian humour, British comedy ... --Infrangible 02:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Damn British spelling ^_^ (J/K). In that case, I would support a move to Colombian humour for consistency, but I don't feel comfortable with there being a Colombian one but none for Mexican or Peruvian, for example. JuJube 02:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Infrangible (talk · contribs). Mystache 02:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Maybe it should be called 'humour' to fit with the others but the fact that nobody's yet written something on Mexican comedy is no reason to delete something about Colombian comedy. If someone can write something about 'German humour' then any other country has to be fair game. Nick mallory 03:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment And with all due respect, i just found an article called British comedy. So obviously I don't see why my article is unnotable whatsoever. I vehemently suggest to have the deletion box removed ipsofactus. Thanks
• Comment I would like to withdraw the nomination, but I feel it is somewhat biased to have an article for Colombian comedy but not for other notable Latin American countries. JuJube 05:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If it's 'biased' to have an article on Columbian comedy but not Mexican or Peruvian comedy then why don't you start writing those articles JuJube? It's not up to someone else to do it if you feel so strongly such articles should exist. Nick mallory 06:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Because I don't know anything about those topics. I guess I'll withdraw this nomination, but despite the fact that I'm Colombian it kind of disheartens me to know that people took the time to make a Colombian article about comedy but no other Latin American country. JuJube 06:37, 1 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. The user and user talk pages mentioned will also be deleted under WP:CSD#G4. --Coredesat 07:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New technology in indonesia

New technology in indonesia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Content not really related to the title. Identical content at: User talk:Ayudewikomunikasiui and User:Ayudewikomunikasiui --Infrangible 01:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nonsense (not of the patent kind, however, so no speedy :( ) JuJube 02:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No context. YechielMan 02:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No context. Should be a subsection of another article Davidelit 06:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Who defines "new technology", anyway? Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 06:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I suspect that this article was written by an editor who does not have English as their first language. The title is inappropriate - it's not about "new technology" in any general sense; it's about the installation or proposed installation (not entirely clear) of some sort of tsunami warning system in the Aceh region of Indonesia. Given the recent history of the area I think such a project would merit an article, but I don't think it's this one. BTLizard 10:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsourced.SlideAndSlip 11:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per BTLizard and SlideAndSlip. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. Someguy1221 09:41, 2 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. --Coredesat 07:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star wars empire at war tips

Star wars empire at war tips (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory. This article has little use in an encyclopedia. Captain panda 01:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Game hints and tips are generally original research, almost by definition. Joyous! | Talk 01:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. -- Satori Son 02:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. JuJube 02:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:SNOW - Wikipedia is not a game guide. Masaruemoto 02:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not the place for this. Hate to see this used for the thousands of games currently on Wikipedia. --Nehrams2020 04:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all. Maxamegalon2000 05:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:NOT#INFO. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 06:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:SNOW. SlideAndSlip 12:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide.Atirage 15:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -LtNOWIS 01:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, but please, please don't invoke WP:SNOW three comments in for crying out loud. RFerreira 06:10, 5 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 since it's now been transwikied. --Coredesat 07:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Covrigi

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Unencyclopedic. Captain panda 01:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki I guess. JuJube 02:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Next time I want to order a bagel in Romania, I'll remember to check Wikipedia first. Masaruemoto 02:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This might be a speedy delete. Don't quote me though. . .--Banana 02:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki & Delete as WP:NOT. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 05:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete pending transwiki per above. Tagged. MER-C 10:14, 2 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. --Coredesat 07:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Gallahue

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

Non-notable T-shirt salesman/musician. Only external links are MySpace site and official site. No sources whatsoever. Prod removed by author. JuJube 02:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not sourced and does not claim notablitiy. --Banana 02:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Searched online and did find a fan/news blog here. I think the entry has a promotional tone but I vote that it be rewritten and not deleted. I think we should return to this in 2-3 months. *Post Script, a search on google for "DJ Will G" brings up 85 results.--Bushsandwiches 03:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete MySpace isn't a valid sources and the site itself isn't either. Article fails notability and is written terribly for Wikipedia. Should have been candidate for speedy deletion. Xtreme racer 03:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Possible future notability is not a substitute for present notability. Mystache 03:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't currently have any notability, or proper sourcing. A fan site is not a proper source. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 05:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - yawn, another MySpace bio that tried to make the leap. Fails WP:BIO. Rgds, --Trident13 11:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:SNOW and unsourced.SlideAndSlip 12:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no sources -- Whpq 16:31, 3 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?} 16:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnostate

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

Article violates WP:NPOV and is for the most part unreferenced. The recently added reference is a book that is searchable on Google Books and the text does not contain the word "Ethnostate." It appears to have been added simply to allow the removal of the prod and unreferenced templates. Very questionable "facts" included in the article, such as the 2 Million German deaths in 1945 during their removal from Poland. Hatch68 02:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Nation-state, its a pov fork. Mystache 03:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Mystache. Lankiveil 13:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
• Redirect per Mystache, and rewrite section to become NPOV and factual. e.g. There is no such thing as "Mendelian selection". If the intent is to describe Social Darwinism, that should be stated, with ref. Else delete! Esseh 17:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

On reading through it, this is mostly POV racist claptrap, with no supporting evidence. Change to Delete. Esseh 17:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• You cannot claim this is about race as it is about ethnicity. Ethinicity is a combination of racial and cultural factors, both one or the other. It was not my intention to get into a debate over racial matters when I started it but you have pointed out that race and culture are often linked as it is easier to look at a persons skin colour and judge him based on that then what he is thinking. If anything there is a lack of reference links to information and I hope to rectify it soon when I have the time. --Delos 04:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This article will be important in the coming years as ethnostates become more popular again. In the past nearly all countries were ethnostates as people who were not alike usually found themselves being driven out of town to the point that the country had a specific culture and heritage. Australia and U.S. have just said that multiculturalism does not work so we will soon see a shift back to this with cultural segregation (ghettos and gated communities) being the first step, then followed by separation of a state from the country as a whole as we are now seeing in Canada, Russia, and former Yugoslavian states like Montenegro. --Delos 22:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Good of you to vote on your own article, but racists portray racism as "ethnicity". Anyone not of your "ethnic group" is an outsider, and so liable to exclusion - or worse. Unfortunately, you are right - it is worse than racism, since even those of the same race may be excluded (Turks and Armenians are both "Caucasian", as were Jews and "Aryans" in Nazi Germany; Hutus and Tutsies are both African; Bosnians, Albanians, Serbs, Croats and Slovenians are all Caucasian). Hatch68 (below) was more PC than me in calling it "propaganda"; I still say it's ethnocentric racist claptrap bullshit (WP is not censored)! Still oppose! Esseh 05:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• This appears to be nothing so far but a propaganda article. Two million Germans died in 1945 because of forced removal from Poland? You'll have to do better than an obscure book reference to back up those kind of statements. Hatch68 01:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• This information is freely available in the Wikipedia article Expulsion of Germans after World War II found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II --Delos 04:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It's an important article in that it provides a counter balance to the multicultural articles. I have only started editing it over the last few hours. I did the top bit about caste creation. I think that the Supporting Arguments should be linked more to Kevin B. MacDonald due to the fact that the word ethnostate is used on the Kevin B. MacDonald article. It says that he accepted the Jack London Literary Prize from The Occidental Quarterly, using the award ceremony as an occasion to argue for the need for a "white ethnostate" to maintain high racial birthrates. In his acceptance speech, he stated, "The best way to preserve ethnic interests is to defend an ethnostate — a nation that is explicitly intended to preserve the ethnic interests of its citizens." According to MacDonald, one of the functions of such a state would be to exclude non-European immigrants who are attracted to the state by its wealth and prosperity. At the conclusion of his speech, he remarked, "The alternative faced by Europeans throughout the Western world is to place themselves in a position of enormous vulnerability in which their destinies will be determined by other peoples, many of whom hold deep historically conditioned hatreds toward them. Europeans’ promotion of their own displacement is the ultimate foolishness — an historical mistake of catastrophic proportions." --Twoheel 12:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: The Keep vote by Twoheel immediately above was not added by TwoHeel, but by Delos. The text was copied from the discussion page of the Ethnostate article, but the Keep header was added by Twoheel. See edit differential here. Hatch68 15:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - concept doesn't seem significant enough to merit its own article. I see no other sources on it other than the Robertson book. Moreover, significant portions of the text seem to be lifted almost identically from clearly POV sources such as this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Debivort (talk • contribs) 06:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
• Comment - I haven't made any claims of racism and I will continue to avoid that topic. Please keep the discussion focused on the reasons the article was nominated, which are the WP:NPOV conflicts and the lack of reliable references. The statement about 2 million Germans being killed is not even backed up by the Wikipedia articles that were referenced in this discussion. The articles say that at most 1.1 million Germans died, which means the numbers here are inflated by about 80%, which leads back to the WP:NPOV problems which prompted the prod template and then the AfD. Hatch68 14:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete (or possibly re-write) Racism here is irrelevant - just because a concept is racist doesn't mean it doesn't belong - after all we have articles on Nazi eugenics; however, this particular concept is fairly obscure and this article is poorly sourced to the point of indicating non-notability. Maybe a re-write that takes out apparently POV statements like

  Everyday we see new ethnic horrors, many of which the people of the world may never even hear about. Ethnostates may be "messy" to achieve but in the long run may be the only positive way to re-think the fundamentals of statecraft in the 21st Century with multiculturalism not living up to all of its expectations.

  and does a better job citing could make this salvagable. CredoFromStart 14:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete what is basically an essay about a non-notable concept. It also appears to be a POV fork of Nation-state. (It also contains some statements that are simply incorrect, which in and of itself is not a reason for deletion, but if the article as a whole does remain, a good portion of it has to go.) 6SJ7 04:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I must admit to being humbly chastised. Of course, being racist is not, in and of itself, reason for deletion - as has been pointed out. I offer my apologies to all for over-reacting. However, being unsubstantiated, very POV and overlapping with already existing articles (social Darwinism, eugenics, and (as suggested by 6SJ7) Nation-state, for example) is. So, on those grounds, I still vote delete, or move to a sub-section of one of the above. (Just as an afterthought - I hadn't known there was an article on Nazi eugenics. Are there ones on British eugenics, or American eugenics? If these are red, I guess not... why not?) Esseh 04:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per 6SJ7 and Debivort. Concept might deserve a brief mention within some other article (and possibly a re-direct to nation-state), but not an article of its own. PalestineRemembered 13:29, 6 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 deleted by Akhilleus (Speedy deleted per (CSD a1), was a very short article providing little or no context.). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD. Serpent's Choice 03:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mohatla

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

This term does not appear in any Dune text, and article does not link to any articles. TAnthony 02:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• speedy delete and so tagged. this isn't even a word, is it? nonsense. the_undertow ^talk 02:40, 1 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 11:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] As the Apple Turns

As the Apple Turns (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

it's not sourced. i tried to find an independent article on the subject, but could only come up with a blog. doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. the_undertow ^talk 02:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Well... yeah, the problem about finding press sources for AtAT is that it died a long time ago. I know there were storied about in in MacAddict (now MacLife) and MacWorld, as well as MacWEEK (now MacCentral... even later MacWorld). The MacObserver questions about it here... wired asks about it here, the unoffical mac weblog (a real content provider, I'm not even sure it qualifies as a blog itself) here also referencing the wired. While not the article i was looking for (it was much older than this one) but MacWorld (print) has a small blurb here. I dunno. MrMacMan ^Talk 05:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• I'm gonna go with delete. It closed long ago, and the article is a stub? I doubt it's gonna get better, it's much more likely to go downhill. Hence my vote; just get rid of it now. Doesn't seem overly notable either. ~ G1ggy! _{...chatterbox...} 10:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking for the article to be deleted because it's going to 'go downhill' or because you don't think its notable? I don't think speculation about the future quality of an article is a deletion criteria. MrMacMan ^Talk 20:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete website promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's not a promo- the site died before the article was written. It really was a great site, but not notable enough for WP and there seems to be no chance of it ever becoming more notable than it is now. Sorry Jack, Katie, and Anya- hope all's well. Staecker 12:15, 2 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. Sr13 (T|C) 19:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James William McGhee

James William McGhee (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Author will not (or cannot) supply the requested evidence of notability. Dicklyon 02:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages, other family members of the author, with same WP:BIO problem:

Maria Hart (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

George L. McGhee (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- late addition after a few of the comments below were entered (shortly after User:Mjmcghee removed the prod tag from it) Dicklyon 21:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• delete James William McGhee. claim to notability is as the inventor of the "non-sew-on drapery hook". Now while I do know what those things are, I don't find their inventor notable. FWIW: google: non-sew-on + drapery + hook = 0 hits; google: no-sew-on + drapery + hook = 0 hits; google "pin-in drapery hook" = 0 hits. Pete.Hurd 03:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• delete Maria Hart. Minor actress, mails WP:BIO#Special_cases:Entertainers by wide margin. Pete.Hurd 03:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both. Hart had a small role in a Nicholas Ray film, but that's a thin claim to notability. Without third-party sources evaluating the notability of McGhee is nigh impossible. --Dhartung | Talk 05:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the article on Maria Hart. Per IMDB and the other movie databases, after 9 years as a contract player for MGM in minor roles, she co-starred in 4 pictures and starred in one in 1950-1952. She can be seen featured in the movie posters from her starring role in "Cattle Queen (1951)" at [3] The New York Times review [4] describes her portrayal of a "rather glamorous bleached blond" who "bests Drake in a climactic shootout." Undecided as to keeping the article on James William McGhee pending the patent and invention claims being better documented. Edison 18:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Google patent found them in a nanosecond. I would love to get a copy of his obituary as a source but can't find yet. I also found a court battle over the patent which describes him and his company. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the existence of the patents or the starring roles were ever in question. The issue is evidence of notability, per the guidelines in wp:bio. Shouldn't any suggestion to keep be accompanied by some kind of answer or source relative to these guidelines? Dicklyon 21:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep James William and Maria Hart - neither famous but both have claims to notability. Delete George L. - unreferenced. Authorship by user:Mjmcghee suggests COI. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. Comments in User_talk:Mjmcghee (including replying to a bot!) indicate an unwillingness to take an objective view or to enter into the Wikipedia spirit. -- RHaworth 21:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not help us out by pointing out what are the claims to notability, so that the evidence can be put into the article and the article saved? I don't think a patent counts for this, does it? Or a listing in a movie database? Don't we need significant secondary sources? Dicklyon 04:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The patent may be only marginally notable, but the movies push her in the realm of happy notability. Coren 23:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It says "With significant roles in notable films." Can we presume then that you judge several of her films to be "notable," even though none have wikipedia articles and therefore have not themselves been evaluated along that dimension? Dicklyon 04:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all. (I'm the nominator) So far, none of the keep votes have pointed to the evidence of notability that is required to rescue these articles. One mention of an actress name in a NYT article about the film, with text only about the character portrayed, is really not a secondary source about the subject, is it? Dicklyon 04:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all personal promotion, insufficient evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep allI wrote all three articles. I am a visually impaired person and I have attempted to upload as much of the supporting evidence as possible through my scanner reading machine, please tell me if the supporting documentation hasn’t arrived. For Paul Ashley Chase I uploaded an obit from Warner Brothers, For Maria Hart I provided three internet sources, a copy of a Los Angeles Times article and reference to Hollywood Reporter and Varity articles. For James W. McGhee I gave you 5 patent numbers and a reference to the Canadian patent office and reference to a LA Times article dated March 17, 1942. I also uploaded the original copies. For George L. McGhee I provided a copy of an e-mail from the 30,000 member professional organization he founded.

I am not doing this for “personal promotion” as far as I know all of the people above are dead, And most of them died over 40 years ago. Please tell me how this could possibly be for personal promotion. I am engaged in a much larger research project; when I come across interesting and notable facts that I am not going to use I try to give them to someone that can. This is the case with these different articles. I didn’t know your vetting process was so time consuming, If I did I wouldn’t have started this process.Mjmcghee

• Keep both James William McGhee and Maria Hart, which are sourced and make strong claims to notability. Delete George L. McGhee, which doesn't rise to that level of notability, claimed or supp0rted. Alansohn 17:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  Really? Is filing an (invalid due to obviousness) patent a "strong claim to notability"? Pete.Hurd 03:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

  The only thing sourced for JW is his inventions; no evidence of notability; why do so many people who comment here seem to be unaware of wp:bio? Similarly with Maria, her roles are sourced, but where's the evidence of notability? There's a section on entertainers at wp:bio; has anyone read it? The author/descendent pretty much states he is doing original research; his uploaded docs are in no case the kind of evidence of notability that's needed to make these articles acceptable according to policy, as I read it. Please correct me if I should be reading the policy differently. Dicklyon 04:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

James William McGhee's claim was upheld the following year in a lawsuit he bought against Kirsch Manufacturing Company and his Canadian patent number 246361 (drapery hook) was always upheld. It was common in those days for large corporations to “slap suite” and infringe on small inventors until their legal/financial resources had been depleted. Also jury tampering and payoffs to judges were par for the course in the 1920s, the days of Al Capone. The stakes have always been high in the manufacturing business, Edison tried to keep a lid on his cameras and projectors with no success yet we don’t question his veracity. The ad that I uploaded two days ago was from a 1932 trade magazine so we know he was still publicized as the manufacturer and inventor three years after the lawsuit you reference. In addition we also know that his Canadian patent didn’t run out until 1942. The United States has/had full faith and credit with Canada during that time. Another thing that may or may not have crossed your mind is that brass, steal, and aluminum wire is used to create these hooks and rings. In order for a business to be profitable this wire must pass through bending and sharpening machines that spits the hooks out into groups of 25 or 50. These machines are highly complicated and have many moving parts. James William McGhee also invented these machines, so there are probably other patents out there.Mjmcghee 05:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference to wp:bio I think James William McGhee fits the criteria nicely.Mjmcghee 05:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that in general James William McGhee has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record (found in the US and Canadian Patent Office) in his specific field (drapery hardware). Even some of the people that want this article deleted have admitted they have used his invention. James William McGhee was a wp:bio creative professional that we can see through his patents wp:bio originated a significantly new concept and technique for hanging draperies. Mjmcghee 05:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Maria Hart is an entertainer with a huge “cult” following wp:bio of people that like campy westerns and offbeat movies with a strong female leads instead of the typical male lead. The melodramatic plots are so melodramatic they are very humorous. I saw Cattle Queen on the Western channel recently. In the Lusty Men she plays the second female lead she co-stars in the movie, this is hardly a small role.Mjmcghee 06:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. If this guy is notable, so would millions of others be. DaveApter 16:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all I have found many secondary references to George L. McGhee founder of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists – this organization has 30,000 members and is over 40 years old, it continues to lobby for laws and ethics in the field and has an extensive web-sight. Maria Hart is all over the web and Wiki has an article on the movie The Lusty Men. James William McGhee has many secondary and primary references on genealogy sights as well as the United States patent office, which I was able to cross reference on-line, and the Canadian patent office, which will only take a second for anyone to cross-reference. I think the people that want these articles deleted should start all over again and reexamine the information out there. The original author may not be as technologically adept as the rest of us and it looks like she/he is visually impaired, so I’m going to give her/him a lot of slack. 69.231.56.34 21:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep all I found many primary and secondary sources on the web; I also reviewed the Wiki notability section and found that all three people fit the parameters for Wiki notability. It seems like there’s some kind of personal animosity or argument going on here. I’ve used the drapery hook and it is obvious that J.W. McGhee contributed greatly to his field. George L. McGhee helped get the first laws in the United States passed in his field and started a professional organization with over 28,000 members. Maria Hart is mentioned on many web-sights and her movies can still be seen. RachelRayHoward 02:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC) — RachelRayHoward (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User's 1st edit, Pete.Hurd 03:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no personal problem with Mr. McGhee adding articles on his family members, but I do wonder why people keep saying that they meet the notability criteria but will not just go ahead and add the supporting references to the articles. If I could find them I would add them myself and save these articles, but since nobody will point out the references I'm inclined to believe that they don't exist, in which case the articles should go. It would be helpful if you could point out, for each individual, what notability criteria they satisfy, and where the evidence is. I would change my vote to keep if you could do that. Dicklyon 06:44, 6 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. --Coredesat 07:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HHE Night Of The Arts

HHE Night Of The Arts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This subject lacks notability and is either satirical or is uncyclopedic content... fits Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  — 6etonyourfeet^\t\c 03:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• (Speedy?) Delete. WP:PN. Mystache 03:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Lacks sufficient context to be meaningful. JulesH 11:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not worthy of inclusion. WikiFishy 03:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. There are computer generated scripts which can write better articles. RFerreira 06:12, 5 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. --Coredesat 07:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby Nelson

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

Article about a video game character appearing in one mid-90s video game. Mystache 03:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Per user comments, I'm also attaching articles of characters exclusively in this game to the discussion

• Goh Kidokoro
• Joe Kusanagi
• Kisarah Westfield
• Leonhalt Domador
• Lee Hae Gwan
• Sheen Genus

Mystache 02:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The other characters from this game also have articles, as do nearly all characters from nearly all arcade tournament fighting games. I'm somewhat uncertain whether or not this should be the case; nevertheless, although there is technically no Wikipedia precedent, the wider situation should probably be considered regardless of the direction consensus moves in. Serpent's Choice 03:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I understand the individual pages for Street Fighter pages, but...there were tons of mediocre Street Fighter/Mortal Kombat ripoffs in the mid-90's, and we don't need a page for each playable character in them. Thunderbunny 04:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Capcom characters should have articles. SNK characters should have articles. Crummy dime-a-dozen NeoGeo game characters should not. The other Aggressors of Dark Kombat characters should be deleted, too. JuJube 07:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all, we deleted the character articles for Weaponlord a while back, I see no reason to do anything different here.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:09, 1 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.

Result was Keep and rename to List of tallest buildings in Tokyo. — Caknuck 01:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tallest buildings in Tokyo

Tallest buildings in Tokyo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. The Tallest Buildings in Tokyo is definitively not encyclopedic. What next, the tallest buildings in Harrisonburg, VA? WP:NOT#DIR - SVRTVDude ^(VT) 03:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, rename to List of tallest buildings in Tokyo. I refer the nominator to Category:Lists of tallest buildings. This is a discriminate and encyclopedic list (although it should be sourced as well). --Dhartung | Talk 05:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as per other keep, as so long as it is made to meet Wikipedia:List_guideline. --Remi 05:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point ... I suspect that this is a bad-faith nomination in response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 56 ZIP codes, as demonstrated by SVRTVDude's comment on that page, which was made ten minutes prior to this AfD ... coupled with the fact that there is no AfD notice on the article under discussion. —68.239.79.97 (talk · contribs) 06:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but Rename per Dhartung. This is encyclopedic information. --Charlene 09:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the sorted list supplies info in a way that the category cannot. Also, rename per above, and categorize into the Category:Lists of tallest buildings in Asia subcat. Neier 11:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- agree with rename suggestion- no reason to delete though as this is useful and sourcable information Thunderwing 19:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 11:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Lists like these can also serve as useful merge targets. Punkmorten 20:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep useful list, consistent with WP norms. Carlossuarez46 21:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - This appears to be a unnecessary fork from List of tallest buildings and structures in Japan ... aside from the "under construction" section, it's just a duplication of information ... aside from that, I agree with Rename to match the others in Category:Lists of tallest buildings in Asia. --72.75.73.158 23:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Useful article that would benefit from explicit sources. Alansohn 18:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• So this is what he was gassing on about. Keep. Rename to "List of tallest buildings in Tokyo, provide sources, add the proper category, and include US measurements fergawdsake. Ordered list, with strictly objective, useful, and commonly used criteria for inclusion. What's not to like? --Calton | Talk 14:00, 4 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 per WP:SNOW and withdrawal of nomination by User:Coren, below. NawlinWiki 19:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archbishop Blenk High School

Archbishop Blenk High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – Editor deleted {{prod}} without adding claims of notability, but article about a school that doesn't appear to meet WP:SCHOOL. Google returns no relevant sources outside the high school itself. Coren 03:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per A7. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 06:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve — adequate article about a valid H.S. with 800+ students. — RJH (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, high school in N'awlins, notable because of controversy over its merger (as now supported by sources cited in article). NawlinWiki 17:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Article needs work, but controversy over the merger has certainly gained independent attention (e.g., [5], [6]). EALacey 19:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article has expanded since oringal entry.
• Keep Article has indeed been prodded into growing. (Only fools never change their minds). Coren 22:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep School has been recognized by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, the nations top honor for a school. Additional cleanup and improvement is still strongly suggested, but the article stands on its own in demonstrating notability. Alansohn 03:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 03:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because of Blue Ribbon and other significant and cited news coverage satisfying WP:N and WP:V. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:29, 2 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. Walton ^{Need some help?} 18:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Wesley

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

This is one of the most confusing pages I've ever seen on Wikipedia. This guy is supposedly connected in some nebulous way to various high-profile basketball players, though the nature of those connections is not really clear nor explained by whoever wrote the article. For example, he was "very visible" before Lebron James's signing...how? Google didn't seem to be very high on relevant hits, and the two sources listed with the article have been deleted. Thunderbunny 04:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep although those two sources are now paywalled they are reliable sources. The article needs cleanup, but the subject is notable as a behind-the-scenes fixer/consigliere in the NBA. Most of the ghits on him are sports blogs, which are mostly unusable (either what they say is verifiable elsewhere, or it's pointless speculation), e.g.[7]. Here are some more sources we can use: [8][9][10] A couple of iffier ones are [11][12]. --Dhartung | Talk 04:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Surreal. The article in its current state is a mess, but I'm honestly uncertain if this article can be written. Wesley is apparently real. ESPN mentions him. He's evidently even quoted in this subscription-required New York Times article. Otherwise, the TrueHoop blog, now owned by ESPN, apparently investigated him, producing a large amount of text with very little actual information (although someone noticed felt it warranted metareporting). At the end of it all, he is apparently someone who knows a lot of people, and might make a living by helping to arrange contracts and contacts via these connections. Maybe. And I just do not know if that's enough to be notable even with reliable sources saying it. Serpent's Choice 05:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Agree with Serpent's Choice. Needs to be worked on, not removed. ~ G1ggy! _{...chatterbox...} 10:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Players at the top level of sport are notable, guys who kinda sorta hang out with them in some nebulous way are not. Nick mallory 12:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment See, that's where the article fails. It makes him sound like a hanger-on. But we have a guy who top basketball reporter Scoop Jackson (writer) calls "the most powerful guy in the NBA". He's a fixer, a consultant, a personal manager, an agent, a negotiator, a recruiter, a man who could be in a suit in the VIP section or in a warm-up jacket sitting on the bench, a man on the rolodex of everyone who matters in the league, a man whose rolodex you want to get on and if you aren't you probably don't matter. It's probably precisely because he isn't any of those things officially that gives him the anywhere-everywhere access and influence that he has. Find a video of the Pacers-Pistons brawl, if you can (active takedown policy), and he's the guy in the gray suit who gets out onto the court and protects Ron Artest from getting pepper-sprayed by a Detroit cop. You can think of this in one way, protecting a friend/client, or you can think of it as preventing the only thing that could have made the incident worse -- an NBA player getting himself arrested on the court. He's a fascinating character. I first heard of him in connection with Jordan a few years back, but he seems to have only become more enigmatic and powerful since then. Anyway, I don't have the Detroit News text at this point, but I think I can improve the article without it for now. --Dhartung | Talk 19:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The current article needs improvement, but I think that's achieveable. A LexisNexis search makes it clear that multiple media sources have written significant articles about this man, so he does meet the primary notability criterion, and reliable sources are available. In fact, and he may qualify as notable for being the subject of media speculation even apart from anything he's actually done. EALacey 19:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment on sources Sources that require payment are still sources. Obviously we don;'t want to use them if we can find equivalent free sources, but we should use the best sources there are. Many people will be able to obtain them, and can post a fair use excerpt here is there is doubt about what they say. DGG 01:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • When I try to access the two sources listed in the article, they come up as 404s, not pay sites. Thunderbunny 03:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The articles are no longer located at the same places linked in our article, but they are available. Who is basketball mystery man Wes Wesley? is $2.95, Who's that mystery man behind LeBron? He's William Wesley. is $6.95. The Google News Archive allows you to search newspaper archives including material that has moved behind paywalls. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - although currently requiring payment, there are indpendent reliable sources for articles where this person is the subject of the article.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 19:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Socialist Party of Great Britain debates

Socialist Party of Great Britain debates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:Notability. These debates are campaigning activities of a minscule political party in the UK. 67 "references" from the in-house Socialist Standard, pamphlets and "Socialist Party Tapes" do nothing whatsoever to convince me that this is a notable topic for an encyclopaedia! It is a classic example of WP:Listcruft. Mais oui! 04:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, unencyclopedic regurgitation of internal documents. Illuminates little about the history of the party. --Dhartung | Talk 07:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, a list of debates is utterly unencyclopedic. Punkmorten 09:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Despite its dry and off-putting appearance, this documents the development of significant strands of UK political thought in the twentieth century. It's not about the history of the SPGB per se; note that speakers include David Steel of the Liberal Democrats, Virginia Bottomley of the Conservatives, Bruce Kent of CND and Stan Newens of the Labour Party. That's a pretty broad range of positions - the appearance of characters like Roger Scruton and organisations such as the Militant Tendency, the Communist Party of Great Britain and the National Front make it even broader. So, definitely worth keeping in my view, despite its unprepossessing appearance. BTLizard 10:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Very strong keep - I believe the nominator & delete voters are (forgiveably, due to the confusing name to people without a knowledge of the movement) misunderstanding what this is an article about. These aren't internal debates within a political party, or 'propaganda'; they're a series of major lectures, by people with no connnection to (and generally in direct opposition to) the organisers, organised by a campaigning organisation which occasionally doubles up as a political party. They're the UK political equivalent of the Reith Lectures and Dimbleby Lectures on social topics or the Bakerian Lecture in the sciences, not the British equivalent of List of Republican Party campaign speeches — iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Iridescenti, I take your counterargument seriously, but I still miss the notability of this information. What we have is a list of participants and venues ("John Smith vs. Jack Jones, 78 Veddy British Lane, Hedges") that communicates exactly nothing about the events' importance. They don't even give the topic of any individual debate, let alone show how it was covered or noticed, or remembered historically. The introduction does mention a couple of these, but still doesn't communicate the notability of the subject matter very well. As an article, it's {{primary sources}} and {{importance}} taggable, and as a list it's just obscure. The lecture series you mention I've heard of. So, where are the independent and reliable sources to persuade me? --Dhartung | Talk 19:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "Debate" in the sense used here wouldn't be Oxford Union-style debates, in the sense of both sides giving a speech on a topic and the audience then voting on who "won"; rather, they're be "Question Time" style debates, generally with one socialist speaker and one leading member of an opposing group (ranging from the hard left to the neo-Nazis of the National Front), asking questions of each other and answering questions from the audience about how they'd deal with the issues of the day. As such, the debates might have a general theme but wouldn't have a title as such. Sourcing's a problem for this type of thing because it means consulting print archives - the SPGB website doesn't have transcripts of the debates. In my opinion, the sheer volume of WP:N speakers is enough to convince me, but I concede that someone who isn't used to the minutiae of British political history would have to take my word on that. There are 359 unique Ghits on the matter, but they're generally either socialist sites or blogs/forums (including, bizarrely, one on PCImprovements.com) so probably wouldn't satisfy the Non-Trivial Police. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Categorized under "society topics" JulesH 11:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per BTLizard and Iridescenti. Certain people here have a knack for nominating scholarly relevant articles, although it takes some effort to find them in the sea of crap. Stammer 16:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Iridescenti nailed it, though it'd be nice to see some expansion of some of the more notable debates such as the most recent one, and the Teddy Taylor one. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Don't have to agree with a particular political point of view.Jackfirst 23:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I agree that this is WP:Listcruft. I am not convinced the arguments show any reason this list is notable. If the individual debates were covered, with historical context, that would be an entirely different story. This article doesn't provide any useful information about why we should care. Ibanix 21:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep In many cases the individual debates are in fact sourced. There are projects to digitize 20th century left-wing periodicals and other material, so it should soon be possible to link to on-line accounts. If further information on a particular debate becomes sufficient for a separate article, all the better. DGG 02:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Indeed; many of these debates have sources other than the Socialist Standard, having been reported in the journals of the opposing parties, or in some cases in the mainstream press. However, very few of these journals have been digitized yet, which makes it difficult to compile multiple sources. The current article was written by a professional archivist who went through early printed issues of the Standard, but did not have access to other contemporary journals. —Psychonaut 16:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This list of debates is actually something that even a professional historian may find useful and stimulating, since it provides information indicating significant historical patterns. Stammer 12:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Socialist Party of Great Britain is at most a minor left wing group (one of many). The article does not indicate what the debates were about, merely date, place, opponent and their affiliation. The party may just be sufficinetly notable to appear, but I find it hard to believe that their debates are. Can the creator improve it? Peterkingiron 22:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it self-evident that a series of debates stretching back more than one century, featuring speakers ranging from Ernest John Bartlett Allen, to Teddy Taylor , to the British Union of Fascists (in 1935 and 1936!), to name but a few, is inherently notable? Stammer 08:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no sources and unencyclopediac list--Sefringle 03:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per several above. Should be developed further of course. I take it "Jehovah's Witless" (1955) is a typo? Johnbod 14:23, 4 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 deleted by Andrwsc (notability not asserted). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD. Serpent's Choice 05:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rick koenig

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

calling yourself a role model just may be a bit of vanity ;) wikipedia isnt myspace the_undertow ^talk 05:04, 1 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. WjBscribe 19:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vol. Sean Mcilvenná Republican Flute Band

Vol. Sean Mcilvenná Republican Flute Band (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable flute band. No references given. Can be adequately covered by a sentence in the Sean McIlvenna article. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge, No significant evidence of notability in itself shown - should be merged to Sean McIlvenna.--Vintagekits 14:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment, Bands like this are long-standing parts of both the republican and loyalist traditions - see Éire Nua Republican Flute Band and Portadown defenders - so I think merging to Sean McIlvenna would be to miss the point somewhat. What would best would be to merge into a generic article on the bands as a phenomenon, but I haven't been able to find one so for now I'm saying keep. BTLizard 15:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment, maybe needs new articles such as Republican or Loyalist FB's.--Vintagekits 15:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I hadn't seen those articles before or I would have included them in this AFD. Merging them all to one article is a good suggestion. But, as with the existing individual articles, referencing a merged article from reliable source will prove very hard. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I have added a speedy tag to the Portadown one, and AfD'd the Éire Nua one. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Éire Nua Republican Flute Band. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Maybe contact the creators of the articles to let them know about the AfD, I dont think they are active but is what I would do it I AfDed an article.--Vintagekits 11:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Will do, cheers. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 23:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 05:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Still saying delete. I'll maybe start an article at Flute Band. I would intend this to be about the subject in general, not about individual bands unless they can be verified from reliable sources, which the Éire Nua Republican Flute Band and Vol. Sean Mcilvenná Republican Flute Band articles can't be. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The tradition may be longstanding, and may require an article, but this band has existed no more than 10 years and the article offers no indication of notability. There is no merge needed as there is nothing of note here, that would be like deciding every jazz band should at least be in the jazz article. Nuttah68 10:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above -Doc^g 09:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless some sources are added to indicate how often to they perform publicly, and in what locations/venues have they performed. John Vandenberg 10:14, 9 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 and protect from recreation. --Coredesat 07:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical Prophecy Fulfilled

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

According to the records for Biblical Prophecy Fulfilled:-

• 20:38, 30 April 2007: JLMarais created it.
• 20:40, 30 April 2007: Fang Aili deleted it "Proselyzation; WP:NOT a soapbox"
• 21:46, 30 April 2007: JLMarais re-created it.
• 21:52, 30 April 2007: ArchStanton69 noticed that it had been re-created and tagged it for speedy delete "re-created article".
• 21:53, 30 April 2007: Anthony Appleyard saw it in the speedy-deletion list and deleted it.
• 22:30, 30 April 2007: JLMarais objected to the redeletion.

Anthony Appleyard 06:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete again. This article is written with a significant biblical inerrancy POV, and treats a lot of its content as fact rather than religious belief. A NPOV and more complete treatment already exists at Bible prophecy. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Perhaps there should be a new cleanup template "Subjectify" or "Beliefify" - basically saying to change all statements of facts to statements of opinion, belief, speculation, or conjecture. --Remi 19:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment — {{essay-entry}} generally does the job — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and, given the recreation history, salt. This is nothing more than a POV fork of Bible prophecy. Serpent's Choice 06:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as blatant OR. Someguy1221 06:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment by Author: If this was OR citations would not be possible this is most definitely based on huge amounts of prior research. In terms of 'proselyzation' this would not be a relevant complaint if each item in the article is biblically quotable and historically or scientifically verifiable with acceptable citations. If bias is shown, please highlight it to me to allow me to correct it. In this article a critically important balance is to be introduced to other WikiPedia content that suggests that prophecy is largely a fallacy and superstition. I have done significant research on this topic and I can present an informed view that many people are not aware of. If any of the prophetic fulfilments covered are mentioned elsewhere on another article I would gladly remove it. It seems that there is some intolerance over this subject, but I sincerely hope that is not the case. Note that the recreation of the article was not malicious but just due not being fully informed about how article deletions work. I hope to develop this article to its full potential with your cooperation and that of the community. Regards. JLMarais 09:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not attributed, POV, OR. It is not "intolerance" to expect any article on Wikipedia to be written with a neutral point of view. It is not "intolerance" to expect attribution from non-trivial third parties. It is not "intolerance" to reject original research. --Charlene 09:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Salt Due to it being original research and a POV fork. Salt due to history of recreates. --RaiderAspect 10:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Whilst I personally agree with the current content of this article - this is not the place for coverage of this issue in these terms. I also find myself agreeing with the other editors here that this is intrinsically POV - that is from the perspective of this community. Whether something is biblically provable will never be sufficient grounds for remaining here. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment by Author: What would you prefer should be listed under the link Israelology — Prophecies concerning Israel, the nation, the people, and the man? Do you prefer it being empty, as it was before I added this content? What would be valid content for that prophecy classification? ...anything without proof so that the reader would at all cost not be inclined to change his/her mind about prophecy? Why is the presentation of proof the problem? Is that the problem? Should I provide more credible proof? Why was Evidence of prophecy allowed in a different article? You may want to roll back my changes there as well to see how negatively portrayed the content was. I'm surprised (and originally impressed) that the changes even remained there for a while. Please explain since I'm trying to maintain my view of how this is a well maintained collection of information and how I'm breaching the code (please refer me to the editorial rule in question). "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." - consider that this is not even a presentation of future events, but predicted, verifiable, historic events.
• Delete and salt - this is hopelessly non-neutral OR and will never be anything but. Who says these "prophecies are beyond reproach"? Wikipedia is not a soapbox for fundamentalist POV-pushing; if the creator wants to save the work they've put into this article, I'm sure Aschlafly would manage to find a home for it — iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Bible isnt factual by any means and wiki shouldnt be a place to interpret religious predictions made in various works. None of the "proof citations" can be directly traced to the prophecies Corpx 12:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 13:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because Wikipedia is not Sunday school. Let's avoid this kind of pseudo-scholarship that is basically a sermon. Such "prophecies" often end with Christians "proving" Jesus' arrival and Jews "proving" that Christianity is false. Guilty of WP:NEO and WP:OR. IZAK 13:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete & Salt This is definitely a textbook example of POV pushing and original research. The entire article is open to interpretation, which is clearly what the editor has done. He has taken passages from the Bible that supposedly foreshadow present day events and shown, in his opinion, how those prophecies have been fulfilled. How can any of the information in this article be atrributed to any reliable secondary sources? It can't. I wholeheartedly disagree with everything in the article and believe it should be deleted and protected so that it will never be recreated. --Cyrus Andiron 13:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, weakly, as written. There is a vast literature on this subject, and I am certain that a worthwhile article could be written on the topic. It should not present controversial issues of exegesis or historical interpretation (e.g. that the Zionist regime in Palestine represents fulfilment of Biblical prophecy) as accepted facts. But any worthwhile article ought to be recreated from scratch, and appear under a NPOV title. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment The 'Zionist regime in Palestine'? If we're talking NPOV that'd be 'Israel' then would it? Nick mallory 14:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. In the current context, "Israel" would be ambiguous. The unanimous teaching of the Christian churches for 1800 years was that the body of Christian believers is the new Israel of God, and that it has replaced the Jewish faith. In the 19th century, this traditional tenet was challenged, and the new doctrine became standard among end times prophecy buffs. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not pointing out anything but a fact of geography. The country has a name and that name is Israel. Nick mallory 16:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• neutral I am not certain that the article has no merit. The problem is that there must be a secondary source that claim that a particular prophecy has been fulfilled. Quoting from the primary source is clearly WP:OR. I am not certain that this can be done. Jon513 14:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per my original speedy delete reasoning. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Zetawoof. Like Jon513, I am not sure that this article has no merit... (here I managed to work up a detailed argument about a possible page on Biblical prophecy without noticing that such a page exists.). This material is covered better and without OR and POV by Biblical prophecy. bikeable (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, irreparably violates WP:NPOV. NawlinWiki 17:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as being way afoul of WP:OR and being rather POV as well. Unless this is impeccably sourced in some way, in which case I'd reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• As a Christian, I'm going with Strong Delete, maybe a merge, as it is (admittedly) extremely POV. There is nothing in this article that can't be covered in Biblical prophecy, and eschatology, while it has a few theories within Christianity, has an annoying habit to tend toward much speculation about The End. (OK, that may seem like a non-sequitur, but biblical prophecy and eschatology very much go hand in hand.) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment May also be an attempt to counter, in some fashion, Unfilfilled historical predictions by Christians. No vote at this point though. Confusing Manifestation 23:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think therein lies a paradox. I'm pretty sure that the article you suggest wouldn't survive an AfD, if only on the grounds that it would be a case of bringing one long-lasting holy cold war (for lack of a better term) to Wikipedia. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • If you believe this, perhaps you should consider proposing Unfulfilled Historical Predictions by Christians for AfD. --Shirahadasha 04:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Holy God, it exists... I'll have to examine it, but it looks like there are people already on it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete though a proper article on the subject might be appropriate. But not one with the POV "In this article some prophecies are be listed that are beyond reproach." DGG 02:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete speculative original research. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Even if sourcing and WP:OR issues could be addressed, this list-type approach is inherently POV. The issues are too complex to be legitimately presentable in a list. There are different POVs on what the various prophecies meant, or whether particular historical events corresponded to them. An article-type format is necessary for any serious, legitimate, WP:NPOV article on such an issue. A more neutral title is needed as well. --Shirahadasha 04:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - While an article is under construction it is difficult to determine what the end result will look like. This is an entirely different article from Bible Prophecy. Yes, it is a POV article, but that events relating to the formation of the modern state of Israel are a fulfilment of prophecy is a widely held view in certain Christian circles. I would like to see the creator being allowed to develop his article. I suspect that the addition of a brief sceptical statement to the introduction such as 'Certain Christians claim that the following are examples of prohecy fulfilled in modern times' would be sufficient to redeem it. It is not original research, as I have seen views of this kind in works such as Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth, a book with whose views I profoundly disagree - but it exists. However, a great deal of theological speculation has been undertaken into escatology, and biblical prophecy of the end of the world and the prophesied Second Coming of Christ. There is no reason why such material should not be reflected in WP. I would further add that it is extremely bad form for admins to delete new articles before their authors have had a chance to complete writing them. I speak as one who has suffered from that, before I descovered the In use and

On Wikipedia, Under Construction may refer to articles actively undergoing construction.

My page may refer to:

• Under Construction (Missy Elliott album)
• Under Construction, Part II, an album by Timbaland & Magoo
• Under Construction (Gentle Giant album)
• Under Construction (Schugar/Schenker album)
• Under Construction (record label), a sub-label of Breakbeat Kaos
• Under Construction, a Pink Floyd RoIO containing a demo version of The Wall.
• Under Construction, an early name of the band Prism
• Under Construction, a notification used by some web developers to indicate that the website is undergoing development. Appeared on over 100 million websites in 2008.
• Under construction is used to show that the process of construction is taking place.

This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

The more I look at what there is out there already, the more I think this is an article dealing with serious issues, which some Christians believe. I have looked at Christian eschatology, Unfulfilled Historical Predictions by Christians, Summary of Christian eschatological differences, and End times. I can find nothing else that deals with the subject matter of the article, I therefore upgrade my view to Strong Keep. In passing, I would mention that End times is an incomplete article that appears to he paralleling eschatology: that might well be a candidate for AFD. This one should not be. Perhaps the response to the immediate deletion should have been to ask for a deletion review, or to contact the admin responsible to ask him to reverse his actions and give the author time to complete the article. However it should not be an admin's job to delete new articles that (except obvious spam), just because they disagree with them. The PROD and AFD procedures are a much better way of resolving these disputes. Perhaps the admin responsible should be disciplined (or have admin rights removed). Peterkingiron 11:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• delete.--רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 21:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment by Author: Note POV improvements to page as well as declaring it as 'under construction'. Added a TODO list which should address OR concerns: Get citations about the historic & prophetic value of the Bible - possibly from "Bible Evidences Authority Etc" section at `The World's Largest Online Library`, Questia. There are 8 books listed and 28 journal articles. JLMarais 01:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment by Author: Added more contextual backround through mention & linking in 'Christian Zionism' which futher establishes some of the ideas presented in a non-OR way.
• Delete as pov and OR. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 02:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment / request by Author: Request to postpone deletion decision to provide time to cite according to requirements where needed & make other corrections if any are suggested.
  • Comment The new version is still totally unsourced, and contains at least one flat-out lie in "The United Nations has never condemned Arabs countries for any military act" (checkable in all of 10 seconds on the list of resolutions — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment by Author: I responded on Iridescenti's talk page. Inserted here for convenience: I don't understand by what you mean by totally unsourced. "Embedded HTML links" is an acceptable way to cite according to policy as far as I could tell. I restructured the article as per recommendations from other editors & adapted the 'lie' you mentioned (it wasn't 100% correct, but not far off) and added a book citation for it.
• delete I recognize that the article is under construction, but it is just a new version of an old article and it seems to be hopelessly OR and POV. Not to mention that adding an 'under construction' tag to an article doesn't make it immune to deletion. Makerowner 00:31, 6 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. --Coredesat 07:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stolen Mix Tape

Stolen Mix Tape (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The way this is described, it's kind of a precursor to itunes for the independent musician. This is good, but what I see out there in a quick google test is that there's a lot of usage - but no notability. Article seems a bit on the spammy side. Created a month and a half ago, no recent changes to bring it up to standard have been taken on. Shall we discuss? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Reading this article, I find little evidence that it's actually notable. Being primarily a music download site, it should fall under the same notability guidelines as websites and companies, and I see no evidence of this. The contributors to this page have listed some features of this site they claim are unique (not independently sourced, though), but fancy features do not a notable entity make. Further, I'm suspicious of any article in which an editor actually wrote "The Stolen Mix Tape download store is notable because..." Further, carrying music from notable artists and bands does not make one notable. I wouldn't consider notable every store that ever sold a Beatles album, nor would I consider notable even those stores that an actual Beatle walked into. It's not terribly hard to establish notability for a company that is actually notable, so without independent claims of such I must endorse deletion. Someguy1221 06:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:NOT and it reads like an advertisement. No claims of notability. Ibanix 21:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Could easily be sthg taken off a commercial website. Delete per WP:SPAM. Ohconfucius 08:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What's sthg? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:43, 3 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. --Coredesat 07:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Dewey Moore Jr.

George Dewey Moore Jr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable soldier. Also, major facts such as date of birth were withdrawn at the request of family by creator. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, I haven't looked into the soldier or read the article... but, this AfD needs two links: the blog referred to in the story. gren グレン 06:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can find evidence that he was any more noteworthy than any other soldier. Also, hopelessly non-NPOV - "Colonel Moore is one of the reasons that this county is what it is today" is not the kind of thing we need here. The reason for the article's creation are in my view irrelevant - plenty of decent articles have been created as class projects. The only issue is whether he passes WP:N — iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought unless previously published sources are provided to verify the article. Personal phone interviews just do not pass Wikipedia:No original research. --Allen3 ^talk 11:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If control of the article has been surrendered to the family of the subject then it's clearly unencyclopedic. This simply should not have happened. BTLizard 12:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Subject probably was a great man (though I would not credit him with making America great), however notability is not established in the article. This article also has a couple of other problems. First, a phone interview is a classic example OR and violates WP:RS. Also, none of the information in the article is verifed by independent secondary sources. --Cyrus Andiron 12:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing to suggest this is in any way about someone special. Nice obituary, but not enyclopaedic, because there is nothing to make it so. (The statement that "Colonel Moore is one of the reasons that this county is what it is today" could explain a lot!) Emeraude 13:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (1) because nothing in the article shows notability; (2) Article signed by Katelyn Moore, citing "Source: Moore Eileen, Peter Moore, and Lisa Moore. Personal interview on the phone." That's not an independent source per WP:ATTRIBUTION. NawlinWiki 17:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- it is interesting and he sounds a nice guy- but he is not notable enough for a Wikipedia bio- and noting above comments on WP:OR etc Thunderwing 19:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - notability issue. Not saying he wasn't a great guy, but does he need an article? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Also, likely conflict of interest; wikipedia is not a memorial, contrary to what some people believe. Ohconfucius 08:56, 3 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 a7, no assertion of notability (asserting that you're a self-published author on Lulu isn't an assertion of notability). NawlinWiki 17:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Barbour

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

An unencyclopedic article on a self-published author who fails WP:BIO. The creation by a single purpose account. Victoriagirl 06:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I'm having trouble discerning what the article's supposed to be about. JuJube 07:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete ~ G1ggy! _{...chatterbox...} 10:25, 1 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. --Coredesat 07:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James E. F. Riley, Sr.

James E. F. Riley, Sr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An unencyclopedic article about a self-published author who fails WP:BIO. The creation of Jrileysrie, a single purpose account. Victoriagirl 07:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete ~ G1ggy! _{...chatterbox...} 10:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Being a self-published author doesn't equal notability. Claims to have acted in TV and film, but nothing on IMDB (and there were seven James Rileys to choose from). No reliable sources establishing notability in any field. NawlinWiki 17:54, 1 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. Renaming or merging the article can be discussed on the talk page. --Coredesat 07:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essjay controversy

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

The purpose of this AfD is to give the community a chance, for the first time since the controversy erupted, to (try to) have a cool-headed discussion about whether or not the subject of this article meets our standards for inclusion. This is a good-faith nomination, that needs a full conversation.

The first AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay, was closed as no consensus: the article was nominated for deletion at the height of the controversy, on the day the article was created. The AfD seemed to go off the rails, with much heated debate about Essjay and the whole situation, rather than merits of the article, which itself was in extreme flux, renamed several times over the course of the AfD with more than 500 edits on the article and a ton of discussion all over the place. The closing admin, A Man In Black, noted that the AfD was quite "messy," and his decision was without prejudice to the article's renomination.

Unfortunately the article was renommed the same day as MIB's close. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay controversy was procedurally speedy-closed, as was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay controversy (3rd nomination) which appeared four days later.

There has been time for the article to find its balance, and there has been time for the community to breathe a bit and calm down, although this issue is still quite contentious, no doubt. No matter what, the focus needs to be on the article and if it fits our standards for inclusion, not the subject of the article.

Now this isn't a procedural nomination with no opinion about whether or not it should stay - I do have an opinion on the matter, and I feel the article should be deleted. The media coverage that surrounded the controversy is undeniable. But two months on, one must question the significance of the events. Yes, it is significant to us, but after the initial media brouhaha, the outside world could care less. The (main) space is not for self references, I don't feel the issue is universally notable, and the issue of credentials on Wikipedia can succinctly be discussed at Criticism of Wikipedia. Thank you. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with Jeffrey. This was significant at the time, but more for Wikipedia than beyond it. Ultimately it was news for a while. But we are not here to report news- that is what Wikinews is for. We cannot dedicate entire articles everytime someone does something newsworthy. Image how many "George Bush controversy" articles we would need to do that... The problem is all the more acute where the person concerned is not in themselves notable. A valiant attempt has been made to write an article here, but it remains a lenghty discussion of an incident that hard short-term media attention. No doubt some reference to this incident (or more importantly to the issue of credential verification) can be made at Criticisms of Wikipedia, but I see no future for this as a stand alone article. The fact that it concerns Wikipedia is to my mind a red hering- we should neither delete because it concerns us or keep for fear of comment should we delete. Its simply a matter of news vs. encyclopedic content. This was the former and keeping it sets a bad precedent for our willingess to cover events of short-term newsworthiness (as opposed to true notability). The number of sources are not the issue here, but their nature and the short timespace they cover are. Fundamentally I don't think this is an encyclopedic subject. WjBscribe 07:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or (if we must) redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. This is not an event deserving of its own article. Yes it seemed/seems like a big event to us, but lets step out of our little wikibubble for a moment... delete per nom Glen 07:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - And let me make it clear, in case anyone was wondering (as there is bound to be some), this is not an attempt to save Essjay from having a negative article on him (I was never a big fan of him) nor an attempt at sparing the Foundation or certain higher-ups from criticism (I'm not too fond of the Foundation, either). This is here because I feel the subject does not meet notability guidelines. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:ASR specifically allows for "Articles about prominent people involved in Wikipedia and 'Essjay' was the subject of articles in the New Yorker, the New York Times etc etc because of his involvement with Wikipedia. How is this not notable? Nick mallory 09:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It was the subject of discussion in lots of independent, non trivial, reliable sources and I was under the impression that that was the criteria for notability. Just because it reflects poorly on Wikipedia is no reason to delete it, that indeed would smack of censorship and would leapt upon anew by Wikipedia's detractors. Just because the media attention was 'short term' doesn't mean it's not notable. Nearly every news story is 'short term' because that's the nature of news. Nick mallory 07:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, the deletion rationale has nothing to do with the article giving Wikipedia a bad name. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Our notability standards are clearly different to our requirement of multiple verifiable sources. You are conflating WP:N with WP:V. Every item that makes the news each day is usually reported by a number of TV stations, newspapers and there will be a few editorials. In other words, if our only requirement is sources, people would be free to write articles about each item in the day's news. But Wikipedia does not as an encyclopedia carry such articles. We have a separate Wiki for that, Wikinews. Its coverage of this controversy is very good (and is where such coverage belongs). WjBscribe 07:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Question: What makes a news story notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia rather than Wikinews? Sancho (Review me) 08:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Good question. I would expect there to be (a) ongoing reliable coverage sometime after the event, (b) some sort of wider effect/ change caused by the incident in question and (c) to have an impact on more than small community (ie. not be too local). Things like natural disasters or (for a recent example) the Virginia Tech massacre have a clear longevity that makes them worthy of encyclopedic coverage. A lot has been written about George W Bush choking on a pretzel. We don't have an article on "Bush and pretzels", but we do have one for the massacre. It seems to me a matter of commons sense. WjBscribe 08:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So there's no article on A Million Little Pieces or other 'here today, gone tomorrow' fabrication flaps then? If, for example, exactly the same amount of coverage had been given to an otherwise unnotable Government official fabricating their qualifications, would we be having this discussion about deleting an article upon them? Nick mallory 08:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope so. If a non-notable person is involved in scandal that gets some press coverage for a while and then passes, but no great change results from it- we as an encyclopedia would have no reason to cover it. And every reason not to - ie. WP:BLP. WjBscribe 08:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Where's the Wikipedia policy that says all that exactly? It sounds like you're making that up as you go along to be honest. This incident has multiple etc sources - it got a LOT of press attention - and that's the criteria for inclusion. It is important in how it affected Wikipedia's credibility at the time and, who knows, in the future. If this had affected any other organisation and got a similar amount of coverage it would be covered here, no question. Nick mallory 08:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment WP:N says "Note 3: Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works." A former proposed guideline which is now an essay, WP:NOTNEWS, has further thoughts on this issue which express the views of several editors, that something can be highly newsworthy, a veritable "water cooler story" or "must see video clip" without belonging in an encyclopedia. Edison 16:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Is the subject of mulitple non-trivial published works by very reliable sources. A very WP:POINT AfD. --Oakshade 08:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I beg your pardon? I see no reason to suggest that Jeffrey is "trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point", which is the policy you link to. Please reconsider so casually making a serious accusation against an editor in good standing. It was throughout the previous processes made clear that it would be a good idea to reconsider the status of this article once the dust had settled and tempers had calmed- the nomination should come as a surprise to no one. WjBscribe 08:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a news service. An item like this blew up on the internet because it took place on the internet, and events there tend to explode out of all proportions. At the end of the day it is a simple case of a person misrepresenting himself on the internet, without really damaging anything except perhaps the credibility of Wikipedia (which is very dented anyway), a very common occurrence and without any long-lasting significant implications. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Lots of things blow up on the internet. The point is this was covered by a host of major newspapers and broadcasters. The New York Times [13], BBC News [14] and The Daily Telegraph [15] for example. What exactly are Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair notable for again? Nick mallory 08:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

But they are notable. Coverage in each case lasted for years afterwards and Glass was even the subject of a film. If someone decides to make a film about this a year down the line (or if those publications are discussing this by then), I will concede notability. Though it would be one hell of a dull film. WjBscribe 08:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I have not heard about the Glass incident, but regarding Jayson Blair, we are talking about a whole different perspective. Blair damaged the credibility and itegrity of a well-respected, generally reliable newspaper by printing fake stories. Essjay damaged the perceived credibility of a already somewhat tarnished website by misrepresenting himself, not by writing fake articles or hoaxes. Indeed, there are no reports of Essjay's contributions being bad. The Essjay story is less notable because the damage caused was much much much smaller, and because I cannot believe that creating a false persona on a website where people can edit anonymously is as big as a journalist getting employed in a company where there should be some serious controls going far beyond a wiki-like all volunteer "RC patrol". Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So Wikipedia doesn't want to be "well-respected" or "generally reliable" then? If Wikipedia doesn't matter then what are we all doing wasting our time writing articles for it? Nick mallory 09:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The nature of anonymous contributions without peer or editor review means that Wikipedia is not regarded as a reliable editor-reviewed and publication the same way the NY Times is. It is for this reason Wikipedia is not regarded as a reliable source. I am not saying Wikipedia is useless, because as a starting point for research, it is brilliant. However, a person writing up nonsense on Wikipedia is not a big story, it is a part of daily life here. But someone adding nonsense into a finished product like a newspaper, which ought to have a review and fact-checking process beyond anything we have on Wikipedia, and gets the nonsense published and sold, is a bigger issue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It passes WP:N. There is no reason to exclude this article, so... why exclude it? --Dookama 09:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Despite my heart saying delete, a dispassionate view sees it as notable and referenced. --Dweller 10:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• I would prefer this as a redirect, but would weakly accept keep. I don't think there is really debate about whether the content should be included. It is well-sourced and a valid aspect of Criticism of Wikipedia. The question is whether it should be an article or a section in the Criticsm article that is its parent. I am inclined to think that the section in the parent article (currently ~700 words) is more than adequate. This isn't the Seigenthaler controversy, I don't think; instead of defamatory comments about a public figure, this was basically a "personnel issue" -- an employee with a padded resume. But in the end, the decision of what to make articles and what to make article sections is an editorial one (and not an AFD topic, strictly). If this is retained on its own, however, the passage in the parent article needs to be condensed considerably to avoid the impression of undue weight and recentism. Serpent's Choice 10:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a balanced and properly sourced record of a notable incident. We might not want to remember it, but many others do and will keep bringing it up, so that alone is good reason for the topic to be properly covered. We don't delete historical incidents when they're out of the news for a month or two. .. dave souza, talk 10:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The length and depth of the article is way out of proportion to its importance, but in light of its wide media coverage I don't see anyone offering a compelling reason it doesn't fulfill WP:N. dharmabum 11:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I originally voted delete at the last nomination, but since then I feel the article has been improved to the point where it would no longer be reasonable to suggest merging its content into Criticism of Wikipedia as I supported at the time. I don't see any reason why the topic shouldn't be covered in this much depth: wikipedia is not paper, and the article is well-enough sourced to support its content. JulesH 11:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Just because it happened here, doesn't mean we can't have an impartial article on it. Personally, I'd rather someone searching for information on the matter found out about it here, rather than from Daniel Brandt — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This was a major and transforming event for a top ten website. WAS 4.250 12:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Extensive media coverage, significant event for a major Internet site, meets any reasonable notability standard, careful sourcing for every assertion. Casey Abell 12:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment By the way, any fond hope that this controversy will fade from the media is badly mistaken. Within the last two weeks, the Google news cache picked up references at PC World, History News Network, and The Sydney Morning Herald among others. This will endure in the media like the Siegenthaler incident, and will rise again in force whenever there is a publicized dispute over Wikipedia's accuracy. In fact, the Herald reminded everybody of the incident just because Jimbo happened to be in town. When public disputes over Wikipedia's reliability occur - and they will occur, don't kid yourself - we better have articles on both of the Wikipedia trauma twins, Siegenthaler and Essjay. Otherwise, there will be justified charges that Wikipedia attempted to bury the less savory episodes in its past by deleting either or both of the articles. Casey Abell 19:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Clearly notable topic, appropriately sourced article. This thing is part of Wikipedia's history. However, it would be interesting to delete it and see the clumsy cover-up make the news too. Then someone would write an article about that, which would be nominated for deletion ... . Stammer 14:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Whether or not the media attention has passed on is irrelevant, as notability is not lost over time. Tarc 15:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, a major event worthy of coverage in its own article. This is the backlash result of an overzealous desire not to talk about internet or wikipedia-related topics, when about any other organization they'd be considered legitimate. Complaints about 'short term newsworthiness' are BS. If it's got enough coverage, we can cover it, we're not paper, don't worry about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see any issue with the notability of the event. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Well-sourced article about an event with more than short-term notability. NawlinWiki 17:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are a sufficient number of stories with substantial coverage from reliable and independent publications to satisfy WP:N and WP:A, so it would look like a case of censorship to protect Wikipedia from criticism if we went deleted the article on the subject. If the stand-alone article were deleted, then the section in "Criticisms" talking about this controversy would need to about double and would grow excessively long. The same principles apply to Essjay as to Stephen Glass ,Jayson Blair and more recently Marilee Jones. Edison 18:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per comments by nominator who wrote in part: "The media coverage that surrounded the controversy is undeniable." and snowballing of keep votes. End of discussion. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Sjakkalle. Not everything that makes it to press is noteworthy of an encyclopedia entry. -- Psy guy ^Talk 18:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, this is clearly WP:N, part of a longstanding thread of criticism of Wikipedia in the press -- and indeed probably the most noticed Wikipedia-related controversy since Siegenthaler. Wikipedia is a global top 10 website, so it's entirely reasonable to treat this as a notable controversy. --Dhartung | Talk 19:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. It happened, it's well documented, and it happened to WP, what's the problem? Frankly, it should be here, so if people have questions, there's an answer. If anything, put it in WP: space. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rename with Wikipedia in title WatchingYouLikeAHawk 21:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and ban nominating for 6-months. These are just attempts to game the system. Keep nominating until you catch people off guard and get a delete vote. It can be nominated and be saved 999 times, but all it takes is one voting session to get it deleted, and make it forgotten. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just to further this statement, I find it curious that this AfD began at what was the middle of the night in the United States (7:26 UTC) and 3 of the total 4 delete votes in this AfD so far occurred in the first hour of it. Not saying that this AfD was "gaming the system" to get a speedy delete, but it certainly does raise an eyebrow. --Oakshade 21:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Intimidation, that's the way to go! See WP:AGF. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 22:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Nah, nothing to intimidate. Just an observation about this AfD. --Oakshade 22:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:N, the "no self-refernces" argument is a straw-man; I suppose the nominator with equal vigor would want to delete the Wikipedia article because of the dreaded self-reference. Carlossuarez46 21:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, stable, well-sourced article on a notable topic that isn't going away. Risker 22:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have asked WatchingYouLikeAHawk to move the page back to its original title during the course of the AfD, or at least until it has been discussed for more than five minutes on the talk page. Risker 22:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • This is not a feasible option right now. If the name of an article is sufficient to sway votes on this AfD, then this signifies a major problem, wouldn't you agree? WatchingYouLikeAHawk 22:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I've moved it back because the new title was not supported by consensus and was inconsistent with our house style. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'd say The New York Times and ABC News qualify as non-trivial sources. Quadzilla99 23:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia. Not to say it's not notable or not important, but it doesn't stand well on its own, but it reads like overblown journalism, complete with a timeline and quotes to flesh it out. The whole thing spanned a very short time and would fit better in an article with a broader context. --Wafulz 00:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The controversy is still being discussed in the media, according to this April 24/07 article. Risker 00:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't say it was discussed- it was more just mentioned in a sentence along with every other criticism the project has faced. --Wafulz 00:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, it's a whole paragraph devoted to the Essjay contoversy, not "just mentioned in a sentence." --Oakshade 01:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Fine, a paragraph out of several dozen. You get my point. --Wafulz 02:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. It is a notable event, and no significant problems exist with the article any more now that the potential BLP problems of having an article on Essjay himself (rather than the event) have been dealt with. I previously supported merging into the general criticism article, but doing so now would detract from the encyclopedia either due to loss of cited information or making the criticism article excessively long. --tjstrf talk 00:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This can be linked to as an article off of Wikipedia Criticism, but it is both notable (number of media references) and provides valueable history for new Wikipedia contributors like myself. Ibanix 01:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I had thought (or maybe just hoped) that this subject had been settled. There are unimpeachable media references, and that is sufficient for the basic N. (dozens more could probably be found, and I expect them to be coming in for years). Let's face it--like it or not, the major things that happen at Wikipedia are notable, and so are the major personalies. We have no more right to delete coverage of our worst moments or the people whose deeds have been the most unfortunate to us, than any other organization has. There is WP:COI in trying to delete articles on the subject. I share the COI, but we can all deal with it by objectivity. The media sources are sufficient, and that should be the end of the argument. Incidentally, I would consider that the Wikipedia Signpost is a RS. It's coverage is unbiased, it is carefully edited, there is a named editor in chief, and the articles carry by-lines. DGG 02:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This has became a notable event. Don't reopen till next year.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Plenty of coverage that demonstrates notability. Maxamegalon2000 05:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep we kept details on the Siegenthaler Incident... and this incident got way more media coverage.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this story got world-wide coverage (e.g. I saw it in several Danish media), but rename to include "Wikipedia" in the title. Valentinian ^{T / C} 09:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but move to Wikipedia: "space". I don't really think this is appropriate for our encyclopedia as if this was an event centering around another website, i.e. Digg or Slashdot or something, it would probably be deleted as "non notable". It's only really here because people on this site heard so much about it because it affected this site directly and therefore I think you guys have a skewed perception of the media coverage. I do, however, think it should be kept around so that people who are new to the site (like myself) can find out about what happened (because I've seen it mentioned all over the place) from a non-POV perspective (i.e. negative or positive spin on the controversy by wikipedia editors). Kamryn Matika 13:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I really can't see any reason why this should be deleted. Pathlessdesert 15:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable event which made the news, important in the history of Wikipedia, deletion would seem like Wikipedia trying to sweep it under the carpet. SynergyBlades 16:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't worry about appearances. The reasons for keeping or deleting should be separate from whether or not it seems like we're trying to hide something. Sancho (Review me) 16:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Comment: Although only a guideline, the notion that notability is generally permanent seems to apply here. However, it is a confusing point considering that many topics are deferred to Wikinews. I guess without guideline clarifying what news stories are encyclopedic enough for inclusion in Wikipedia rather than Wikinews, the only thing we can do is exactly this — case-by-case discussion. Sancho (Review me) 16:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is important WP history. - grubber 16:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is notable. I have seen it mentioned in Time magazine, it was on the front page of CNN fopr two days, and so on. Agree with suggestions that this should not be nominated for de;etion for a period of time. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 18:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Suggest speedy keep. As deletion now seems to have a snowball's chance. Sancho (Review me) 19:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This article clearly meets all standards of notability, and all of the information can be verified by reliable sources, we should not have special standards of inclusion for Wikipedia related content that is notable to the outside world.--RWR8189 19:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This incident has been covered extensively outside of Wikipedia, and unlike articles about individual student victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, contains much that cannot easily be placed elsewhere. Nyttend 21:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Formative event for Wikipedia, excellent sources. Quatloo 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - although the nomination was made in good faith, it still doesn't merit deletion, as the article demonstrates multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Therefore it meets WP:N. Walton ^{Need some help?} 12:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to... some other article, and trim heavyhandedly. Just because we can write about this based on extensive press coverage doesn't mean we necessarily should make it extensive enough to warrant an article of its own. We had an event; You can describe the event succinctly in a paragraph at most. We had implications; we can and should discuss those in context of the common Wikipedia criticisms and history, but just explaining what this thing lead to makes me Not Care. When we describe current events, we forget the idea that succinctness is gold. We're not a current news portal. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, and I really urge people who are !voting "Keep" here to consider the mergeability, especially if all you're concerned are the media visibility and importance of this topic. I think it's pretty clear that there's no question of notability and sourcing; however, take a good look at the article and ask yourself "do we really need yet another split off article about Wikipedia history?". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • This is a major event in Wikipedia's history. If you are going to ask "Do we really need" questions, perhaps you might start with more pressing matters, such as, Do we really need an article on each of the 400 Simpsons episodes? Quatloo 04:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia:Essjay Controversy It is important in the history of Wikipedia but not notable in the wider world. A1octopus 16:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Non-trivial coverage by multiple, independent, reliable sources. Clearly a notable topic. DickClarkMises 16:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Anything that gets major attention from the New York Times (as this did), and altered the view of a major website (I.E. Wikipedia), is very notable. I heard about this from several sources. The Star Tribune mentoined it, and so did the Signpost and Wikizine. THe times had an article on it, and of Course, the New Yorker had something on it. It's totally Notable. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 18:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but in Wikipedia:Essajay controversy like A1octopus. Essjay thing is very famous now so more ppl, especially Wikipedians are interested in this topic.--~KnowledgeHegemony~ 19:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Not having a login, I won't vote - I know that's not the wikipedia way, but I just dropped by to comment on this via a link from a friend. I just wanted to say that I think it should be kept, as it can prove instructional for other users - "Verify your sources, because we don't want to go through this sort of a thing again. I'm sorry, nothing personal, we just can't afford something like that again." Or perhaps something that doesn't sound like it has potential for sarcasm - I lack the way with words I used to have. 69.109.185.239 00:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Amply covered by mainstream news, so I don't think there'd be any doubt that it meets WP:N if it hadn't involved Wikipedia. It joins Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, Lee Siegel, Binjamin Wilkomirski, Laura Grabowski, Gerd Heidemann (of the Hitler Diaries), and Clifford Irving's fake Howard Hughes autobiography, as a cautionary tale of hoaxing. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 01:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Good grief; passes WP:WEB indisputably. --Gwern (contribs) 03:21 4 May 2007 (GMT)
• Keep - Prominent imposture. If we delete this we will be surely accused of hypocricy and hiding our mistakes - Skysmith 11:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per all the reasons already stated. It passes the test of notability, without question. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 14:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Slow news days does not make this notable. Only shows that the mainstream news still doesn't know what they're talking about (regarding Internet coverage), they just like to jump on whatever is "hot" at that moment. The moment has passed. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's been a while since I've seen the "reliable sources are unreliable" arguement. I'll use only one example to counter the non-sensical "slow newsday" charge. When this story was in BBC News on March 6 [16], they also reported an extremely deadly earthquake in Indonesia.[17] Slow news day? --Oakshade 04:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I guess we'll have to make some amendments to WP:RS. How about: when citing an otherwise reliable source, one must check whether there were significant news stories occurring on that day. If not, then the source fails to be reliable, due to WP:SLOWNEWSDAY. I guess we'll need guidelines to objectively determine whether competing news stories are siginificant enough too. Well, let's get to it. --SubSeven 05:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Oakshade, where in my message did I say anything about reliable sources? Oh wait, that had nothing whatsoever to do with my argument.... My comment about slow news days was tongue-in-cheek, which apparently when over a few people's heads. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Ned Scott, "Only shows that the mainstream news still doesn't know what they're talking about ..." came accross as an attack on what WP considers reliable sources, ie "mainstream news." WP believes "mainstream news" to be reliable unless proven otherwise. --Oakshade 06:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
        • That is not what I am saying. The news reported facts, but gave undue weight to the situation because they didn't know what they were talking about. They're so quick to jump on the idea of someone lieing on Wikipedia, even though it happens all the time. One report that was televised didn't even mention why it was a big deal (that he lied in debates or that he held a high position of access). My point is that just because someone reports something doesn't make it a real issue / notable / whatever. So again, while they can be used as a source, they are not always the full story and can give undue weight to a situation. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, this article meets and far exceeds all of our inclusionary standards. Give it a rest. RFerreira 06:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Plenty of coverage in mainstream press, and the incident is still being brought up. I was just at a conference a couple weeks ago, where "the Essjay thing" was mentioned as part of someone else's talk. The controversy was clearly notable. --Elonka 01:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia per Wafulz's comment. – Riana_ऋ 07:11, 6 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. --Coredesat 07:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kirsty Lloyd

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

No assertion of notability other than an unsuccessful run for New South Wales state parliament. The article is unsourced and mostly trivial in nature. Mattinbgn/ ^talk 08:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 08:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as follows:

a) Article does not indicate notability - it is not notable to be the first woman to stand for Toongabbie given Toongabbie was created as an electorate for the first time this year. Everyone who stood for Toongabbie did so for the first time (first man, first person with brown hair, first person named Kirsty and so on).

b) No record of political activism - article does not claim leadership on any issue or community campaign, and an internet search reveals only political blogs and incidental references

c) No realistic prospect of success - no disrespect to Ms Lloyd, but she attracted only 27% of the vote and was never in the running for what is a safe Labor seat.

d) Not the first woman to seek representation for this area - Toongabbie is the old electorate of Wentworthville renamed. Wentworthville was represented by Ms Pam Allan, further invalidating Ms Lloyd's notability claims (first woman candidate)

e) no sources, no photos, nothing that would be lost if this article was removed and recreated should Ms lloyd achieve notability at a future election. Euryalus 08:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Failed political candidates are generally not notable. Nothing here to indicate otherwise. --RaiderAspect 10:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO.SlideAndSlip 12:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. She was a candidate for the Liberal Party of Australia which is the second largest party in the NSW parliament and achieved 27% of the primary vote. [18] However, there are no Google News Archive sources for "Kirsty Lloyd" Toongabbie [19] so she received little or no independent coverage of the campaign. If there was an article on the seat of Toongabbie, she might be worth a brief mention. Capitalistroadster 03:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable politician at this stage.Garrie 23:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nn politician, as per Euryalus. Lankiveil 00:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
• Delete as unsourced. John Vandenberg 09:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails the everything test. RFerreira 06:04, 6 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 Speedily deleted by User:Edgar181. NawlinWiki 18:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hillel_lefkowitz

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

Nonsense Article Youngandsenile 08:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete db-nonsense. JuJube 08:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G1. So tagged — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:03, 1 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. --Coredesat 07:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lords of the Greens

Lords of the Greens (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article bears all the hallmarks of being a hoax :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It hardly matters if it's a hoax; either it's an article on a totally & irredeemably non-notable book, or it's WP:COMPLETEANDUTTERBULLSHIT — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Zero ghits, plenty of redlinks. Hoax. BTLizard 12:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable at best, hoax at worst, no sources. NawlinWiki 18:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if it was published (and I'm sure it wasn't), not notable. Drmaik 20:01, 1 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. While the tone of the article is admirably free of hyperbole, it fails the primary criterion of WP:CORP, namely being the subject of multiple independent secondary sources. All footnotes are to the corporate website. In "External links", the first two links are to corporate sites. The next three are to public relations pieces written by the company. The fourth link, titled "Newsletter from e-crime Congress 2007- reference to iDovos", is to a sponsor banner in which Mantissa is noted. The remaining links are not much better, including several symposium participant lists in which Mantissa is one of dozens. The best link appears to be this, conference notes, which include an description of a Mantissa employee's presentation. However, this is clearly incidental to the coverage of the conference as a whole and is from a low credibility source. While it certainly appears that such an old software company should have better media coverage, such coverage does not appear to actually exist. Notability is thus not established. - BanyanTree 02:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mantissa corporation

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

It seems to me to be promotional. The company is small (the are only distribution agents in other countries) and the article it's a list and a description of products. The overview is a descriotion of strategies and new products. The footnotes are referenced to pages of websites and the links are autoreferential. In this state it's not relevant for Wikipedia. --Ilario 10:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure what to do with it, since I think it could be upgraded/improved by someone who had the time. ~ G1ggy! _{...chatterbox...} 10:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• In reference to Ilario's above comment: Understand your concern. However, you will note the absence of any qualifying adjectives, e.g. good product or bad product. Products are merely described, not evaluated in terms of quality. In this, it seems to me that this page differs little from other corporate Wikipedia entries (see BMC, Computer Associates, etc)...Sathrif 17:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that an user has inserted this article in different Wikipedias and it is the his single contribution. I think that could be an "organized" spamming. --Ilario 12:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, weakly. This business may well be notable; it is a software company founded in 1980, which makes it as old as the Pyramids. The description given of the company is refreshingly readable and reasonably free from buzzwords, if not jargon. But if it were to be kept reliable sources would be needed to support the assertions in text; the instant article refers to nothing but the company's official website and press releases it has issued. Delete if these issues are not addressed. If kept, move to Mantissa Corporation for standard capitalisation of a proper noun. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• In reference to Ilario's above comment: No organized spamming campaign is underway, just a simple, even if clumsy, individual attempt on my part to translate the material into multiple languages. However, I recognize the challenges to maintaining NPOV in regards to corporate pages, and would welcome any attempt at improving upon that aspect before summarily cancelling it. Also, as I've stated in my responses to your calls for cancellation in it:wikipedia and fr:wikipedia, no automatic translations have been employed here. As for it being my sole contribution, that is true, I am bran new to Wikipedia and therefore defer to the judgment of the Wikipedia community...Sathrif 17:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

'Sources?There are two sources listed only as "online article" from findarticles,, but that is not a source, the source is the journal or other publication to which access is provided--all online articles are not equal. In this case they are both from Marketwire, which is not altogether free of reliance upon PR. I see no truly independent sources. DGG 03:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm unable to find any news articles related to this company. Claims of notability don't count for much without independent sources...But as a message for Sathrif, if you could but find a couple articles from a major news source (major newspaper, news station, magazine, the AP) supporting the notability claims, then there would be little to delete this for. POV is fixable. Someguy1221 09:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

-Understood, and I appreciate everyone's input and guidance here. I will see if I can find some more effective references...Sathrif 14:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Have inserted additional links in an effort to address concerns as to whether or not this article meets notability standards. Again, thanks for all of your input...Sathrif 20:51, 8 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 -- Samir 03:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F.C. United of Manchester season 2005-06

F.C. United of Manchester season 2005-06 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

While there's a good case for keeping season-by-season articles on major teams, or on particularly interesting seasons for other teams (such as Wimbledon's promotion seasons, or Chesterfield's cup-run year), I can see no reason for keeping a season-by-season breakdown of a minor team in such absurd detail. I've not {{prod}}ded or merge-and-redirected this, because someone's obviously put a lot of work into this and it seems fair to give other people the chance to make a case for keeping articles like this, especially since any decision here will set a precedent for other minor teams. Note to Americans bemused by the European football pyramid structure; this is not an article about Manchester United F.C., who probably are vaguely noteworthy; F.C. United of Manchester is a semi-professional non-league outfit founded by disgruntled fans who play in the Unibond League (the seventh tier of the English footballing pyramid) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 11:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Actually in the season in question they were playing in the North West Counties League Division Two, which is on the tenth tier of the ol' pyramid ChrisTheDude 11:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ArtVandelay13 11:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, this is not the usual team that would be in a lower league. The team is skyrocketing through the league with a massive fanbase.SlideAndSlip 12:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Nobody's proposing deleting the article on the team — but since even MUFC themselves don't have an individual article for each season (aside from the treble season, which was probably a more notable achievement than winning the North West Counties League Division Two title) I'm not convinced a seventh-tier non-league team warrants them — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Before voting, you mention the Manchester United treble winning season being a notable season. I just wonder if the season in question for FC United of Manchester (FCUM), is notable, for the simple fact that it was not only their first ever season, but that they were Champions of that league in their first ever season. And that was maybe why the article was added and maybe could be a reason for it to be kept? Of course it might not be, and it might be that it should be deleted, but I just wanted to ask first?♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 13:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The article was actually added by being broken out of the main FCUM article as part of a drive by the Non-League Football project to reduce the ridiculous level of detail on there, which included all this info on their first season, lengthy pen pictures of all the players, and a whole lot more..... ChrisTheDude 14:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I deliberately nominated this in a very wishy-washy way precisely because I can (just about) see reasons to keep it. However, since we don't have articles on famous seasons for far more successful teams such as Arsenal 03/04, Wimbledon 87/88, Liverpool 00/01 etc it does seem a bit weird for a non-league club's season to get a full article (even a big non-league club) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Translation of the above for non-football types wondering what the hell I'm talking about: Arsenal's unique unbeaten season; Wimbledon's mob of no-hopers & rejects winning the FA Cup; Liverpool winning the FA, League & UEFA cups in the same season — iridescenti

Comment I actually created the page in the first place. The reason for the page was that FCUM's own page was being constantly updated to include minor trivia and essentially match reports, this page was essentially all the detail from that page, expanded a bit. Attempts to delete or prevent this happening were just being ignored etc. I assumed the best way to do this would be to create a season page - I know there are examples of 'good' seasons for other teams without pages, but so are there other examples of similar pages. It enabled us to strip down the main FCUM page without over emotional people whacking all the content they'd lovingly typed back in. I don't mind if it gets deleted, just make sure you keep deleting irrelevant comment and match reports off the fcum page. --Gavinio 20:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC) (talk to me!) 17:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. HornetMike 12:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The fact of their winning a title in their debut season is certainly worthy of inclusion in the team's article, but this is not a notable season. --Dweller 14:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - this is a record of the first season of a club about whom their are acres of secondary sources. TerriersFan 15:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect back into main article - noteworthy as they are for a 7th tier side, I don't think we can support separate articles for seasons at the moment. It only needs to be a short paragraph - see a very relevant example, A.F.C. Wimbledon. Edit: there's already a perfectly serviceable paragraph on the season in the main article, so Delete.EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, team is probably too minor. Punkmorten 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This was FCUM's first season and thus a very special one. Team isn't too minor, the last few years have seen a number of teams starting out in the minor leagues, but with the attendance numbers and regional importance of top clubs. There was a ton of independent articles and research about this sociological phenomenon. Malc82 09:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment re all but your first sentence... This AfD isn't about the team - no-one disputes the notability of the team. It's the season that is possibly not notable. --Dweller 10:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per Dweller above, the team is probably notable, winning the division in their first season is possibly notable, but the season itself, I don't see it beyond sentimental (and therefore non-Wikipedian) reasons. Ytny (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge back to main article, but shorten. This is a minor league club, and probably barely notable in its own right. Having separate articles for each season is not warranted. Peterkingiron 23:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This article exists because the decision was made by regular wikipedians who edit the team's article that the content here for season 2005-06 (which was originally in the main article) was too long and unwieldy. I don't see a case for it to continue to exist. Steve-Ho 07:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think dividing by team and season is far too detailed and crufty, and all such articles should be deleted. Qwghlm 10:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this and any other season-by-season resume for any football club, including the major ones. Far too much detail. - fchd 06:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, possibly suggesting to merge it into a History of F.C. United of Manchester page. --Angelo 02:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom. Personally I was against to have season by season for every major team, history and season by season for every league would have been enough and include for major teams only season like MUFC 1998-99 etc.. It was decided that major team can have such articles. Now we see articles for such minor teams of so very low level. Can you imagine if every team, even from such level, has its own article about every season? There would have been million such articles in wikipedia. I think a brief about the history of FCUM on the article of that club is enough - User:KRBN 19:53, 8 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 11:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Van Dyck

Steve Van Dyck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, despite his work on the Mahogany Glider Johnbod 03:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your personal opinion. Dr. Steve Van Dyck is a very important member of the Zoology and Natural history museum community. His work is not only about the Mahongany Glider — he is the Curator of Mammals at the Queensland Museum — however, his work with the Mahogany Glider has been a very important part of his work. The problem is with the fact that he is not known to the non-science general public at large world-wide for his work, despite his many scientific publications (by deleting the article, this would only ensure that this situation would continues). Figaro 07:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not my personal opinion, it's whether he meets WP:BIO. The article in any case doesn't reference any of his published papers, which are referenced at the M glider article (or some of them). Not every departmental head of every museum in the world needs an article here. Johnbod 11:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the article's a mess, but looking through his list of publications (not just academic papers, but mainstream books) I'm convinced he passes WP:PROF. Besides, it would be a tragedy to delete someone who lists "burying beached whales" as a hobby — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He has many publications and the Mahogany Glider work is notable too. Scientists don't appear at Wembley or Lord's, they achieve notability through publications and this man more than qualifies. He's much more than just a curator of a museum department. This article can be improved but it shouldn't be deleted. Nick mallory 14:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment, none of this is asserted in the article, or has been demonstrated here here so far. Johnbod 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep , once the information is added. It was not necessarily obvious from the initial state of the article. DGG 03:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I've read his bio on his museum website, and see no real sign of it meeting the Criteria at WP:PROF. No "mainstream book" are mentioned, except that hwe is in the process of producing a revised edition of someone else's well-known work. That in itself doesn't help with WP:PROF I think. If there is evidence of him meeting those specific criteria, it needs to be produced. Johnbod 03:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Plenty of Google News Archive results for this stub. John Vandenberg 03:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I hate to harp on, but the fact that he is clearly the man for reporters to get a quote from when a dead whale is discovered in his part of Australia does not mean he meets WP:PROF, or WP:BIO in general. Johnbod 03:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read through the snippets of the Google News Archive results I provided before trivialising both the subject and my efforts. John Vandenberg 04:32, 6 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 11:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Hillcock

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

Nominating this in the wake of the deletion of the virtually identical entry for Sarah Darling. Spammy & virtually content free entry on a minor DJ on a minor local radio station, with the only sources being the station's own website and the subject's MySpace page. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete in agreement with Iridescenti. Punkmorten 20:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable graveyard-shift DJ, and per lack of independent sources. Ohconfucius 09:06, 3 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 14:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Tsombikos

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

Notability is permanent, and I don't see any reason to consider this person notable for all time. Basically, to my eyes, it's a local news story and no more:

• Guy gets some local infamy for vandalising walls
• Gets caught
• The vandalism and court case is mentioned in some local newspapers.

Previous nomination kingboyk 12:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep - he has very impressive independent sources & major news coverage. Previous AfD resulted in an (almost) unanimous keep. Look at the sheer volume we have on Banksy, and this guy seems to be the American equivalent ("wannabe" may be a more accurate term). Besides, notability isn't always permanent; it can always be deleted later once nobody cares. Should probably be under Borf though; Banksy isn't under Robert Banks — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The difference with Banksy is that he is an acclaimed artist whose works have been selling for "silly money". This Borf fellow is a vandal who got caught. If he's so important and notable, let's see some non-trivial references from papers outside of Washington DC. At the moment, if this guy is notable then so is every other criminal reported in my local papers. --kingboyk 12:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Person has relevancy. Corpx 12:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • ?? --kingboyk 12:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • As the references/links show, person was mentioned directly in several media outlets. This makes him notable. Corpx 12:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • All of them local or web based, so far. Perhaps I should create a fully referenced article on a burglar or traffic law violator from my area to demonstrate the nonsense of considering a local vandal notable. --kingboyk 12:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • There are lots of other "graffiti artists" in this category. Most of the others seem even less notable than this guy. Corpx 13:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The existence of articles on less notable people is a reason to nominate them for deletion too, not a reason to keep. --kingboyk 13:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There's something wrong with the tone of the article, though. Somehow pseudo-encyclopedic. BTLizard 13:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, frankly, I'd rather have more articles on people of local interest, not less. Our purpose is to inform people about things they don't already know about, after all, so why limit it to people everyone's already heard of? This guy got non-trivial media coverage, so we have enough information for an article, and just because the papers are local doesn't make them any less reliable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - one of those "local papers" is the Washington Post — it's not like it's the Tottenham & Wood Green Journal. All the reasons for deletion given by the sole person arguing for delete are variations on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, aside from the novel argument of "all the sources for this are on the web" as a reason for deletion — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Frivolous nomination, based on a misunderstanding of the notability criterion. Notability is permanent in the sense that "If a topic has multiple independent reliable published sources, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing. Thus, if a topic once satisfied the general notability guidelines, it continues to satisfy it over time.". Sourced once, sourced forever. Stammer 16:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Borf meets the notability guidelines for independent sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. My friends and I in California know about Borf and have talked about him, and we aren't (all) graffiti artists or anything. He is notable in various circles nation (if not world) wide. He's not some trivial local graffiti artist. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 03:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Stammer Iridescenti and others. All it would have taken is a moment to read those references or external links to see the sort of impact Borf had. --JayHenry 17:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Borf is someting that everyone living in DC is aware of. The Washington Post has written on the Borf saga. This should not be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.33.8.203 (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

• Keep this guy is clearly notable, he's been in numerous newspapers besides the Washington Post --AW 22:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I added newspaper articles in Raleigh as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awiseman (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

• Keep notable in DC and in the progressive graffiti world-- "BORF" rather than tsombikos would definately be more appropriate, as "BORF" is more than the one member-- though this is the name most associated with "BORF"-- regardless, "BORF" (more accurately, the BORF Brigade) worked with the GRL, who -are- the forefront of graffiti (the GRL's is a scant article, definately needs to be fleshed out) David 23:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Bloodwars Graffiti Magazine (See: page 48-9) -Short smithsonian editorial -Visual Resistance Interview -Borf in Rolling Thunder (table of contents only) David 14:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly notable and meets WP:BIO guideline. RFerreira 06:16, 5 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. --Coredesat 07:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Smith, Jr.

Michael Smith, Jr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, unreferenced and possibly libellous Kittybrewster (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or improve. - Kittybrewster (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Reads like an auto-biography. Corpx 12:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- non notable Astrotrain 12:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable, but from the History, this page is currently serving as no more than a slanging match between supporters and detractors of the subject. Emeraude 13:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable.--padraig3uk 13:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Heavily vandalised and subsequently stubbed. I'd have reverted it, but it's not really worth keeping. BTLizard 13:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep You people are really great! A page is vandalised and needs some sources so what do you people do? Vote to delete it of course. Typical of what to expect from Wikipedia these days! There are many many articles that still need sources but instead of erasing the information a request for sources is posted. Ban the vandals and restore the article. Don't delete it! Dwain 18:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I have no problem with keeping the article provided it passes WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:RS. You have five days in which to improve it. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable Drmaik 19:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no reason to keep. Gotta love the edit summary of one of the anon editors though: "Truth." Punkmorten 20:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable sources. Corvus cornix 20:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. As always, I would be happy to revise my opinion if new evidence were produced. --ElKevbo 21:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Potentially speediable per {{db-attack}}. I sense that the subject may be somewhat notable from the tugs of war, however, Delete as failing WP:N and WP:V in its current form. Ohconfucius 09:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- non notable Labyrinth13 22:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, almost fails the everything test. RFerreira 06:18, 6 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. --Coredesat 07:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kinism

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

Article on some not notable crazy right group. Article had been deleted once before, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinism. --LC 12:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I know nothing of these apparent scum, but I think that if nothing else the page needs to have a criticism section and information from other sources. ~AFA ^ʢűčķ¿_Ю 12:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been raised before, [20], [21]. --LC 13:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The website returns "system offline", most ghits are blogs or similar. Is this much more than a neologism? BTLizard 13:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a neologism, unless extensive non-trivial references are provided. --kingboyk 18:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I think this is a real, though very small, movement. However there are too few reliable sources to allow us to write about them in a neutral manner. For that reason they do not appear to be sufficiently notable. -Will Beback · † · 20:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete religioncruft. JuJube 22:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced neologism and non-notable fanatical group. Fails WP:V Ohconfucius 09:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Either keep or merge with Christian Reconstructionism It appears fairly notable. Merging with Reconstructionism would be my 2nd choice as Kinism seems to be a rather unique varition. --The President of Cool 22:26, 4 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 note that the strong argument of DGG is not refuted -- Samir 03:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul H. Smith (remote viewer)

Paul H. Smith (remote viewer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article appears to serve primarily to promote the business now run by the subject. There are no evidently independent sources (the sources cited are "non-skeptical", i.e. pretty much uncritical). The whole remote viewing subject area is largely a walled garden anyway, most of the articles have no significance except by reference to other articles in the same group. No objective independent sources are cited for this biography, and it contains no evident assertion of encyclopaedic notability. The rank of Major is not generally indicative of a pivotal role in strategic events. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Even with the greatest possible credence given to the wider subject matter, there's still no assertion of great notability for this individual. --Dweller 16:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)I am withdrawing this comment, pending further digging on the subject. --Dweller 16:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sounds like part of a walled garden promoting a claimed psychic abiility which has a l-o-o-n-g history of being repeatedly discredited by skeptics, and lacking independent and reliable sources. Edison 16:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Smith is a fairly significant figure on the crankier end of the conspiracy spectrum - he's been covered by Fortean Times, Anomaly TV etc and he's probably the name best associated with the Stargate Project. His books were all pretty big sellers on the lunatic fringe specialist market - it shouldn't be too hard to dig up sources — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• My comments: If one questions what is on my biographical page (full disclosure -- I AM Paul H. Smith), then one has to wonder exactly what counts as factual for Wikepedia. I did not write the article, but the person who did asked me to vet it. Every statement in the article can be shown to be completely true (I made sure of that before allowing the person to post it), and there are NO claims included in it (and that was done intentionally) about the efficacy of remote viewing or my abilities concerning it (though all this in fact can be documented both on and off the Web -- the remark above about remote viewing being discredited is in fact false, though there is no space to argue that here). The comment about the article existing to promote my business is a non sequitur. There is only one line about my business, and it is strictly factual about its founding and present existence. If that is disallowed then you would have to take any mention of Microsoft out of the Bill Gates entry, or delete the entire entry for "promoting" Gate's company. Further, in objecting that no "non-skeptical" sources were cited, there is a question begged: How is a skeptical source relevant to a biography? Are you going to challenge on skeptical grounds my military service, that my book was published in 2005 or the fact that I even exist? The comment about the rank of major is irrelevant. There are plenty of cases of generals who played no lasting role in anything, and on the other hand privates, sergeants and lieutenants who make all the difference (Sergeant Alvin York being one of many examples). What matters is what was actually done, and in that category I count at least as much as several other remote viewing-related notables who have undisputed pages on Wikepedia. As a final note, I have thus far only published one book, and it was not a best-seller; however it WAS selected as the Book Bonus Feature and Editor's Choice for the March 2006 issue of Reader's Digest...and yes, that can easily be verified. -- rviewer 71.145.166.155 19:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nabla 13:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• comment: I suggest the article, if kept, be renamed to Paul H. Smith, as there is no neeed to disambiguate it. - Nabla 13:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment How about Paul Smith (utter fraud and charlatan) to avoid any confusion of his claims with anything approaching reality? Nick mallory 14:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems like he's notable, but the article is utterly imbalanced. --Dweller 14:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment agree with dropping the disputed claim that he has "remote viewing" powers from the title, just as we have Jeanne Dixon rather than Jeanne Dixon (psychic). As for "remote viewing" being discredited, the only reliable source cited, from CBS News, says "After 20 years and $20 million, the CIA dropped the program in 1995, concluding that Stargate "has not been shown to have any value in intelligence operations." That CBS feature story is in no way a balanced scientific look at the claims. Edison 16:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The CBS story was quoting the official government report which noted that remote viewing was useless. I used that example because the media report gave 'both sides of the story' as they always do. If remote viewing isn't hooey I'm sure Edison can quote all the peer reviewed scientific papers which argue for the validity of it here or in the article. It would be such an amazingly useful skill that I imagine Nature or Scientific American is full of such research. There's also the one million dollar Randi prize for demonstrating this sort of skill, which I'm sure Mr Smith is going to pick up any day now, just as soon as he gets round to it. Nick mallory 16:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Even if I stick my neck out, violate NPOV and declare that I for one am fairly certain Remote Viewing is a steaming heap of bullshit, that's neither here nor there; if the US government were willing to throw money at something so patently loopy, that makes it more notable not less. We have plenty of articles on things I don't believe — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree there should be an article on remote viewing, so long as it points out that remote viewing is bollocks, but as I was reading about remote viewing to review what I thought about this article it was noticable that Mr Smith's name didn't come up at all. He didn't seem to play a major role in project Stargate, so I don't see how he's notable for that. We don't hold marines who die in battle notable simply for participating in a war, so why is a guy who says he played what seems a very minor role in a small failed project notable? 124.176.67.208 01:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as the subject seems to be notable given the cited references. The article does need some work, including cleaning out the spam in the External links section, but that does not mean the article should be deleted. --ElKevbo 21:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There are three sources listed. one is by the subject of the article, one is a book for which I can find no published reviews, and the third is CBS news, but it mentions Smith only in passing. Thus it fails the standard criteria of two independent non trivial sources. "Remote viewing" is notable, as a successful work of the imagination, but that does not mean that everyone --or anyone--connected with it is individually notable. DGG 03:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have read the first two sources listed: the Smith and Schnabel books. In addition to the assuredly non-skeptical material in Smith's book, they both also describe verifiable historical information associated with the U.S. military-sponsored foray into remote viewing for intelligence. It's been a couple years since I've read his book, but Schnabel was a science writer for Newsweek magazine. In the book he represents himself as attempting to be objective and beginning research for the book as an independent skeptic. He refers to Smith 14 times in The Remote Viewers (Amazon has the index). In it, Schnabel characterizes Smith as an instructor in (and the de facto historian of) the INSCOM/DIA remote viewing program, as well as writer of the Ft. Meade remote viewing unit's "how to do coordinate remote viewing by the numbers" army training manual (not the actual title). Smith's Reading the Enemy's Mind -curiously titled in that there is little if any reference to purported mind reading- is consistent with Schnabel's account, though detailing a narrower timeframe and from an obviously non-independent perspective. I'm not sure what constitutes "non trivial" in this arena, but I think it is not unreasonable to call Schnabel's book "independent," and to say that it portrays Smith as a noteworthy figure in the military's remote viewing program. So, there's one . . .Cal Jimenez 09:23, 2 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 (hot!) 15:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Olav kierdersson

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

Hoax - no Ghits for "Kierdersson" nor for his books; also no context for the article and no references. andy 13:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• speedy-delete' Please Corpx 13:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Zero ghits, single purpose account. Hoax. BTLizard 14:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably a hoax. Rettetast 14:16, 1 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. --Coredesat 07:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Gnostics

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

The material in this article no longer serves its intended purpose and Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica contains the same information. Note to admin Famous Gnostics redirects here, please delete both. (Prod by User:Jbolden1517 converted to AfD.) --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Agree that the above was what I wrote on the template and that I think the article should be deleted. Note that no editor has put any actual content here (nor AFAIKT does anyone agree with the content copied from the cat). I just grabbed the info from the category. A few bots have gotten involved and User:PRehse altered the cat. jbolden1517^Talk 15:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Very strong delete - not only original resarch, but completely unhistorical: Moses? Gnosticism didn't exist for 1500 years after his death. Mohammed? You must be kidding me. Joan of Arc? And the rest of the list is just as bad. 64.178.96.168 19:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  To Mega Therion? For pete's sake, this is the beast in revelation! It's not even a person. Min (god)? 64.178.96.168 19:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article is misleading, Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica covers everything. Pax:Vobiscum 20:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete If this was a list of links to otehr articles, it might possibly have some merit (but I doubt it). It seems to be an indiscriminate list of people, not a list of members of the early Christian gnostic sect. Even if it were that, it ought to be a category, not a list. I note that the same material appearts in Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica, which certainly makes this list redundant. I presume that the list is those claimed by certain occultists to be gnostics. I suppose Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica and its parent article can remain, but this one serves no purpose. I presume there are articels on gnostic literature of 2nd century AD. These articles should be clearly distinguishable from that. Peterkingiron 23:31, 3 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 14:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Algie

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

This article is about a coffee and tea manufacturer. However, it is not mere advertising, remains neutral, and seems to have been mentioned in several reliable sources. I'm not completely sure that it establishes the company's notability, though, although I think it should as its products are prominent in several notable businesses and has fair trade/charity links. I wouldn't particularly like this article to be deleted but I have put it here so concensus can be reached. I have added seven different references to the article.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment the key reference is the Scottish Herald one... which doesn't fulfil the need for multiple non trivial sources. Personally, I'm not content that the Oxfam source cuts the mustard and the other refs are self-published. Holding fire with my opinion for now though. --Dweller 14:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've added more references and expanded the article slightly.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep this is a relatively major regional company. Just because it doesn't exist in the US, doesn't mean it's somehow unworthy of a Wikipedia article — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly notable, per additional citations. --Dweller 18:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as the subject is clearly notable. If I am reading this correctly, the nominator agrees and this should be withdrawn. RFerreira 06:51, 5 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 14:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices

List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a violation of Wikipedia:Consensus (and indirectly of Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference as will be explained.) This list was created by User:BrownHairedGirl to counteract and pre-empt a similar vote about the fate of Category:Jewish United States Supreme Court justices that is taking place now, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 24#Category:Jewish United States Supreme Court justices. She says: "I have created List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices to preserve the information." But the point of putting that categeory to a vote is that the information does not deserve to be "preserved" which she has taken it upon herself to decide on her own while a vote is in progress, indeed as a unilateral response to that vote. In this case, both this category and the list are of an identical nature, and an editor should not undertake any preemptive moves, maneuvers, or leights of (the editorial) hand of moving categories to lists or lists to categories, or renaming articles, lists, or categories while a vote is still in progress with the sole purpose of saving them from a possible axing. IZAK 14:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 14:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for above reasons, IZAK 14:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. IZAK, please assume good faith.
  Far from trying to pre-empt or counteract consensus, I was trying facilitate the emerging consensus by removing the concern that the info would be lost; I was explicit at CFD about what I had done, and the first objection to it being listified is your objection today at CfD. I have no particular interest in this list either way other than that someone thought the information was useful, and since many other CfDs have prompted the useful creation of a list, I thought that I would take the time to do so in this case.
  My understanding of the nature of a CFD debate is different to yours: not that the data is "inappropriate information", but that it inappropriate for the category system ... a position which I supported in this case (which makes a nonsense of your suggestion that I was trying to counteract consensus). As you may be aware, the deletion criteria for categories are diferent from those for lists, so in common with many other categories which are deleted, I thought that intended purpose of the category could be preseved as a list.
  Now, apart from your rather heated allegation of bad faith, can you suggest any AfD criteria by which this list should be deleted? The only guideline you cite is WP:OCAT, which realtes to categorisation, not to lists. Please remember the difference between a list and a category. And do, please read WP:AGF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi BrownHairedGirl: Indeed I do assume good faith about you, but not in this case where I think you made a huge mistake, plain and simple, in arbitrarily creating a list to act as an "umbrella" or "safety net" for the information in the category that is up for a vote. (Had a vote not been in progress, then your move would not be such a problem, asside from creating Wiki-clutter, like so many editors who have a field day creating things that are ultimately also a waste of time.) But to jump to create a mirror-list while a category is under discussion (or vice versa) cannot be allowed any time a list or category is put up for deletion so that all some editor needs to do is to create a mirror-list or mirror category making a mockery of the CfD and AfD process. Think carefully of the implications of what you did here and think of the consequences if every editor took it upon themslves to do what you did here. IZAK 15:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • IZAK, you seem to have missed the point that listifying a category is a routine process, and is frequently done while discussions are underway; in this case (as in others) one of the subsequent delete votes was based on the fact that the list now existed. I understand that you dislike lists of Jewish people, which you are quite entitled to do, but there's really no need to get quite so heated. I have explained what happened, and am disappointed that you continue to assume sort of malicious intention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • BrownHairedGirl: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat; Wikipedia:Embedded list; Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia#Lists should generally only represent consensus opinion; Wikipedia:Listcruft; {{listcruft}}; Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup. (There is still more.) Creating an article by including the information may have been a better move on your part. Thank you, IZAK 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks for posting that list, but you've confused me even more... the only one that seems relevant to list articles (as opposed to articles containing lists) is Wikipedia:Listcruft. I'll happily assess your nomination versus that criterion. --Dweller 16:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia:Listcruft is an essay, not a policy or guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
            • It's an essay meant to enlihghten one about the do's and dont's, so it applies. IZAK 16:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm somewhat confused by the wall of text above (ie the nomination). Is this article nominated for deletion purely on proceedural grounds, ie that it's been created in bad faith? --Dweller 15:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Dweller: Wake up. It's not a "wall" of anything, it's a very clear explanation written in English based on Wikipedia procedures and protocol. Which is the part you don't get? IZAK 15:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I can see no AfD criteria for this nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Try some of these: Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat; Wikipedia:Embedded list; Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia#Lists should generally only represent consensus opinion; Wikipedia:Listcruft; {{listcruft}}; Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup. (There is still more.) Thank you, IZAK 15:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • So what part of those guidelines do you claim that this breaches? most of them seem to me to be irrelevant to this list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
          • All of them, IZAK 16:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - In response to

  "the point of putting that categeory to a vote is that the information does not deserve to be "preserved""

  ... I would say that you are quite wrong, IZAK. The point of putting it up for a CfD vote is to judge whether or not it is wrong for categorization. Some information is better suited for lists, while some is better suited for categories, that is why there are different discussion sections for each as each have different criteria.

Now, I suggest you curb your very uncivil tongue. The initial AfD comment and the "wake up" response are seriously out of bounds. Tarc 15:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Tarc, when someone writes "I'm somewhat confused by the wall of text above" it is he that is being uncivil, so I was urging him to wake up and pay attention, and not to be lazy and read what I wrote. It's not a "tongue", it's a keyboard, by the way. I also understand what the role of categories is (but how they line up with lists is not always clear) but no editor should dash off and create a list while a categeory with the same information is being put up for a vote. Why is that so hard to fathom? IZAK 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • If I was uncivil, I totally apologise, it was unintended. The nomination is long and unclear, that's all... The nomination seems entirely proceedural, but the wikilinks you've posted above seem to be pointing to deletion criteria. I assume therefore that I (and others) should consider the AfD on that basis. I'll take a look at the links you've provided, revisit the list article and consider the AfD nomination on the basis of deletion criteria, rather than proceedure. --Dweller 15:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Don't worry, you weren't. And even if you were, it does not grant permission to others to engage in incivility. Tarc 16:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Pardon me Dweller if I startled you with my wake up call. And Tarc, have you voted yet? IZAK 16:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Chiming in to agree with my concerns about a lack of civility here. You just said that expressing one is confused by what seems to be large block of text is uncivil? No, I'm afraid I don't see that as such. I'm sure there might be other ways to express it, and some might be more polite, but as far as civility goes, that's within the realm of acceptable as I see it. It's not insulting to say the equivalent of "You wrote a lot there, can you simplify it for me" In any case, it still behooves on you, as the person responding to be civil, and perhaps explain yourself a bit better rather than take a position, which to me, seems rather hostile. FrozenPurpleCube 16:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The closest to a deletion criteria cited in the clarification by IZAK above is an essay on Listcruft. It's arguable each way whether this list falls foul of the suggestions in that essay - I'd lean toward it failing the suggestions. However, as it's a) a close thing and b) that's neither a guideline nor policy, I find it hard to rationalise deletion. --Dweller 16:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment So, I'm not seeing a reason to delete this article solely on its own merits, instead I see the primary objection being the bold decision to listify a category. That's not a convincing reason to delete. But perhaps the information might be expressed on List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States instead? That way all of the various justices could be covered. I suggest this because it is clear that [22] there are some considerations besides jurisprudence that lead to an appointment. FrozenPurpleCube 16:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi FrozenPurpleCube: I would certainly support deletion and merging into List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, where perhaps there could be a footnote about each justice's religion or the type of church, synagogue or temple he attended. By the way, are we only going to stop with "Jewish justices" -- what about others, such as the atheists and agnostics among them? Let's create List of atheist United States Supreme Court justices; List of Episcopalian United States Supreme Court justices; List of African-American United States Supreme Court justices; List of Catholic United States Supreme Court justices; List of female United States Supreme Court justices; List of socialist United States Supreme Court justices; List of Democratic United States Supreme Court justices; List of Republican United States Supreme Court justices; List of Evangelical United States Supreme Court justices; List of Irish United States Supreme Court justices etc. ad nauseam. IZAK 16:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hence my statement of " That way all of the various justices could be covered." which perhaps you didn't understand was meant to cover any and every ethnic group and/or religion for which justices of the supreme court can be established as being a part of. This would be the most inclusive way to cover it. FrozenPurpleCube 17:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Question. IZAK, your nomination was entirely procedural. You have been asked several times to explain what AfD criteria apply here, but your most substantive response consisted of a long list of links to wikiprojects and essays: no policies, no guidelines. Please could you take few minutes to explain concisely why this list should be deleted, rather than why it should not have been created; and explain what part of what policies or guidelines supports each point. Merely posting a catalogue of wikiprojects and essays does not explain what you think the problem is with this list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • BrownHairedGirl: Not conforming to procedures is a violation by definition. Do not minimize that please. Kindly re-read everything that I wrote in the nomination and carefully re-read the guidleines and procedures that I have cited after you had requested them, they apply to the totality of this discussion. One cannot do more than that. You are using tangential arguments to try to cover up your serious precedural error, while you have not cited one instance of a similar action, whereby an editor went ahead and created a list based on the exact same information that is in a categroy at the exact same time that that category was up for deletion. To repeat, by doing this alone, you broke Wikipedia:Consensus. As I have noted on your talk page, this is no less serious than is the parallel act of emptying a category while a vote is still in progress, the latter being clearly against the rules. I cannot be clearer or add much more to what I have said here. Let other editors who join this discussion judge for themselves, add their views, and vote their conscience/s. Thank you for your attention.IZAK 17:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • IZAK, you have yet to cite any procedure which I have breached, and you continue to misunderstand that there are different criteria for deleting categories and deleting lists, because two categories and lists different (albeit overlapping) purposes: that's why there are different procedures for assessing them. However, if you still believe that I have breached a procedure, please take your case to WP:ANI.
      However, if you were right on procedure, that would not be grounds for deleting this list, which is in article space. You now appear to be saying that the reason for deleting this list belongs somewhere in the midst of a long list of essays and wikiproject pages: in other words, that for other editors to discover your intentions they should read several tens of thousands of words and try to define what you meant. That's not very helpful.
      The bottom line here is that you believe that List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices should be deleted from wikipedia. Do you have any objection to the content of the list? If so, please set out your objections rather than continuing to allege "sleight of hand" etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
    • Please remember, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy so references to violations of rules and procedures is less important than actual examination of an individual situation. Even if there were a clear violation here, I don't see that BrownHairedGirl's actions were a grave violation of any kind. Perhaps you might wish to consider a less confrontational approach? It would probably be a much more effective to discuss the merits of this page, rather than whether BrownHairedGirl's actions were appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 17:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Mister.Core: The merits of the page are about zero. It serves about as much purpose as would a List of LGBT United States Supreme Court justices or a List of vegetarian United States Supreme Court justices which would, perhaps to some, be just as "valid" or "interesting" but would serve absolutely no scholarly or encyclopedic value, beyond maybe titillation and gossip for some folks. My concern is as a Wikipedian who participates in AfDs and CfDs which are all about procedure only (obviously we judge the content/s of articles as we read them to vote about them, but the nomination and voting process is all about procedure) and it is in that context primarily that I am calling attention to, criticizing, and objecting to the action, and particularly its consequences, that can be far-reaching. Imagine, each time a category comes up for a CfD an editor on their won decides to "preserve" that information by listifying it at the very moment the CfD for the category is taking place? This is no joking matter and no different than "moving the goalposts" and very troubling. IZAK 18:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • • Not convinced, religious and ethnic status are quite important in biographies, and somewhat more common than vegetarianism or LGBT-ness, which if they do apply to any Supreme Court justice, probably don't apply beyond the individual, in which case listing just on that individual's page is enough. In contrast, religious and ethnic backgrounds are quite widely considered, and often the subject of articles like the one I referenced, and that of the others brought up by other editors. If you want to focus on procedures you can, but I don't think there's enough of a problem here to make that the concern over the page itself. FrozenPurpleCube 19:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. First of all, I gather that there is a back-story of prior disputes involving this or related lists or categories, which I am not familiar with in detail although I have skimmed them now. I sense a level of unfriendliness that should be avoided in any Wikipedia discussion. On the substance of the issue, I recognize the delete-side argument that this an artificial categorization and that we do not list Justices by other religions or by ethnic groups, etc. Nonetheless, the Jewishness (and Catholicism) of different Justices has had a historical importance on the Court (more in prior times than now) and on the selection of nominees in earlier times. I also find it significant that when the Supreme Court Historical Society published Jennifer M. Lowe, ed., The Jewish Justices of the Supreme Court Revisited: Brandeis to Fortas (1994), Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the Preface and Stephen Breyer wrote the Introduction. I submit this suggests that this is not an artificial construct and that the list and category should both be kept. Newyorkbrad 17:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So, what do you think of my suggestion of covering this information in the [[List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States? FrozenPurpleCube 17:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad: Writing an article would have been a better intellectual exercise with perhaps some meaning, but as I have illustrated having this list means that Wikipedia will become infested with junk knowledge, and in any case, see WP:NOT#DIRECTORY we don't need a list of half a dozen Jewish justices names. IZAK 18:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep based on arguments made above. Procedurally, I don't buy that this was improperly created, and would suggest that if that argument is to be made it needs to be supported by better, more specific citations. Second, essays are not convincing in and of themselves - they have not attained consensus support; I would prefer seeing a position based on guidelines or policy. It also appears as if the essays are not being read carefully enough for support here; for example, there are repeated cites to the essay that states that "lists should reflect consensus opinion", and a reading of that provision is clear that the point being made is that information should only be listed where there is consensus that the person listed qualifies (e.g., in this case, there would need to be consensus that the person is Jewish and consensus that they are a Supreme Court Justice). That discussion in that essay has nothing to do with when it is appropriate to create a list. As noted, this is "keep" based on the argument made above. If someone wants to make more careful and consise arguments, I am open. A Musing 17:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • A Musing: So according to your reasoning here, any time a category is up for deletion anyone can just create an identical mirror list, or the other way around, if a list or article is up for a AfD then a mirror category should be created in order to "Save the information" in the AfD? In that case, the entire purpose and process of nominating lists, articles and categories can (and will) be totally subverted by allowing anyone to go ahead on their own and create a replica of it in Wikipedia's other venues. And, if, the time comes when people really want to delete a subject they may sometimes have to go searching for both the identical list and category which a crafty editor may have set up to circumvent and put spikes in the wheels of the AfD and CfD process. IZAK 17:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Categories, lists and articles serve different functions and contain different material. For example, categories should not include subjective criteria and we need to be wary of overcategorization. Each of these concerns is specific to categories -- we cannot use footnotes or qualifications, as we can in lists and articles, and we have limited real estate at the bottom of the articles, so we have to be more sparing in our use of it. With lists, we do look to avoid the outrightly trivial, but there is not the same real estate concern and there is an ability to explain and footnote (if not fully discuss). What might be a trivial intersection in categories is interesting in lists, and so many categories that are deleted because the intersection is insufficiently important do get converted to lists. For articles, full discussion and an explication of multiple sides of the story is possible, and thus the relevant information appropriate to include is still broader. Thus, each discussion is different. Had another category been created, I would object, but it was not. And I would have to think about whether there is information that we wish to entirely keep off Wikipedia (other than that prohibited by WP:Bio); I don't know that there is anyplace to discuss information we wish to thoroughly censor from all forms of coverage. If you want to convince me, please feel free to look at the specifics of the guidelines and argue why this isn't an appropriate list. So far, I don't see it.A Musing 18:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • A Musing: Again, you are not paying attention to what I am saying. I am NOT arguing the merits of categories versus lists. The problem and violation I see here is that while a vote about the FATE of a specific category was taking place, an editor went ahead and "preserved" that category's information by "listifying" it. Is that allowable? Have you ever seen that done during CfD debates? Let me know when you can up with any examples. In fact I have asked for some expert advice, see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Creating a list at the exact moment a vote to delete a category is taking place. Thank you, IZAK 18:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • • I believe I do understand you; you have cited a bunch of stuff for the proposition that this is not permitted, and I've found none of them convincing. If you can show me what, specifically, applies in those policies and guidelines, or find a new one, it might be convincing. But even if the CfD prevailed unanimously, I don't see how that would prevent the creation of a list or article using the same material. Again, you are welcome to convince me otherwise. And if a prevailing, full consensus discussion doesn't prevent it, why would a half-way through, still open discussion prevent it?A Musing 18:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I would support either having a list of all S.Ct. Justices by religion instead, and leave open the ability of editors to incorporate all the Justices, or incorporating this information into one of the other lists of S.Ct. justices. A Musing 17:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• NOTICE: See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Creating a list at the exact moment a vote to delete a category is taking place] where further clarification has been requested. Thank you, IZAK 18:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, fine list, becoming a good article. Cardozo doesn't seem to be in the timeline, but that's a reason to fixit, not delete the article. Only issue is lack of references showing that someone besides us editors is interested in this intersection of highly notable people, why don't I provide some. Nominator should be warned that it looks like he has put on the Spider-man costume and is approaching the Reichstag. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, and here I thought I was Superman? And besides, the Spidey/Reichstag thing is about those who are reverting pages madly, so it has nothing to do with this very focused debate. Digression, to Spidey-nonsense is not a substitute for substantive dialogue. IZAK 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • See WP:SPIDER#What the...?. Please. You're typing madly, on multiple forums, asserting that no one is paying attention to you. Honest, we are. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Excuse me AnonEMouse: Try to be accurate, ok. I am not typing on "multiple forums", you can see it all connected to here, and I am certainly NOT "asserting that no one is paying attention to (me)" -- can you show me one place that I "assert" your observation? Seems that it is your perception that I am perhaps doing so, therefore may I suggest that you adjust your POV of things and try to zero in on the actual debate. Honest, I can take criticism by now. IZAK 19:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I see no reason why we should be "categorising" justices by religion; that makes it an indiscriminate collection of information, which makes it listcruft. --kingboyk 18:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be if this were the first time someone was interested in this subject, (i.e., Wikipedia:original research) so I cited a book about the first 5 Jewish supreme court justices, parts written by the current 2, and published by the Supreme Court Historical Society. Not listcruft, notable subject for a list. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Of course now I see Newyorkbrad has already cited this same book earlier in this discussion, which I didn't see earlier in this huge mound of highly charged text. Sigh. I should have known. But at least I added it to the article itself, so I'm not completely useless here! --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as encyclopedic and historical. The religious affiliations of Supreme Court Justices, whether it's appropriate or not, have been factors in their selection and in analysis of opinions. IZAK should know better than to claim that CFD votes have overriding authority over the existence of articles on the same topic. (There's a long, long, long history of AFD kicking things over to categories and vice versa.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Dhartung: These justices have very little to do with Judaism as such. They are ethnically Jewish, and a few are even married to gentiles. But they are not deserving of special note as "Jews" any more than the Catholics and Irish-Americans who have reached that post. What matters are the political calculations by the President, Congrees, and other politicians. You also say that "There's a long, long, long history of AFD kicking things over to categories and vice versa" so could you please provide some examples where that happened at the very moment a CfD or AfD was taking place? IZAK 21:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a perfectly sensible article. Whether IZAK approves of the reson for its creation is irrelevant; it must be considered on its own merits.--Runcorn 19:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment and I just noticed this article: Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States which discusses the subject. FrozenPurpleCube 19:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Interesting: I'd never seen that article before. I like it; I may work on it some. It doesn't moot the usefulness of this one. Newyorkbrad 20:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per AnonEMouse and Dhartung. It deals with a highly notable subject.--Brownlee 21:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per all the above keep arguments, especially Dhartung's. Carlossuarez46 21:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think that this was not primarily an attempt to save the information--userifying would have done that--but an attempt to compare the different approaches. One of the ways in which they are being usefully compared is buy seeing the reactions here as compared with those about the category at CfD, so in fact i thank IZAK for helping clarify this, and I mean it literally, not at all sarcastically,for it is by these discussons that we establish consensus.

What this establishes to me is that the information is much more usable and interesting in list format--but then I do like lists. I don't like lists with unclear criteria and random inclusion, but those are editing concerns. DGG 03:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion or sexual preference. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

MPerel, you've just cited a guideline for categories, not for articles. --Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

But Dhartung, the only reason this list was created in the first place was to escape any possible outcome at the category for this. Have you read what I said? IZAK 21:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral ...but...I don't think putting it in List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States is an appropriate solution. That article is already taking up a bunch of screen space and is in the 60KB neighborhood, so any other side features would probably get severed and spun-off into child articles. –Pakman044 08:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (new opinion given below) Carcharoth 23:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC) but ensure it is synchronised with Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States#Jewish Justices, and add the reference from this article to there. Also, to ensure lack of bias, reliable sources should be found for the notability of lists of Supreme Court Justices by other religions, and those lists created as well. Another possibility is to merge this article to the section I mentioned above. The current list is rather short and could, in my opinion, fit in the Demographics article, which is a better way to approach the subject. Oh, and if the result is merge, do not delete (use a redirect). Anyone who says "delete and merge" without realising that this contravenes the GFDL (someone above said that) should read up on page history and how we try and preserve it. Carcharoth 10:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a list with very well-defined inclusion criteria. Further, Brandeis for example is particularly notable as being the first Jewish United States Supreme Court justice.--Simul8 11:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The concept of the "Jewish Seat" on the US Supreme Court is a well established idea in the history of the Supreme Court (Google search for "Jewish Seat" "Supreme Court" -wikipedia). Although an article may not yet exist for the "Jewish Seat" it easily could and probably will. This list would be a fine adjunct to it, or could evolve into it. The nominator has not, so far as I can see, suggested a single article deletion criteria that is applicable. Dsmdgold 15:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Dsmdgold: That is a good joke! There is no such thing as a "Jewish Seat" and if there can be one it's meaningless and only conspiracy theorists (or deluded secular Jewish ultra-liberals) would take it seriously. IZAK 21:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • There is not now a "Jewish seat", despite there currently being two Jews on the court. However, the seat held in succesion by Justices Cardozo, Frankfurter, Goldberg, and Fortas was known, informally, as the "Jewish Seat". (That seat is now occupied by Justice Breyer.) The term was part of the political discourse of the 1960s. I assume that you did not look at the Google search results I provided, I you did you would have seen that the is used by organizations such as the Uinversity of Chicago Law School, NPR, The Journal of Politics (link via JSTOR), the American Law Encyclopedia, and by Justice Ginsburg, none of which could considered "conspiracy theorists". Dsmdgold 22:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This twists "non-notable intersections" to breaking point - clearly this is a notable intersection.--Newport 19:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but it seems that this article is not merely a list. (Such a list already exists.[[23]]) The article could and probably eventually will be expanded to cover other analytical points. For instance, is it civil or prejudicial to refer to a Jewish or minority or female seat? Do judicial voting patterns reflect such surface demographics? Perhaps source the notability with both the prejudicial-type media and the Jewish press on the other hand. Therefore, I would rename it: Jewish justices of the United States Supreme Court. Maybe it could eventually merge into a broader article on identity politics and the Supreme Court. HG 21:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, now I see and concur with Carcharoth's comment, above, and the need to merge or synchronize with the Demographics article. HG 21:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, I concur with your finding of List of Jewish American jurists#Supreme Court of the United States (that is a good find, don't think anyone has pointed this out before). I would say this list could be merged to that larger list, and the article bits of this list could be merged to Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States#Jewish Justices, if that makes sense? Carcharoth 23:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Split and merge - merge the list to List of Jewish American jurists#Supreme Court of the United States and merge the article-like bits of the list to Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States#Jewish Justices, and relist AfD due to the discovery of this new list that previous participants in the discussion may not have been aware of. Point the redirect directly at the section of List of Jewish American jurists. Carcharoth 23:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

sounds good. Thanks. HG 00:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Note that this would be a "Keep" !vote for AfD purposes. A "delete" result winds up with a redlink. If the article is kept, then editors can use the regular editorial process to decide whether to split, redirect, etc. (And I would argue to leave the content where it is, but I could live with a redirect if I had to.) Newyorkbrad 00:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There is nothing wrong with creatign a list from a cat being proposed for deeltion -- indeed it is a common way to prepare for a !vote of "Listify" at CfD. This looks like a reasonable lsit to me, particularly give the fact that the religion of potential justices was for a time a significant factor in appointment decisions, and that in particualr there was for a while a semi-tradition that exactly one Justice would be jewish. DES ^(talk) 22:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep obviously...User:IZAK is a delete-happy user (for whatever reason); therefore, his/her edits and nominations should be watched more closely. This was a POINTLESS nomination for deletion, a blatant waste of everyone's time. Again, we should all urge User:IZAK to get his editing/deleting behavior under control a bit. --Wassermann 08:24, 5 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. --Coredesat 07:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Virgin Radio number one songs in 2006

List of Virgin Radio number one songs in 2006 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There are no sources here and the formatting is poor, and as far as I know, the Virgin Radio chart is not representative of any country, i.e. it is not an official chart. Not notable in any way - seems to have been created for the amusement of a chart fan. - eo 14:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this is nothing but a chart of music. As information goes, it's not that different from a phone directory or list of zip codes. Fine for certain purposes, but not encyclopedic. FrozenPurpleCube 16:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete of no obvious encyclopaedic significance; this is not the national chart it's the chart of one (not terribly good) radio station. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE Thunderwing 19:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone. Punkmorten 20:23, 1 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. --Coredesat 07:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Virgin Radio number one songs in 2007

List of Virgin Radio number one songs in 2007 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There are no sources here and the formatting is poor, and as far as I know, the Virgin Radio chart is not representative of any country, i.e. it is not an official chart. Not notable in any way - seems to have been created for the amusement of a chart fan. - eo 14:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Given how many WP articles I see every day which were apparently edited by e e cummings (i.e no capital letters), it's nice to see someone go the other way for a change :-) ChrisTheDude 14:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this is nothing but a chart of music. As information goes, it's not that different from a phone directory or list of zip codes. Fine for certain purposes, but not encyclopedic. Mister.Manticore 16:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete of no obvious encyclopaedic significance; this is not the national chart it's the chart of one (not terribly good) radio station. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I Don't Know Why So Many Morons Type Like This When It Is Very Freaking Annoying Not To Mention Unprofessional Looking And It Is Like A Reverse E. E. Cummings. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 19:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE Thunderwing 19:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone. Punkmorten 20:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:23, 1 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 non-notable, particularly in light of main editor's actions. --Nlu (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Campos

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

Vanity page created by Christian Campos and edited mainly by him and by his sockpuppet 71.160.130.166. User has repeatedly removed {{prod}} and {{verify}} tags. Although the user has attempted to assert notability, there is no substantiating evidence. Curtis Clark 14:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete vanity, autobiography, and above all no evidence of notability per the primary test, multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 16:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG. --ElKevbo 21:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all. Leuko 01:17, 2 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, although a lot of the 'keep' comments were discarded, there's still sufficient support to keep this. Daniel Bryant 09:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Abbate

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

• Keep. Jon Abbate will go down in history as one of the greatest and most inspirational players to have ever played football at Wake Forest University. This page will continue to be created because of the impact he has had on his university and on the many Demon Deacon and college football fans the world over. On the contrary to what many of you are saying, this article was created so as to celebrate and conclude his awesome collegiate career, NOT to say that "he deserves a wikipedia page now that he is in the NFL" (whether he makes it or not). There is also sufficient reason to include him simply because of the "Five Foundation" that his family started in the wake of his younger brother's death. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.17.57.36 (talk) 06:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

This article is another test case for the proposition, "All professional athletes are notable." The subject was a team leader in college football, and has now signed a deal with a professional team as an undrafted free agent. He has not yet played in a game, nor has he "made the roster" (in fairness to him, it's May, so no one has made this year's rosters yet.) This was originally marked as a CSD A7. I don't have much of an opinion on this, except that this case is perhaps the ultimate borderline on what constitutes a professional athelete. Weak delete, pending other opinions. Xoloz 14:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. While he's currently very much on the edge of being a professional athlete, I think his college career is sufficiently notable to warrant keeping the article -- D-IA college football receives as much coverage as a pro sport in the U.S., after all. Pinball22 15:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete He becomes notable when he's played at the highest level in his sport, and he hasn't done that yet. If and when he does play, then he becomes notable. It's not a question of how much coverage college football gets in the U.S. in general but what Wikipedia's guidelines are. Nick mallory 16:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm confused here. I'm new to the Wikipedia editing scene, but aren't there plenty of notable college athletes who have entries in Wikipedia? Once they leave school, are their entries automatically deleted? Jon Abbate just signed a contract to play professional football, isn't it premature to wipe him off the record? Furthermore, he was an incredibly important part of the Wake Forest football team that won an ACC Championship and made it to the Orange Bowl this year, something that most sports followers would have never thought possible. The current entry for Jon Abbate needs a lot of polishing and more citations. But he is a "competitor who has played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports." He's been signed to a professional deal. And there's a groundswell of support from sports fans to give him his own Wikipedia page, which seems to me the whole point of having something like Wikipedia in the first place. bigdoublezero 13:06, 1 May 2007
  • Comment. We do already have lots of articles about current college athletes -- I think the reason this one is under scrutiny is that it wasn't created during his college career, but rather when he signed the free-agent deal, as part of the article creations for newly-drafted players. Pinball22 18:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. We're a better encyclopedia with this article than without it, and absent BLP or privacy issues, that's my ultimate test. Newyorkbrad 17:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Youth players in England who haven't played for a team in the Premiership or Football League get deleted. Cricketers who haven't played first class cricket get deleted. College soccer in the USA isn't the highest level of amateur sport. If he's signed to a professional deal, then he'll soon make his debut for a proper professional club and there won't be a problem. Nick mallory 17:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's American football, not soccer, and trust me, for better or worse high-level American college football is big business and major notability. Newyorkbrad 18:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Probably does technically violate WP:BIO (Xoloz you may want to re-read it - it doesn't say "All professional athletes are notable" but "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league", and as I understand it he has yet to play. However, since he's been signed as a pro now, and the moment he does set foot on a pitch (or whatever American Football has) the article will be legitimately recreated, I think this is a good time to WP:IAR to save everyone involved annoyance and wasted time — iridescenti (talk to me!)
  • I gave up on following the exact wording of guidelines a long time ago, but thanks for the heads up! :) Who knows what it will say next month? -- we can only hope the spirit remains consistent as the wording is tweaked. :) We call it a football field over here, btw. Xoloz 19:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, undrafted free agents are usually longshots to play in the pros. Feel free to recreate if he makes the Texans' opening-day roster. NawlinWiki 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you saying Abbate's college career and significance to football fans isn't enough to keep his Wikipedia entry? It's not his fault he was signed as an undrafted free agent. He's even listed, along with many other players, as an Undrafted Rookie on the Houston Texans roster on Wikipedia. Should we go through and delete all those URs from the Texans page? I'm failing to understand why putting more information on the Internet for interested people is a bad thing. Isn't that the point of Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.235.241.180 (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
• Keep, Wake Forest's unprecedented run to the Orange Bowl will be remembered for years, just as Boise State's Fiesta Bowl victory will. College Football is just as big a market, if not bigger, than pro football. Jon Abbate was the unquestioned team leader of this Wake Forest team, and if you asked any college football fan who he is, I'm sure they could answer. The fact is, in at least Wake Forest fans minds, this season will be remembered for decades as possibly the turning point for Wake Forest Football, which, for a long time, has been one of the worst in college football. If you don't think the leader of this team is notable, then I don't know what to say. I don't understand how he has to be great in the NFL in order for there to be an article on him. Would we not be allowed to write an article about Randolph Childress? The guy tore his ACL and therefore had a sub-par professional career, but broke the all time scoring record in the ACC tournament, scoring 40, 36, 32. That is "notable" if you want an understatement. Delete BS articles if you want, but this is a serious article as a tribute to one of the best football players to ever go to Wake Forest, and I think that meets the criterion "notable" in and of itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.125.192.169 (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
• Keep, This just skirts the edges of WP:BIO, but given his fairly notable amateur career to date, he has a significant chance to make it as a pro. May not be perfectly notable, but close enough. Coren 23:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, None of the players that were drafted in the NFL draft last weekend have played in an NFL game. Does this mean that they all do not deserve Wikipedia pages? Abbate is in the same boat as every other rookie in the NFL, he is under contract but has yet to officially make the team or play in an NFL game. Granted, he may have less of a chance of ever playing in an NFL game than the top draft picks, but who's to say that JaMarcus Russell doesn't have a career ending injury before he ever plays in a game. I doubt that anyone would call for his article's deletion as his college career is enough to merit an article, and that is the same rationale that should be used for Jon Abbate. Hindudot1788 00:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't have a very firm opinion here, but it is quite clear that there is a very big practical difference between a top draft pick and an undrafted player. If JaMarcus Russell never plays a game, his disastrous career will be legendary for its failure. Whether there is a difference between low draft picks and an undrafted players (as well as whether either category belongs in Wikipedia) is the open question here. It isn't clear to me that a seventh-round draft pick is notable -- perhaps those sorts too should be eliminated from Wikipedia, at least until they've played in a game. Xoloz 01:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • However, there are plenty of examples on Wikipedia of players, such as Jared Zabransky, the former Boise State quarterback that was not drafted in the NFL Draft, and has signed as a free agent with the Houston Texans - the same exact situation as Jon Abbate is currently in (down to the same team). I don't see any differences between the two cases - Zabransky is clearly staying on Wikipedia, and Abbate, who was the Wake Forest team leader as much as Zabransky was the Boise State team leader, is being debated about here. Darius Walker, undrafted out of Notre Dame, has a page on Wikipedia. I don't see any differences here, and that's reason enough for this article to stay. It's not hurting anyone - let it be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mersk862 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC).