Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< May 19 May 21 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 02:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Mystery of the Druids

The Mystery of the Druids (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I don't understand what the page is about. It looks like a joke to me. Teo64x 20:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Well, it's a real computer game from 2001, just as the article says. [1] Probably notable, judging by coverage.--Dhartung | Talk 20:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Okay, the article is alright now. But look at this revision. It's how the article was when I added it in AfD. I think you'll understand why I was upset :) Teo64x 20:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • By the way, the article needs to be locked. I just noticed that there's an edit war taking place there, between the normal, serious version and an extended, humorous version. Just check the article's history. Teo64x 20:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks notable enough to me. Useight 21:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per nom's tacit withdrawal. CharacterZero | Speak 22:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, nomination withdrawn. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep case for protection/semi-protection, not deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 23:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pigle.ask

Pigle.ask (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is apparently an inside joke for some operator(s) of VAX/VMS computer systems. The article is poorly developed and does not explain any context or details of the subject. Nimur 06:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Apparently no unrelated ghits. Maybe a hoax. BTLizard 06:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, I would expect something of the asserted provenance to show up in contemporary newsgroups, but it does not. If not a hoax, so obscure that notability is nigh impossible. --Dhartung | Talk 08:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No related google hits. That are not Wikipedia--St.daniel Talk 12:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax? -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 16:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Reasons given above; even the article's original created called it obscure -- Amazins490 (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, google search returned no meaningful hits. Not notable! *Cremepuff222* 22:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless someone can give notability or a reliable source. Abeg92contribs 17:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't pass WP:NOTE, unless this is sourced (from a reliable place). The Hooded One 01:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - no reliable sources, or even any reasonable unreliable ones such as Usenet. -- Whpq 17:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I am the original nominator. Consensus seems strong; when will this article actually be deleted? Nimur 13:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The AFD runs its course over 5 days and will be deleted by an admin reviewing the discussion. -- Whpq 14:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MK Culture

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

Allegedly about Mong Kok, Hong Kong culture. Lacks proper attribution and referencing. It's current and only source is a Geocities website - in Chinese. Though it may remain to be a clearly known implicitly understood concept in reality, the absence of reliable and verifiable sources does not satisfy it for inclusion. The article in its current states is highly subjective and plain original research (w/o sources). When I first came across this article in April 2007, reasonable actions have been taken to improve the quality of this article. I asked the creator of the article to provide additional referencing, for which the request has gone unanswered. I have also notified the WikiProject Hong Kong community to solicit assistance. Absence of action suggests that this article does not have enough clear notability and sources to support a Wikipedia article about the subject. Luke! 04:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- Luke! 04:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • delete doesn't seem to be real. --Sefringle 20:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 23:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It might be a good addition to the Hong Kong Wikipedia (if there is one I don't know :). カラム 00:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. If you don't use in-line citations in an article, don't expect it to be kept in Wikipedia.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete it definately needs sources... if it had citations that were verifiable and credible, I might be able convinced to change my mind. But as is, it needs to be deleted.Balloonman 03:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete external links are websites in Chinese, lack of reliable citations, and problematic image. Hydrogen Iodide 07:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Cannot find google hit besides us that relates to it. And I don't want to sound ethnocentric but I think that if you are going to use a source on the English Wikipedia the source should probably be in English. --St.daniel Talk 12:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, appears to fail WP:NOTE upon initial inspection. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 16:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as copyright violation. Sandstein 06:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gebrauche-Musik

Gebrauche-Musik (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Orphan article about non-notable band. Should this article be kept, please verify whether they are German (I doubt that; their name sounds a bit awkward in German) and fix the category. Delete Kusma (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Neutral Certainly they exist - plenty of ghits - and no, I don't think they're German. The choice of name is probably a nod to outfits like Kraftwerk or even Tangerine Dream. The question is one of whether they meet WP:MUSIC. I have to say that's doubtful, but having just reviewed it I wonder whether a number of the criteria in there are likely to be met by musicians in this genre - possibly there's a bit of systemic bias which needs addressing. BTLizard 08:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have seen the phrase gebrauche musik or gebrauchsmusik before. It generally means something like "occasional music", especially music that does not require great instrumental virtuosity and is intended for the use of amateur performers, and is associated especially with the composer Paul Hindemith. I suggest that if this should be kept, it should be moved to Gebrauche-Musik (band) and that the instant page should become a disambiguation. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hmm, I like Kraftwerk, Depeche Mode and Tangerine Dream, although I guess that's irrelevant here. This band claims to have released four albums. If at least two of these have been released on a notable label, the band passes WP:MUSIC.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - allmusic says their record label is "Disband at Dawn Media", a term that gets 154 Google hits, which is non-notable even as an indie label.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Per Copy-Vio The words may have been edited (slightly), but it is clearly taken from this online magazine. (Which might have given it credence if it wasn't a copy vio.)Balloonman 03:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as plagiarism per copyvio, as per Balloonman. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sr13 23:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chungliang Al Huang

Chungliang Al Huang (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability not really shown. Unless notability is shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Notability fairly well verified by a google search, surely there are sources out there we can find. Charlie 00:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Request verification of his notability as an author. One example: "In the years since this timeless book was first published (1988), many other books have come along offering the "essentials" of Tai Ji. But none have equaled Huang's unique understanding of Eastern tradition, which has made him one of the foremost interpreters of Tai Ji and its philosophies." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuckle (talk • contribs)
  • Keep I do martial arts, and my master has quoted this author in our classes... that combined with the above is enough notability for me.Balloonman 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Is your martial arts class notable? Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 05:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Only to the people at my school ;-) but my point is that this author is notable enough that my school that is unaffiliated with him has cited him. My Master had enough respect for him that he was quoted at my school.Balloonman 21:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Charlie --St.daniel Talk 12:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per google search by Charlie. *Cremepuff222* 22:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per consensus, add this to round it up. Stammer 17:01, 21 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 - withdrawn. The Evil Spartan 23:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joel Hayward

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

Non-notable author (who has, btw, massively spammed his page: see here) The Evil Spartan 17:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. I can't decide until I get home, because many of the sources are blocked from work; he apparently is most notable as the author of a work in defense of Holocaust deniers, which he has since tried to distance himself, but someone with unfiltered internet access will be better able to fill in details to determine notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I'm not going either way on this one. On one hand, he's got only 900 Google hits for "Joel Hayward" (which may include a couple of others with that name). On the other, he's got multiple non-trivial references, such as this from the New Zealand Herald, this from Yahoo! News, and others such as here, a subscription-only piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Others are from places like Stormfront and their ilk, and Jewish groups concerned with the debate. He's got published works, and may squeeze up against WP:BIO with all of this, but I'm right on the fence. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Delete unless fixed. The only external source that I see listed in this article is a link to a U of K press ISBN. That proves he's a published author, but that does not make him notable. Groupthink 00:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I'm satisfied this article has been sufficiently fixed. Groupthink 05:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Clean - Based on the above NZ Herald and Yahoo stories, he's notable for recanting his masters thesis that was rescinded for relying too heavily on Holocaust deniers as unchallenged sources. I note that Evil Spartan had to clean up the book's article Stopped At Stalingrad which has been an orphan since Nov. Canuckle 01:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As Tony Fox says, there are multiple non-trivial references. Then there's no need to waver on the fence. any problems can be dealt with by editing. I added the sources given above to the article, & also his books & journal articles, from World Cat. There are probably more reviews and comments to be found.DGG 04:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed; struck my neutral, and now opine Keep as per the additions. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as reliable sources have been found. I've run into similar problems writing articles before, where I haven't been able very many sources for an article, but I can at least find enough to assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep For someone with signficant qualifications as an academic historian to be accused, rightly or wrongly, of Holocaust denial is actually quite notable. The Nizkor Project, anti-Holocaust-denial, has some info. on him, I have added a link. PatGallacher 11:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Groupthink G1ggy! 04:23, 21 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. PeaceNT 02:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] After the Music Stops

After the Music Stops (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This does not meet notability standards and is little more than a track listing. The only thing that links here is the artist page. Idioma 00:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Keep. I thought it was generally accepted, per WP:MUSIC#Albums, that if the artist is notable, then so is their album. I know that's kind of a controversial rule, but I see no reason for deletion. and the artist's actual page seems a bit iffy -- so why not start at the top with the actual artist?Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The artist was nominated for deletion, however there was no consensus and so it remained. I can't find the link the AFD debate archive at the moment.Idioma 03:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I found it. The artist himself seems to pass WP:MUSIC as many reliable sources such as All Music Guide were found, as well as proof that he's hit the US charts -- so I'm changing from weak keep to keep. I'll eventually try to clean up the articles on the artist and his album. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 05:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: I took some time to clean up this article. It's late right now, so I'll get to working on Lecrae tomorrow, and then I'll add an infobox to his album. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I do not like this idea that the albums of notable artists must have articles regardless of whether the albums themselves are noteworthy, but while we have that guideline, this should be kept. Adrian M. H. 19:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per WP:MUSIC a notable (just) artist means this is a notable album. Three cheers for User:TenPoundHammer for a good job tidying up and adding references. Paxse 21:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 23:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Farhan Azmi

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

No refs to indicate notability. Groupthink 01:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Ganeshk (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as there aren't any references, though if his father has or gets an article (which would be reasonable as an elected politician), this could be redirected, or if sourced, merged. FrozenPurpleCube 01:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete & take out Koyla (restaurant) while you're at it. His restaurant isn't even standing anymore, just one of many removed by the gov't as illegal (see the news story on Koyla (restaurant). The eatery survived a AfD a year ago but hasn't improved since. Questionable notability, no sources Canuckle 02:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Arbustoo 07:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Hydrogen Iodide 16:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, I couldn't find any decent sources. *Cremepuff222* 22:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Due to the unverifiable information in it the article and the very short context. — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 15:22, 24 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 Deletion, not a single reference, and the information has been split into respective console articles --Steve (Stephen) talk 06:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of last games released for video game consoles

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of last games released for video game consoles Articles for deletion/List of last games released for video game consoles (Second Nomination)
List of last games released for video game consoles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article was considered for deletion on 16 October 2006. No consensus was reached for deleting it at that time; however, over the past seven months, I feel that the situation has changed. In the previous discussion, Wikipedians seemed to be concerned that the information in the article was useful and interesting. In general, I agree with this; however, I feel that the individual pieces of information are valuable, while, as a list, it is not particularly useful. Because of this, I added the {{merge}} template to each section, direction editors to the new pages. Then, deciding to "be bold" as a fairly new Wikipedian, I took some initiative and did it myself. Now, all of the consoles' articles contain the information in this list, making it outdated. Finally, none of the information in this piece seems to be cited, although it is corroborated by other articles (without citation). In short, this piece is no longer needed, and I think it should be deleted. bwowen T/C 01:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete The article had poor focus to begin with and all of the information has been merged into the respective articles for the consoles. There is nothing unique left in this article and nothing to redirect to. Leebo T/C 01:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment hmm, this information has been merged, but there's not really that much to merge except simple factual information. Still, I don't know if the GFDL applies or not. FrozenPurpleCube 01:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand To restate what I said last time, the problem as it stands now is that it's so small. I hate to throw around the word 'useful', but it's actually something that could be used as a point of research, which is what an encyclopedia is for, is it not? The problem with "merge" (which has been done already) is that it doesn't give the whole context in the first place -- that of how long the systems had games released for them. If it's expanded, adding which "party", as well as lincenced/unlicenced, it could very easily make a worthwhile list. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's an idea. Make a Timeline of video game consoles which would cover initial release, last release, and possibly other significant events in the history of all the consoles? There's separate articles on each generation, but History of video games is perhaps a bit broad a subject. FrozenPurpleCube 03:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I like that idea too, provided it does NOT add more than objective marks -- in other words, keep games like Donkey Kong Country and Final Fantasy VII (to use two potential 'breakthrough' type games) off the lists, and keep to first, last, and maybe even stuff like first dual shock game and first SNES game with an extra chip, etc. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Reply: This is a pretty good idea, as the information contained in this article does seem to have some merit to some people; however, I think that it would be best served if it were made into a section in History of video games. That would help to cut down on the excess of pages about the same topic, which is what I was trying to do by merging this information. Regardless about how you or I feel about this new idea, though, it is a subject that is something of a tangent. Although it is important to decide what to do from here, and although I really appreciate the new ideas that are coming out of this discussion, I feel that it is being derailed to some extent as well. People in favor of the new idea would easily be confused into saying "Keep," when really they want to "Delete" this one and create the new timeline - either in History of video games or somewhere new altogether. bwowen T/C 04:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
History of video games is way too cluttered, and it already has separate pages for the various generations of consoles anyway. I would consider a timeline page to be a useful way to provide a broader picture to what is right now, not going to present the information very clearly. If you want to think of it as a spin-off section of that page you can, as that is sorta what it's meant to be. In any case, while it may be a bit distracting for folks to see this AFD with this other idea in it, it's still a solution that I think is the most suitable, so it's important that folks see it. Even if they don't though, hopefully the closing admin will pay close attention to this, and decide accordingly. FrozenPurpleCube 15:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Hideous fancruft only of interest to a small few. The information on what was the last commerically released game for each console should be mentioned in the article for that console. There's no need for...this. --FuriousFreddy 02:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
So, you agree that mentioning this information is valid in the individual, but object to the compilation? How do you feel about the idea I suggested above? FrozenPurpleCube 03:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to a Timeline of video game consoles (no caps) article. --FuriousFreddy 03:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
KeepI really like Mister Manticore's suggestion above... I liked the list before reading it, but if it becomes more of a timeline, then it will be worthwhile...Balloonman 03:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Regarding the timeline idea, I don't think another article with an overlapping scope is the way to solve this one. Leebo T/C 03:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not another article in the sense that this article will be around afterwards, but instead, a refactoring of the purpose of this article to a larger one that expands the purpose of this article (collecting otherwise acceptable information) to the subject at large. IOW, this is about replacing this article with something better. FrozenPurpleCube 03:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
No one is stopping anyone from making the current article better while the discussion takes place. It's a 5 day process. It lacks sourcing and is generally poorly put together. I think it would work better as a part of the History of video games article though, rather than a separate article, personally. Leebo T/C 04:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Sourcing is an irrelevant objection in this case, since the primary objection isn't to the information's inclusion on Wikipedia (note how the nomination itself mentions it being moved already) and while History of video games is a possible place, it's so over-cluttered right now, that I think the information would be lost amid that sea. Thus my suggestion. I bring up the idea rather than implementing it myself to try to get folk's opinion of this alternative. FrozenPurpleCube 14:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to the suggested new Timeline of video game consoles. In a void, last-release information is trivia. In a wider context, it is not. In particular, this allows easy access to the lifetime of different consoles: how long were games being published for Playstation versus, say, the Jaguar? Basically, I think a good article can be built with this information but not solely from this information. Serpent's Choice 06:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete = |Homebrewed games still come out for older consoles, do those not count just because they are unofficial? This this article is inherently unworkable and should not exist, as what is a "last" game is entirely arbitrary. Tarc 12:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm seeing a easily made distinction between "last commercial" release and actions taken by fans. Even if they sold their work, it'd be easy to note a lack of license or even production. FrozenPurpleCube 14:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
One specific issue with that is the recently released Beggar Prince, which is a commercial release, but shouldn't be considered the last release on the console. I'd suggest mentioning both. - 74.136.217.72 05:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete Each 'last game' can be mentioned in the corresponding console article and then list can be disbanded. the_undertow talk 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment I agree, which is why I added the information to all of the respective console articles and nominated this for an AFD discussion. Thanks for your input! bwowen T/C 22:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the problem with merging and deleting is that that might run afoul of GFDL concerns, which require a history of edits be kept. Now if you looked up the facts on your own in other sources (which is probably necessary anyway, since this page isn't sourced), you'd be able to get past that. But here's the thing, a collected representation of this information may still have value, as I suggested above with creation of a timeline page. FrozenPurpleCube 23:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete didn't we just delete a "Last albums" type thing and this seems similar. Carlossuarez46 18:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and maybe, if it is so important, make sure the info is put on respective articles. Biggspowd 21:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Why do people never read the rest of the discussion before chiming in with their unexplained votes? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to the main article. Sr13 23:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Looney Tunes Golden Collection unreleased shorts

Looney Tunes Golden Collection unreleased shorts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

"Is this list really neccessary"? There's a list of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography and articles on every installment of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection. Common sense should be able to help fill in the rest. FuriousFreddy 02:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Dakota 07:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rumor in African American culture

Rumor in African American culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Mishmash of rumors alleged to be specific to the African American community, without commentary as to their veracity, some of which are directed at specific individuals, companies or recognizable groups. Several are unsourced. No evidence that they are specific to the African-American community. Wikipedia is not the Black Urban Legend home page. Risker 02:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete as hard-to-source, and possible attack page. Wikipedia is not a rumor mill. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • lean towards delete It would be an interesting article, but I do find it disturbing that there is no 'validation' of said rumors.Balloonman 03:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. What Risker said. --FuriousFreddy 03:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless revamped. The "Further reading" shows that this topic has been written about, but this article doesn't really rely on those sources. It's an indiscriminate list of urban legends linked by original research. --Dhartung | Talk 07:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete The article contains references to books on African American rumors. Thus, this could be an interesting sociological topic. But nobody has ever taken the time to turn this article into something useful. Instead, it has always read like a barely veiled racist screed to the effect that them people believe such crazy things. I would support an article that cites scholarly work on rumor and folklore specific to the African American culture, but if no one is willing to do the legwork, then delete it.
    • Changed to Weak keep if cleaned up and sourced. Drop the list of rumors and address the actual research on the subject. The more I think about it, the more interesting this topic might be. Urban legends specific to particular cultural groups are keen. Phiwum 00:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup Needs to be stripped of all unsourced entries, but this is a notable phenomenon. having some noncompliant content is not grounds for deletion of the entire article, only of the bad content. There's some good stuff here, so this should be taken down to that, even if it means just stubbing it. deletion is unnecessary. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Provided it is throughly cleaned up. Adrian M. H. 20:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I see nothing particular to African American culture, unless you call black newspapers somehow different from other local interest, or ethnic or religious newspapers. Rumor is a human phenomenon. --Bejnar 06:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not worth cleaning up, IMO. Elrith 00:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. An example of original research that will never be anything but, no matter how well sourced. Thinly veiled race-baiting and POV pushing.Dragomiloff 01:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Sefringle 06:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 00:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Untitled Friday the 13th Sequel

Untitled Friday the 13th Sequel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There's... nothing to say about this movie. The only information that appears to be available is that the studio hasn't yet decided whether to make it. I understand that pre-release hype is big for movies nowadays, but this is just kind of ridiculous. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete as a rather obvious case of WP:CRYSTAL. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled 2007 Josh Turner album for another "untitled" that got nuked -- what good is an article if you don't even know the damn title? Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as nothing but 'unknown'. No script, no cast, no crew. No nothing. DarkAudit 03:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ephemera. Non-existent entity. WP:NOT crystal ball. What is the deal with the aspect ratio, though? is 2.3:1 unusual or something? Herostratus 03:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • See Aspect ratio (image). 2.3:1 is a kind of weird ratio that doesn't match any existing film standards; my guess is that they mean 2.39:1, which is the standard Panavision aspect ratio, used for practically all theater releases. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per crystal ball vioBalloonman 03:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Hack it to death per above. I've seen crystalling for art-related articles before, but this takes the cake.Blueboy96 05:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:Crystal Ball; includes almost no information at all. Wait until more details are announced before recreating. --Nehrams2020 06:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just a long-winded way of saying "nobody knows". BTLizard 06:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. The article goes against WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL and lacks any meaningful information, plus the only reference is an equally incomplete IMDB entry. Will (aka Wimt) 08:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. The info in this article could be merged into the "Future Films" section of the Friday the 13th (series) article, if someone feels the need to save it. CharacterZero | Speak 17:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously violates WP:CRYSTAL. *Cremepuff222* 19:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete with the oddest IMDB note I've seen in a while: "A decision is not expected on this project until 2008." So, let's wait until 2008. SkierRMH 06:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • DeleteWP:CRYSTAL --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 01:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP, though it seems that some thought needs to be given to the article's general disposition. -Splash - tk 22:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blood and soil

Blood and soil (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Completing improperly listed nomination that I noticed. I think the page should be deleted, myself, given that it's missing sources and seems to be almost totally OR. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Though not as well known as Bismark's Blood and Iron, still... I'd heard the phrase. I think it was a real enough and important enough tagline in its day. Granted that the article should be sourced, it is not original research in my opinion. Herostratus 03:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "Proponents of the "blood and soil" ideology hold that an authentic nation (as opposed to a proposition nation) can only exist where the citizens believe that they are somehow biologically related." sounds like OR to me, as does "The simple phrase was effective in communicating the goals of the Nazi party, as well as promulgating racism against not only Jews but foreigners.". Also, I can't go on a simple "I think". Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the solution to that is to look for sources. [2] gives a fair number to indicate it existed as a doctrine, though I must defer to persons with access to the full sources to recount the meaning and whether or not the current article reflects it. FrozenPurpleCube 04:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete (I am the original nominator so maybe I cannot vote, but someone started the discussion while I was still writing my reasons--Mikerussell 03:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This article should be deleted under the following wikipedia policy:

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (neologisms).

This article is a neologism that does not have a clear meaning. It began as an article exclusively about the Nazis on June 18, 2005, and stayed that way unchanged, without any references or much expansion for years until April 2007 when one editor tried to claim it was Platonic and widely used in academic history. I, and other editors, have found no evidence of this. Please see Talk:Blood and soil for more info. I would have argued to keep it as a Nazi article, but when I did more research, it seems clear the term is not recognized widely enough as a Nazi-exclusive term. The German term may be Nazi-exclusive: Blut und Boden (maybe an article as this about the Nazis would make some sense, or merged/redirect into R. Walther Darré?), but the English phrase has much less definitive meaning. Here are some samples of the term unrelated to Nazism:

I am going stop now but I could go on. This list did not take any more than just doing a Google search for "Blood and soil", and I did not include here any book, website or article that related to Nazism. Thus I believe this article should be deleted because it is an English language neologism and thus violates wikipedia's purpose and policy. I also think there is an undertone of racism to this article as it stood recently. One of the above cited articles is a right-wing U.S. hate group and this article is so indefinable and "loose", like all neologisms- it can be hijacked for political, unencyclopedia-like purposes. This is the emerging power of wikipedia itself, because if you do the Google search you will notice what first is listed. --Mikerussell 03:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Hmm, if the term isn't "Nazi-exclusive" but rather, there are multiple usages of it, then my suggestion is a disambiguation page with links to any usage that can be appropriately sourced. Since a search for "Blood and Soil" combined with Nazi gets me a fair number of results, I'm going to say it was used by them, or at least, that scholars consider it to be. [3]. If it is used by others in some kind of systematic pattern, I don't know. If you, or someone else can establish it, go for the disambig. FrozenPurpleCube 04:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW, an AFD is not a vote, but rather a discussion, and as the nominator, you're certainly welcome to make your position clear, especially if some mistake occurred in the nomination process obscures your argument. FrozenPurpleCube 04:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't really understand the case for deletion. This is a significant concept that has been around for a long time in different contexts and I think it deserves an article. However, the current article is not good and needs a "cleanup" tag. I don't agree that a dab page is appropriate as it would be more useful to mention the different contexts on the same page. I had no trouble finding a few hundred academic articles with this phrase starting in 1933, so I don't agree it is a neologism. I also found some academic literature connecting the concept to Plato (but this is off my area of expertise so I'm not volunteering to edit it). --Zerotalk 06:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but remove the unsourced parts. The use of the term as Blut und Boden as a core propaganda theme by the Nazis, at least, is notable; as could be an article detailing the use of this slogan in other parts of the world. Sandstein 06:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The German phrase Blut und Boden is clearly notable and the English translation "Blood and soil" appears to be frequently enough used. Deletion would seem to be out of the question. More importantly, is it ever used today in reference to any ideology or movement without being, at the same time, an indirect reference to this aspect of the Nazi ideology? I very much doubt it. The above-mentioned titles of books and articles referring to genocide and nationalism seem to prove the opposite of what the nominator suggests. (After I first looked at the article, somebody rewrote the article, inserting the long paragraph on Plato at the beginning and shortening the Nazi part. Even if there is some basis for attributing original usage to Plato, it is misleading to make this the main section of the article and the Nazi usage a small appendix at the end.) Pharamond 06:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think this is a notable enough phrase and the bit about Darre would make it a serviceable stub. Without references linking the Plato passage and the blood and soil phrase, though, it's definitely "bleeding" into synthesis. --Dhartung | Talk 07:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment:There are new edits, or reverts, that show what I am talking about a bit better. I am not going to edit the article any longer and comment here so others may get a better idea of what my concern is. Obviously misusing Plato's Republic is an error and anybody with any knowledge of the book will see that. The biggest error User:HowardJ87 is doing is saying the Republic deals with Athens. There is no truth to this at all, the large passage he quoted is from Socrates "just-city-in-speech" a FICTIONAL city. But this has next to nothing to do with the deletion issue. It is his other comments that are most telling. He is denying the phrase has anything to do with Nazis. User:HowardJ87 is suggesting the exact opposite of what the above editors have stated. In good faith, he honestly believes the article is a concept that has nothing to do with Nazism. He writes twice on the Discussion page, any Nazi reference should be edited out. He offers a source. He says the article should have no Nazi meaning, it has a long historical tradition in his assertion. In fact, the article was started to show the racism of Nazi Germany, and he has just claimed the exact opposite, that a Neo-Nazi created the article? This is why I called it a neologism, for if you read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (neologisms) page it really does fit. I know it is a little bit different than adding an "ism" to a President's name, like Bushism, but this phrase is a pure example of using a term to mean something new, notably by this editor, but as the samples of other usage suggest in my original nomination, others use the term to mean very different things too. If you read where the manual style talks about synthesis of original and authentic research it fits too. This term is just too loose to be used, the books I offered show no clear reference to Nazis, just a loose idea about genocide. Perhaps this article should be redirected to genocide, or another appropriate topic, but then again, does that even make sense or is it too loose a term? I really think this article lacks the required percision to belong to an article. After 2 years so little is really stated in the article, it just is an empty envelope. If you could write an article like Shock and awe about Blood and soil there would be an article about it. But nobody can. I really don't have much invested in fighting over it, the Plato misquote is not the issue I am concerned about, Socrates teaches that you have to have a high tolerance to be misunderstood by "the many" to be a philosopher, so that error in quoting Plato should be fixed but it really isn't why I nominated it. As I said, take a look at Shock and awe, will this article ever come close to it?--Mikerussell 17:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't see any reason why somebody can't possibly make an article about this concept as much as Shock and awe or any other doctrines. Lack of interest in it means nothing, Wikipedia won't be built in a day, a lot of otherwise important subjects have poor articles. The other editor's concerns about Plato are a content dispute that doesn't reflect the subject of this article. If you are having problems resolving that issue, try RFC. Again, I don't know about those other usages, but there's a clear association with Nazi's and this phrase. If you can show a clear and distinct meaning for those other usages, they can be incorporated into this article or a disambiguation. A redirect to genocide makes no sense, that'd obscure the meaning of this policy. FrozenPurpleCube 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
What categories would you use? Besides English phrases, I think the categories would contradict one another?-- also- Well, my point is it isn't a doctrine. Mikerussell 18:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're asking here. What do categories have to do with the current discussion??? If you're concerned about what categories this article could belong to, well, that's not a major problem. One on Nazis, possibly one on political doctrines, if you want a quick answer. Seriously though, that's a non-issue. This is a policy/doctrine of a major political party. It has been covered in a wide variety of scholarly works. That makes coverage of it appropriate. If you're having problems covering it appropriately, that's not a deletion issue, that's a cleanup issue. FrozenPurpleCube 19:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
oh, and you might want to look at [4] the German Language version] which satisfies me that somebody can write a better article on this subject. FrozenPurpleCube 19:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
We are missing each other here, so there isn't much point in discussing it further. The issue is whether it is a doctrine, or at least what type of doctrine it is, if it is a Nazi doctrine, then the edits that say it is much more are wrong. Shock and awe has no similiar dispute. You seem to be ignoring the core issue of the debate, by concluding it is a Nazi theory- "This is a policy/doctrine of a major political party." I am not going to edit the article because as I have said, I think it doesn't belong on wikipedia, and partly this is based on my belief that junky articles should not pile up. By deleting this article now, it doesn't banish the concept from coming back when someone, or something, makes it clearer. Your attitude seems to say, well the phrase has a lot of hits on Google Scholar, the German edition has an article, that's enough to keep it around- more the merrier. Your standard seems very low. I am not going to edit the article because I think there are irreconcible points made by differnt editors, and from my research it seeems to me it would be unwise to call this English language phrase a political doctrine. I actually believe User:HowardJ87 is making just as much sense as blindly categorizing it as a Nazi Theory, which as far as I know is a German party. German concepts simply translated into English do not mean the same thing in English. Suggesting the German history and culture can just be translated and applied to an English phrase is a bit simplistic. It doesn't bother me the way User:HowardJ87 has employed Plato now, I mean he offers some quotes and obviously has a good faith belief that this blood and soil concept is an ancient doctrine. I just think the article is really beneath the acceptable standard of wikipedia, even an online user-edited encyclopedia, and since there is a deletion process, it seems there is a need to edit material that is muddled, clouded, contradictory and not useful. If others want to comment they will, but you and I seem to be missing each other.--Mikerussell 23:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, in this case, the subject of the article is not itself a problem, and if the content is, well, this is one of those cases where it's a case of cleaning up. If you're not disputing that this is a major policy/doctrine of the Nazi party, then indeed, I see no reason to delete it. I see no reason to object to this translation of "Blut und Boden" as it is quite literal, and it is the translation used by others. If you want to propose a move to another location, you're certainly welcome to do so, I don't know that the foreign-language title will be preferred, but at tje least, if there's another usage you can document, you can add (Nazi Doctrine) to the English translation.
Frankly, I don't understand why you're going for deletion so hard. Perhaps you might want to look at the AFD for Health care in Pakistan which was another recent case where somebody suggested deletion, but where the consensus was even more clearly for a cleanup. Again, the solution to bad content is to edit the page. This isn't a well-done article, I won't dispute that. Neither is the Pakistani Health care one. But there's no question to me that they're both a valid subject for some kind of article. So the best option is to leave it for clean-up and improvement. The content's not so bad now that it can't be used. If you don't want to do it, you don't have to do so, but deletion isn't necessary here. I would suggest an option like WP:RFC instead. Especially since it's quite possible the problem is in the editor, not the subject. FrozenPurpleCube 00:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW, i've added the rewrite tag to the page because I do agree this page needs some reworking. FrozenPurpleCube 00:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply to Comment: I never said I thought it was a Nazi party doctrine, when I hear the term "blood and soil", I infer meaning from the context. I don’t doubt the Nazis used "Blut und Boden" to justify their crimes against humanity, but is it any different than "Lebensraum"? Would you start an article called "Living Space" on Wikipedia just because the Nazi Party used the German word "Lebensraum" to enslave Eastern Europe? I don’t think I am going "so hard" for deletion. How can you support inclusion of an article that is making concepts through Wikipedia, as opposed to documenting actual events, people and concepts? An encyclopedia’s function does not include creatively coining new terms. Can you find another Encyclopedia entry on "Blood and Soil"? Try Encyclopedia Britannica at [5] and enter "Blood and Soil" in the search box, then try "Blood & Soil" and "Blut und Boden". Best I could do was a mention in the "Fascism" article [6] that deals with 1994 Russian politician Barkashov, who said: "Farmers, he said, were the best part of the nation, representing as they did a union of blood and soil." Try MSN Encarta at [7] and enter the same. There is no need for such a weak article in Wikipedia, I mean one paragraph of this article is about something good, I think? This stuff about ancient civilizations is news to me, but what I can infer from it is User:HowardJ87 thinks it is a "good" thing- I infer he thinks it supports patriotism and is a natural out growth of human civilizations, he cites a source- Thomas Fleming, and then includes stuff about "proponents" and "authentic nations". He totally misinterprets Plato’s Republic to justify this notion, but a lot of people in good faith can misread Plato. Then the Nazi section refers to basically- the holocaust- or at least justification for it. These things strike me as an embarrassment to Wikipedia, not a normal dispute, or poorly written article. There is no doubt about Health care in Pakistan- it exists no matter what. "Blood and soil" is not in the same category.--Mikerussell 03:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, as I said, I don't know that the foreign language title will be appropriate in this case, I don't see that it's a problem to use the translation as it's in regular use in English, (and I think that Living space should have a note about Lebensraum as well), but if you do, the place you want to go is Requested moves. Not AFD. And complain all you want about the weakness of this article, that's missing the point of what I've been saying, the solution is to improve the article, not delete it. There is no denying that whether you call it Blut und boden or Blood and soil, the doctrine itself was a part of Nazi ideology. If it wasn't, that'd be a reason to delete, but it's not. You don't even seem to be claiming it wasn't. Are you, or are you just concerned about the quality of the article? If so, once again, I reiterate, clean-up is the solution. Or moving if you object to the title. But the fact is, deletion is not used just because an article on an otherwise acceptable subject is poor. (Well, except for Copyvio and BLP situations, neither of which is applicable here). Oh, and I'd like to point out that going to Brittanica or Encarta is needless, I've already posted a link to google scholar. Here it is again: [8]. Those are secondary sources, which is what anybody should be using to write an article, not tertiary sources like another encyclopedia. FrozenPurpleCube 05:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW, just so you know, I don't support this article. I think it needs to be rewritten and otherwise improved. This is distinct from being deleted. Deletion is for other problems. This is a cleanup problem. FrozenPurpleCube 05:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply to Comment: I do not believe there is enough evidence to include "Blood and soil" as a Nazi ideology article. "Blood and soil" is not an exclusive Nazi phrase. I am amazed that you think "Living Space" should have a dab reference to Adolph Hitler’s propaganda. Moreover, your Google Scholar search is very misleading. The proper search is just "Blood and soil" to determine whether the English language phrase has enough of an exclusive meaning in English to attribute it exclusively to Nazi ideology. Of course you will get a bunch of hits when add in "Nazi"? What does that prove? Search "Blood and soil". You get results about Southeast Asia and other varied topics; it is not an exclusively Nazi term. Plus, do you know how much scholarship is just bullsh*t. Academics have to publish to survive, often they don’t even get paid for the publishing, to keep their jobs or get tenure they need to publish something, often journals are created by other academics solely to elevate their own department's or school's reputations. There is a huge mass of research in many areas that mean very little to the general public, let alone the student of the discipline. GS is just a bibliographic index of all published material, much of it may be from old or out-of-print sources, it is just an aggregate search. I used to teach a credit course at the University of Toronto that taught students to discern topic-specific, properly sourced research. I remember finding a stat that as much as 35% of scholarship that is published in academic journals is not peer reviewed. Moreover, much research that is peer reviewed is admittedly the exclusive interest of subject specialists. This logic about GS is really off the mark, it does not follow that because you get a lot of hits you need a Wikipedia article. You have missed my point about Britannica and Encarta. What I am saying is that Wikipedia can be abused by people who want to create articles that do not warrant inclusion. This tendency is obvious when articles are created about academics, musicians, or other people with marginal public interest. But ideas can also gain an undeserved prominence through a Wikipedia article. I mention that Britannica or Encarta doesn’t have a "Blood and soil" entry, or even subentry, as evidence of its lack of use in contemporary society. Of course an online user-edited encyclopedia has many fold-more articles, but the point you have consistently stepped over is the abuse of Wikipedia to advance a private opinion. Your logic seems to be- GS has many hits with ("Blood and soil" Nazi), therefore without reading the actual articles, you are going to improve the article. We just completely disagree, so hopefully others will have the energy and interest to battle through this longwinded squabble (my fault as much as yours) and offer their opinion and vote because we are just going in circles.--Mikerussell 16:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm completely baffled at your insistence that there's not enough evidence to support the idea that "Blood and Soil" was indeed a Nazi ideology. If you are indeed claiming such, how do you refute the numerous scholarly articles that refer to it as such?
You can go on if you want about the quality of the individual articles, but the fact is, they do exist, and if they're older, you know what that means? It means there is a pattern of usage across several decades. That's actually a good thing. If some of them aren't good sources, well, that's not going to mean much for the aggregate, as with several hundred choices, it's possible to find some good sources in them. I see no reason to insist on exclusiveness here, if anything, that only means you create a disambiguation page. And note, this doesn't include simple usages like cases where chemical testing is going on (IOW, instead of anything meaningful by use of the phrase, it just means they tasted blood and soil samples,). If you can find somebody using that as their motto/doctrine, go for disambiguation.
And please remember, this is NOT a vote. It's a discussion. Numbers don't matter, the reasonableness of the argument here does. So far, you really haven't been convincing to me. I doubt you'll be convincing to the closing admin. I've tried to explain why, but it basically boils down to this "If Blood and Soil is in fact, a reasonable translation of a Nazi ideology, then deletion isn't the solution here". Since even the quickest of google searches gets results that support the idea, I'd therefore say consider options besides deletion. If you think "Blut and Boden" is a better title, propose the move. If you think there's some other usage? Create a disambiguation once you can establish that usage. If you think the article is in a poor state? Propose it for cleanup. Only if you are absolutely disputing that this phrase is associated with the Nazi ideology would deletion be the proper option. However, if you did so, it'd clearly be mistaken on your part. So I suggest you consider other options. Deletion isn't always the solution. FrozenPurpleCube 17:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Reply: It is not prevelant enough to have its own article. It can certainly be included in other articles, like R. Walther Darré. You are assuming just b/c it is mention in articles, it deserves its own article, at the exclusion of the other reasonable references, scholarly or not, that "Blood and soil" carry, which is also evident in the articles unrelated specifically to Nazi ideology.--Mikerussell 18:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
We are going in circles, the issue is this article possible to improve, if not, it suggests the term is faulty, and the article should be deleted as providing faulty or false information to the general public. This vote, or whatever, is irrelevant, the future of the article is all that matters, and in 1 year I bet it will be just as muddled and useless as it is now because it is not a viabale article, but you really never sqaured up the issue about undue prominence, which seems beyond your concern. --Mikerussell 18:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I see plenty of prevalence. Nothing you've said has refuted the idea that it's the name of a policy of a national party. Such things warrant coverage. If you think it should be covered elsewhere? Try a merge tag, or a move. If this article isn't correct now? Revert to a version you're satisfied with. If there is no such version, blank the page, find an acceptable source, rewrite it from the start. Don't just get so locked into the idea that there's only one option, or that having a poor article means anything. Wikipedia offers a wide variety of choices of actions besides deletion, and the fact is, it's a work in progress. This is like today's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudan at the 1968 Summer Olympics. Note how few people there are supporting deletion. Why? Because improvement is preferred over removal. Maybe they're wrong, but so far, the arguments against leaving the pages for improvement are limited. Same here. FrozenPurpleCube 20:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You stated your opinion many times, it is only your voice. I will reserve further comment until others comment, which I hope occurs. So far, you are the only voice in this discussion that has responded to my earlier points (or hasn't to be more accurate). Its five days right? I'll check-in, but your points have missed the issue as I see it and your suggestions are quite condescending. Don't be so certain. --Mikerussell 00:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry you find my responses condescending, would you care to explain how? I've tried to explain my position to you, but if it's come across as offensive, I'd like to do what I can to not offend you. FrozenPurpleCube 21:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't take it personal, but you should do what you think is best, don't tell me what should be done, go ahead change it as you see fit. I still don't think it is a workable concept-article, if you do- go on with your suggestions. If you cannot improve it, that says something about my point, not yours. I am busy today and the next couple, so I have not checked the article and out of curiousity just looked to see if others have commented, which seems like there hasn't been much input. Have to go, but will check-in probably Wedneday-Thursday.--Mikerussell 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
So, you're merely upset that I suggested alternate means of accomplishing your desired ends? I'm afraid I don't consider that condescending, I consider that an attempt to be helpful on my part so that in the future you might avail yourself of other options which you are apparently unaware of. Given your initial response to the discussion, I don't think it's inaccurate for me to say you seem unfamiliar with the AFD process, most especially the availability of other options. It's actually quite common for folks to stumble into deletion without realizing that maybe there's another alternative. However, I've found you oddly hostile to the mere idea of cleaning up. You've consistently failed to address why a policy of a major political party doesn't merit an article. So why would I even try to improve it? If you'd said "Hey, let's do that" I probably would have done something. But I find your attitude to be somewhat discouraging. So I've tried to address it instead. FrozenPurpleCube 01:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Upset? You interpret this as an emotional response do you? Isn't that violating some common decency rule for fellow editors. My arguments are valid, you may not recognize that, or understand them, but to reduce them to my personal "hostility" is really disrespectful, not only completely wrongheaded. Your response sounds like you have taken this issue as a personal dispute which cheapens wikipedia and this article even more. I guess there isn't much point of discussing it any further with you.--Mikerussell 13:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I consider the response "your suggestions are quite condescending" to reflect that you were upset by my remarks. It's kind of hard to imagine why else you would remark on them. If you think I'm saying something about your emotional state, I'm not. I'm merely interpreting your position as one where you are not satisfied with what I've been saying. And I don't consider you hostile to me, I consider you to be hostile to the idea of cleanup instead of deletion. I consider this odd on your part, the same as I consider your reaction to my saying so odd. I don't think I'm misinterpreting you here. If you're taking that as personal, I don't know why, but maybe you should consider you yourself have said I've been condescending to you. Well, I consider your position one of hostility towards cleanup. Is either statement offensive or personal? No, I wouldn't say so. Sometimes expressing how the other is coming across is helpful to understanding a discussion. You consider me condescending. I consider you hostile to the idea of clean-up. Perhaps you might wish to examine why. FrozenPurpleCube 18:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I wouldn't have chosen to bring any of this up, but you did open the door. If you don't want me to comment on you, then please don't comment on me. FrozenPurpleCube 18:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable and well known in the context of Darré and Nazi Germany. I've added 4 references to the page - plenty more available through Google. Both the English and the German phrase seem to be used interchangeably in the English speaking web. The name of the article is fine given that Blut und Boden is already here as a redirect. There are about 14 links incoming to the article, so it will leave a decent sized hole in wikipedia if deleted. Paxse 22:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: The 4 links actually are not references, but a Google search that is just reproduced. One link is from a Florida high school teacher, the other is an admitted "undergraduate essay" on ecology from a UK media website, one I cannot quite make sense out of "Blut und Boden" is discussing Jewish Zionism on a Marxist website. To quote it:

In life it is obvious that Zionist Blut und Boden provided an excellent rationale for not fighting anti-Semitism on its home ground.

This indicates that the concept is applied to Jewish Zionists, not the Nazi theory. It suggests that Blut and Boden simply means the words used are free from the meaning this article is acribing to them, at least the Nazi theory that the above editor has claimed- "Notable and well known in the context of Darré and Nazi Germany". In fact, it seems that the words are so fluid, they can be applied to any ethnic group, not linked especially or exclusively to Darre, although he did write a book with the title, a title that tried to perhaps capitalize on the general undefinable nature of the words in Europe.
Its misleading to call the 4 new additions references. How do they even relate to the current material? My argument remains that this term is so loose, so generally used, the article is without a coherent narrative core and it will remain unworkable, as it is now. If the concept could be improved upon I would support rewriting it and incorporate some references, but a Google search seems very unpersausive. The Harpers story I cannot even read, can anybody else? What is the point of linking to an article that is not accessible, how can someone rationally calculate its application. The standrads of inclusion are obviously very low on Wikipedia, as expressed by the above editors. I am the last guy who would think of bring up the name of Jimbo Whales on wikipedia but I recall hearing him recently being interviewed on NPR's "Fresh Air", I think, and he said how the website should work towards quality articles, not quantity. I can't help but be reminded of this idea now. I have no idea how he would look at this debate, and I don't really care, but it does show that the articles qualities are almost never discussed in reply to deletion, only Google counts and related searches and a general belief that you should "park" an article, fill it with contradictory nonsense even, in the vain hope it will be made better later. Deletion does not mean censorship, it means deleting an article that is not coherent or useful. I suspect a year from now this article will remain as contradictory and useless as it is now, even when the attention of this tagging is drawn to it, it doesn't seem to help its quality improve. --Mikerussell 00:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Not to beat a dead horse, but the Harpers article by Yehuda Nuriel offers a list of related subjects: Hitler, Adolf, Air pilots, Military, Arab-Israeli conflict, Israel, 1993-, Parodies, imitations, etc. How can someone claim that this relates to Nazi use of the phrase and Darre, it could be an article about Parodies, imitations, etc or any number of things. This Google searching is loaded when you are applying an English language phrase, and one that really can be used in "common sense" terms to apply to any number of things. In the 7 books I cited at the top of this article, one is a novel, for example. The weight given to these Google counts, Scholar or just regular Google, are rather pointless in this case, at least compared to a Google search for a person, business, rock band, movie or book; in those cases it may have much value in determining noterity in the wider culture. Darre wrote a book called Blut und Boden and thus he would have to a connection to the term in searching; it doesn't necessarily mean he is any more the main expositor of the "ideology" anymore than Allan Bloom is associated with Love and Friendship.. A Google search of that term is here. --Mikerussell 03:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, perhaps this is a fait accompli, but just for the record, I just got more curious about these "4 References" added by Paxse, and went back to try to figure out this "Zionist" "Blut und Boden" article, it seems to be written by an American left-wing advocate with a wikipedia article, Lenni Brenner. I mention this b/c he is far from a Nazi, he would never be classified as a person that thought Nazism was "good", or would use the terms Blut und Boden in connection to racism and the justification for the holocaust, which is really the most consistent theme presented here for non-deletion. If you read the article, he uses the term Blut often unconnected to the other words und Boden; the actual phrase used together is presented only once, as in the quote above. If one reads the Keep posts, they all seem to express a certainty that the term is a undoubtably, Nazi ideology, used directly or indirectly as a reference to Nazi policy/history. This is not true, and even a editor who suggests this is presenting "references" that discredit their point.
Regarding the comment that deletion would "leave a decent sized hole in wikipedia if deleted" doesn't make much sense. Again the articles where this article links to would be improved by deletion. For instance, a Wikipedia reader currently reading an article about Nazism or Action Française are going to be "informed" the term is related to Plato, ancient civilizations, Serbian tradition and other European cultures. If they read Lenni Brenner's artcle, they are going to read how he is arguing the term can be applied to Jewish/Isreali history and the Zionist movement. Does this really improve Wikipedia? The articles that use it as a Nazi term will be improved by deleting this muddled article, it will require more explanation of the term in primary articles. The hyperlinking can be a crutch that editors use to link to a page. There is already a big hole in wikipedia, again, this article is not coherent, is the person who links to it getting any real additional insight, or this article actually harming the article it links to by indirectly confusing the reader?
Finally, just to clarify my earlier statement about another article of the 4 being written by a Florida High School Teacher,The Doctrine of Blut und Boden Gerald McSwiggan, I deduced this from the URL, if you trace it back to its root URL, it is from Coral Gables High School; I found no reference to its author on Google Scholar; on Google, the name related to driving records and alumni postings, no reference to academic positions or other writings. --Mikerussell 17:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Most of the valuable content is already existing in the main article, and a deletion is not necessary if a redirect to the main article can be used, which is why I'm going with a redirect. Sr13 07:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nathan Griffin

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

Well, this article was created in October 2005. Since then the TV show in question has, hopefully, faded from our collective memory, leaving only a blank void and the lingering question Who the heck is this guy? I don't know either, but I know that his 15 minutes were up a while ago. Herostratus 02:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, fails WP:BIO in so many ways. Contestants on a TV show are not inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to the television show, since that was in theory notable, but this person isn't outside the context of the show. FrozenPurpleCube 04:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The bio appears to be non-notable and any relevant information should be merged into the main article. If this is deleted, the image should also go as I'm also not too sure about the current license on the image. --Nehrams2020 06:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Average Joe (show) Canuckle 19:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough to have an entire Wikipedia page devoted to. *Cremepuff222* 19:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would support a merge to Average Joe (show), but only then if all the shows winners were listed. Either way, this article should definitely go. CharacterZero | Speak 22:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. Per above. The Hooded One 01:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was article listed in order to contest a prod, unrequired, article undeleted --pgk 10:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Registered Historic Places in Coconino County, Arizona

List of Registered Historic Places in Coconino County, Arizona (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In actuality I do not think that this page should deleted. It was listed as a PROD on May 11 for the reason of "A list of almost entirely red-links". It was deleted on May 17. I believe that this was a mistake. I quite simply dropped the ball and did not see the PRODing of the article on my watchlist. If I had I would have contested the PRODing which would have brought it here. Ihave used my admin powers to undelete it and bring it here, if I should not have done this, I will delete it and take it to Deletion Review. This list is part of a series of lists for properties on the NRHP, divided by state, and in some cases, by county. (See List of National Register of Historic Places entries for the top level list.) It is my belief that any article on any property on NRHP would easily survive AfD. This list, then, is list that is most useful, for the present, as a development list, as per WP:LIST and thus should not be deleted. Dsmdgold 03:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep. If you don't think that the article should be deleted, then why'd you even nominate it? Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Because it was a PROD, and as I understand it, birnging it to AfD is what you are supposed to do if you contest a PROD. Dsmdgold 03:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I thought that was what you do only if you yourself think the article should be deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Now that I look at the PROD page, I see that what you say is true (It's been a long time since I've paid attention to that process). However this article was deleted under PROD and I restored it, because I did not see it in time to contest it. I may be out of process here, ifI am, I will do what I can to correct it. But I suspect that if I had contested it in time it would have wound up here anyway. Dsmdgold 03:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy RE-DELETE Admin abused his/her powers. The article was appropriately deleted as it was 5 days after the PROD that it was deleted. Admin was a contributor (thus personally involved) with the article prior to it's deletion. Thus, admin should have gone through proper channels to have the deleted article reviewed. At bare minimum, the admin should not have used his admin powers to reinstate a properly deleted article that he has a bias for. Please note history, where his reinstate was initially undone. This is NOT the place for deletion review.Balloonman 03:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per concerns raised by Balloonman. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - the article is nothing but a list of links to other articles that don't exist. andy 09:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aldergrove Elementary School

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

None of these schools exert any notability. All fail WP:NOTE and WP:ATT --TREYWiki 03:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm only doing A-B right now.There are 1,000+ other articles in the category that fail notability guidlines.
Aldergrove Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Anne McClymont Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Anne McClymont Primary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Anniedale Traditional School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Armstrong Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
B. C. Muslim School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Bankhead Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Barlow Creek Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Barrowtown Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Bayridge Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Beach Grove Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Bear Creek Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Bear Lake Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Beaver Creek Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Beaverdell Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Beaverly Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Belgo Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Bella Coola Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Belmont Elementary School (Langley, British Columbia) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Berkshire Park Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Bernard Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Betty Gilbert Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Betty Huff Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Big Lake Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Black Mountain Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Blackburn Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Blacklock Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Blair Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Blarchmont Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Blue Jay Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Blueridge Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Bonaccord Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Bothwell Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Bouchie Lake Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Boundary Beach Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Boundary Park Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Bowen Island Community School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Bowen Island Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Bradner Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Bradshaw Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Braemar Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Brantford Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Brent Kennedy Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Brentwood Park Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Bridge Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Bridge Lake Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Bridgeview Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
L'école Victor Brodeur (Richmond) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Brookside Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Buckingham Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Buffalo Creek Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Burton Elementary School (British Columbia) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Speedy keep all, tackle each one individually. Let's try to refrain from doing en masse deletion dumps like this, eh? It's just a big headache. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Procedural close. This isn't the best way to handle this. Also, as noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Anderson Elementary School, I'm more than willing to go through and redirect all the no-content entries to their school district's page, allowing any that have clearer claims of notability to be examined separately, if there is consensus that such action would be adviseable. Serpent's Choice 03:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment They are all basically the same article. (school) is a public elementary school in British Columbia. It is more efficient to do it this way then nominate each one by itself.--TREYWiki 03:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. How do you know that one of the schools listed doesn't have some claim to notability that maybe the original article writer didn't know about? It's highly possible that at least one of the schools in this list has a claim to fame that's not currently stated in the article... Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As nominator.--TREYWiki 03:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close it's going to be impossible to give each of these articles due consideration under a single nom without giving up most of the weekend to the task. Considering you're wanting to use a bot to nominate the rest, I have my doubts that you have given these articles due consideration, either. DarkAudit 04:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment These were all written by the same people. Read a few of them. They are all the same, just with a different name.--TREYWiki 04:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment, edit conflicted twice. So what? This still isn't the best way to delete them -- seems very much like a bad faith nom on your part, especially since you suggested creating a bot to nuke all school stubs. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment Actually, It is in good faith as I am being told to "go to one of these schools to learn how to count past 3" by these pages creator. I am not trying to "nuke" all school stubs. This category is made up of non-notable elementary schools articles. Also, how should I have gone to delete them? I think this is the best way, myself; and I think you need to assume good faith, this is not malicious.--TREYWiki 04:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
          • How about seeing if you can improve the stubs? Just because a page is a stub doesn't mean it needs to be deleted, even if several other cookie-cutter stubs just like it exist. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Close with all due respect to the nominator, school articles are still a matter of contention on Wikipedia, and this large a bundle isn't the best way to handle it. I'm sure the factual details of all of these schools could be referenced, and questions as to their individual notability are implausible to determine with this large a number. I would advise trying to get a policy adopted or something, but I can't recommend self-injurious behavior like running into that brick wall. FrozenPurpleCube 04:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, Ok I'll Withdraw My Nomination.--TREYWiki 04:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 00:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs about telephones

List of songs about telephones (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Consensus has been mixed about Lists of songs about... in general. This one, however, seems clear-cut. A list of songs about telephones would probably be random trivia anyway. But as the talk page says, most of these songs aren't even about telephones. Many include telephone numbers, or even just the sound of a phone ringing. Serpent's Choice 03:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete. This one would be too hard to pigeonhole. Is "Lips of an Angel" about telephones, since the whole song is a telephone call? What about "Callin' Baton Rouge" by Garth Brooks? What about "Wichita Lineman"? What about "Direct Connect" by Craig Hand (country song about cell phones)? See where I'm going with this? Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Bulldog123 05:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - trivial and poorly defined list definition. --Haemo 09:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, indiscriminate. Punkmorten 11:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Article is trivia at best. Ninja! 17:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. But see List of songs about nudity and List of songs about animals, and their related AfD discussions. CharacterZero | Speak 17:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • lol it is trivia, but it doesn't try to pass itself off as anything else. I don't see the danger in keeping it, but my opinion is Delete as trivia for now. Hopefully the pro-telephone-song-guy will find this AfD and make a good case for keeping it, but I don't see one. daveh4h 19:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, it made me laugh, but sadly, it isn't nearly imporant enough to be here. *Cremepuff222* 19:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, it made me giggle too. But then again wikipedia isn't a humor site so I say delete. Sweboi 14:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, cute list but still not encyclopedic or able to be defined with any precision. Carlossuarez46 18:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is cute yet unencyclopedic. The Hooded One 01:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I hate lists, but I'm only saying weak for two reasons: a. It's a short list. b. 99% of the songs seem to fit the subject. A pleasant surprise after seeing some of the massive unverified monstrosities out there. Bongwarrior 01:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. T-R-I-V-I-A. Dragomiloff 01:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 00:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad astra

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

Only one hit about this paper on Google or Yahoo--and that comes from a personal page at the University of Oregon. Fails WP:N. Blueboy96 03:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as highly non-notable newspaper. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Appears non-notable. Any relevant and sourced information could possibly be merged into the article about the school, but I don't think that that is necessary. --Nehrams2020 06:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not much notablity inserted in the article. If anyone can find any sources (I couldn't through a google search) I suppose the useful information could be merged into the school article if anyone really thinks it's important. *Cremepuff222* 20:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Well wide of the notability mark. Adrian M. H. 21:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. Elrith 00:37, 23 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. Sources added. PeaceNT 02:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sigi Schwab

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

Originally tagged {{Db-band}} with comment note that there is a German wiki article at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigi_Schwab, while my German is not very good, I am not seeing anything to support him as notable in English. A google search did not lead to anything worth using as a reference but did bring back a number of hits. diff The speedy was declined. Additionally this very short article has been unreferenced since Dec 2005 so fails WP:V, I searched for and did not find references to support the article but did find selling sites Jeepday (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable musician lacking reliable English sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BAND pending sources (which need not be in English). The de: article indicates some local notability in Germany and one CD released by a major label, so if sourced he could probably make it. Sandstein 06:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Google News Archive search shows a reasonable number of sources for anyone interested in expanding the article. [9] Furthermore there is no such thing as "Notability in English". There is notability period, and if you have it, then you've got it, regardless of whether the sources noting you are in English, German, or Swahili. cab 09:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry I was not clear, I was speaking of reference that are in English so I can evaluate them in context to Wikipedia content criteria like WP:BIO "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." of the 28 returns on the link provided by User:cab, the several in English are all Muze entries on Mywire.com and are about Chris Hinze and mention that he was once "in a duo with guitarist Sigi Schwab" while this hints at potential notability it does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO or WP:V and does not provide "sources for anyone interested in expanding the article" Jeepday (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no requirement that sources be in English. You are basically saying "delete because I lack the required background knowledge to comprehend the sources." If you made this argument on a math or science-related AfD, do you think people would be convinced? cab 22:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no sources. Arbustoo 18:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Could probably be the subject of a perfectly fine article if it is written based on the available German sources. Pharamond 19:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, there is no restriction on the language of sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • References Added Please note that user:CaliforniaAliBaba has added references the article. [10] Jeepday (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable enough. Adrian M. H. 21:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It would be nice if someone more knowledgeable could expand it but as it stands it is a perfectly acceptable stub. Nuttah68 21:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets WP:MUSIC with the newly added sources. Paxse 22:18, 25 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 this shit, bitch. Krimpet (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Profanity in songs

Profanity in songs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-encyclopedic list, WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. Leuko 04:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete. I have a feeling that you could just add 99% of all rap and punk-rock songs to this list. And aren't words like "damn" and "hell" considered "profanity" too? I could see a list like List of songs with profanity in their titles being more encyclopaedic, however. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. I agree that this article is not encyclopaedic and not very useful for that matter, most all major albums with explicit lyrics clearly indicate this on the packaging, so I don't know why anyone would need this list, unless you just want to read a page full of bad language. Izanbardprince 04:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Also an article like this is breeding ground for original research. --Chris (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Maybe if it was an article about the historical impact, controversies, top ten songs that contain the most profanity, etc. than this article may be acceptable. But it would also have to be sourced as well. In its current state, it should be deleted, as there are thousands of songs that could be listed here. --Nehrams2020 06:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - appears to serve no useful purpose. As others have said it a) depends on your view of profanity, and b) could include tens of thousands of songs and could never be complete. - fchd 06:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This isn't an article about profanity in songs, as the title would suggest; it's a "list of profanities appearing in songs". It's also horribly incomplete - it only lists 34 songs, all by 3 groups (Dir en grey, Mindless Self Indulgence, and System of a Down). Oh, and it doesn't even list Uncle Fucka. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's not an article about what it claims to be about. What it IS about is probably un-completable, subjective, and incredibly trivial. --Haemo 09:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - silly article. Trivial - nn. Also agree strongly with Haemo remarks above. Agnetha1234 15:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. Indication of a consensus to merge, and that could still happen, but some information was added late that should be considered first. W.marsh 22:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jingletown, USA

Jingletown, USA (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This unreferenced article does not appear more notable then any other neighborhood in America. Other then as a target for vandalism I can see no reason for Wikipedia to have an article about it. Reference checks on Ghits are low and mostly blogs. The article does contain 3 spam links, It was proposed Prod, the prod was decline with a recomendation of merge [11] I attempted the merge, the merge had a single vocal opposer. The extensive debate can be viewed at Talk:East Oakland, Oakland, California#Merge of Jingletown, USA. If the community believes this article should be deleted or merged they may also want to consider the list of neighborhoods at East Oakland, Oakland, California. I leave it to Wikipedia to decide I am taking them all off my watch list. Jeepday (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect to East Oakland, Oakland, California. The use within blogs and such suggests that it's mainly a localized term, and the *shudder* Green Day ref hints at notability, but there's just not enough for it to stand on its own. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge my reasons have been stated at various locations throughout the debate.--JUDE talk 06:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Jeepday, I looked at the history and I do not see where you actually attempted a merge. In fact I'm tempted to close this AFD ("articles for deletion") discussion and merge this topic of Jingletown to East Oakland myself. — CharlotteWebb 17:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi CharlotteWebb, thank you for giving me a chance to respond. I placed a merge tag on the potential receiving article [12] and fairly quickly got a positive response from Jude. Jude suggested a full out merge of all the neighborhoods,[13] which on review of the articles seemed appropriate, but a fairly big move. I placed merge tags on all the related pages [14] [15] [16],etc and I wanted to wait a couple days to address any concerns.[17] This lead to the extensive debate on Talk:East Oakland, Oakland, California that showed no signs of resolution. So I bring it here for the community to decide. Jeepday (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify. If you agreed that the article should be merged, there was no reason for you to nominate it for deletion. — CharlotteWebb 01:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 00:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs about nudity

List of songs about nudity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Highly indiscriminate. Even if this were properly focused, a list of songs about nudity would be little more than trivia. This list, however, according to its own lede, is a list of songs "concerning or referring to nudity, nude, nudism, nudist, naturism, naturist, nakedness, skinny dipping, streaking, streaker, nude beach, depictions of nudity, nudity in sport, female topfreedom (toplessness), bare skin, bare all, indecent exposure, flashing, flasher, etc." This is broad enough to include "Hot in Herre" (due to a single line), and even an instrumental jazz piece, because it is named "The Stripper". Serpent's Choice 04:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep and... er... strip only to songs that are directly about nudity (such as The Streak). One-line mentions shouldn't count. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per below comment by User:CharacterZero. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete definitely an unnecessary and trivia-ish list. Bulldog123 05:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak...strip - per the above. --Haemo 09:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I fail to see why a list of songs that are "directly" about nudity would be less trivial than a list of songs that are "directly" about telephones (see AfD List of songs about telephones). The same goes for List of songs about animals. I'd like to hear the counter-rationale, as I'm not set in stone on this. CharacterZero | Speak 17:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strip it outta here, delete it. Aside from WP:LIST, they forgot Get Nekkid by Rick Dees - and that annoys me. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, sorry, but it's completely useless. *Cremepuff222* 20:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete An example of one sort of list that should be deleted: very incomplete & unreliable, with no clear purpose.DGG 23:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete What utter nonsense! At the very very kindest interpretion this article is at the extreme end of listcruft but to be honest a list of songs (audio media) about nudity (a visual phenomenon (when represented in the media)) is totally pointless trivia. A1octopus 12:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just like the AfD (that is above) about profanity in songs. The Hooded One 01:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sr13 07:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs about animals

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

Regardless of what might be able to be said about an actual list of songs about animals, this list, by its own criteria in the lede, is a List of songs that mention an animal in their titles. Lists of songs by words in their title have generally been considered trivial and/or indiscriminate. Serpent's Choice 04:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep and trim to just songs that are actually about animals. A list of "songs with (insert word here) in the title" is usually indiscriminate, but I could see songs actually about animals as being at least vaguely encyclopedic. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I admire Ten Pound Hammer's optimism, but it's not worth the bother. Just delete per WP:NOT#INFO. YechielMan 16:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • That's why I went with a weak keep. I could see some entries being disputed (for instance, is "Feed Jake" by Pirates of the Mississippi truly about a dog, if that dog is only mentioned in passing in the chorus, and the verses have virtually nothing to do with the chorus?), but I still don't feel a need to change my vote. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete songs about... have inherent problems of lack of precision and, in part because of that, don't really have encyclopedic value. Carlossuarez46 18:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete What possible interest could this hold for the reader? Pure listcruft. Adrian M. H. 21:17, 21 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 --Steve (Stephen) talk 09:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Catholic American entertainers

List of Catholic American entertainers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Both Category:Roman Catholic entertainers and List of Canadian Roman Catholic entertainers were deleted as instances of overcategorization where a non-notable intersection exists. In this case, the relationship between an actor's or entertainer's religion and their acting/entertaining. Bulldog123 14:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom -- I agree, this is a non-notable intersection. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 05:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since we have topics such as List of Jewish actors and actresses which are found to be acceptable material, the precedence for linking the relationship between an actor's or entertainer's religion and their acting/entertaining is founded. We should either get rid of them all, or we must avoid prejudice and hypocrisy and keep this list also. --Interesdom 13:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • There is no proof supporting your statement that the Jewish article "is found to be acceptable material." We don't know yet. It was never discussed. You shouldn't use another wikipedia article as justification for keeping this one. First, we don't do mass nominations. If we did, somebody would definitely complain about it and likely put "Keep. Each list needs to be discussed for it's own unique characteristics." The Jewish list has a unique characteristic because Jewish is also an ethnic denomination, while Catholic isn't. Avoid WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments. If you delete precedents, others that are similar will follow. Hence why List of Canadian Roman Catholic entertainers was deleted, I nominated this. There is absolutely NO reason the Americans should be treated more favorably than the Canadians. Bulldog123 14:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
      • When it comes to ethnic/religious type categories, I think WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has to be tempered by WP:BIAS so that we do not single out one group for differential treatment. That said, I think that it may be time to get rid of all such categories and lists, categorization of people by WP's versions of race, ethnicity, and religion seems to be trivial and hence not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 18:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Indeed. Besides, wouldn't a more apt WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS comparison have been with List of Jewish American entertainers? I agree with the WP:BIAS concern raised by Carlossuarez46. I think it would be wise (if this article gets deleted) to go and ferret out all the similar articles and tag them as well. This is one case where an attempt an uniform precedent enforcement should be made. In fact, would this be an appropriate time to list them all for AfD, to ensure uniform results? CharacterZero | Speak 00:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I would not advise nominating List of Jewish American entertainers just yet. It is seen as an American-peoples list, and likely it will not be deleted unless all other lists of Americans are nominated. If we want to get rid of equivalent ridiculous lists more quickly and with less hassle, I've already nominated List of Libertarian musicians and its cousins. Somebody should look for other strange ethnicity divisions that will likely go down without much debate. Some really unusual Jewish lists seem to exist, for example List of Jewish Fellows of the British Academy, List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society, and List of Jewish recipients of the National Medal of Science. To give a perspective, there's no List of recipients of the Nationality Medal of Science or List of Fellows of the Royal Society. I also found these brief, completely unnecessary prebysterian lists: List of notable American Presbyterians, List of notable English Presbyterians, and List of notable Irish Presbyterians. Not sure what to make of those. Can someone make a list of potential nominees here? Bulldog123 04:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Nominated List of Hindu sportspeople too. Bulldog123 04:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom & per precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and nominate similar lists while you're at it. That should appease the WAXers. Adrian M. H. 21:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Jeeny Talk 03:08, 26 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. Trivial trivia. Sr13 01:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs about holidays

List of songs about holidays (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

According to its lede, "This is a list of songs that mention, but are not centered on holidays." A list of trivial mentions makes for a trivial list. Songs actually about Christmas are already listed at Christmas music; I am uncertain that other holidays have a significant enough impact on music to warrant this list even were its current content addressed. Serpent's Choice 05:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete per SuperDT. Sandstein 06:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy ninja productions

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Crazy ninja productions
Crazy_ninja_productions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable MonsterShouter 05:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd say Speedy Delete per G11: Blatant advertising and A7: Unremarkable people, groups, companies and websites. SuperDT 05:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS, at this time. The key reason for deleting these articles is essentially that they represent nothing more than a happenstance of intersection; hardly something an encyclopedia need worry itself over. The key reason for keeping is weaker: that this particular happenstance of intersection has some utility to a user of an encyclopedia (ie that it is encyclopedic). In my opinion, the basis in policy of the deletion case is firmer, but clearly there is no settled opinion on this particular article. I observe with academic interest the distinct shift in opinion since the previous AfD. -Splash - tk 22:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs whose title includes personal names

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title includes personal names Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title includes personal names (2nd nomination)
List of songs whose title includes personal names (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This list, and its subpages, survived a 2005 AFD under what appear to be less strenuous requirements than currently exist. Lacking any context or justification, I do not see how lists of song by words in title, especially envisioned this broadly, are anything other than indiscriminate or trivial collections of information.

Despite my general opposition to mass-listing, this nomination, by necessity, includes the 26 associated subpages:

List of songs with personal names: A (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of songs with personal names: B (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of songs with personal names: C (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of songs with personal names: D (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of songs with personal names: E (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of songs with personal names: F (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of songs with personal names: G (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of songs with personal names: H (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of songs with personal names: I (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of songs with personal names: J (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of songs with personal names: K (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of songs with personal names: L (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of songs with personal names: M (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of songs with personal names: N (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of songs with personal names: O (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of songs with personal names: P (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of songs with personal names: Q (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of songs with personal names: R (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of songs with personal names: S (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of songs with personal names: T (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of songs with personal names: U (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of songs with personal names: V (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of songs with personal names: W (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of songs with personal names: X (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of songs with personal names: Y (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of songs with personal names: Z (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Regards, Serpent's Choice 06:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete all. There's absolutely no point in classifying songs in this way; if absolutely necessary a category would do fine. Sandstein 06:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all. These lists serve no purpose. Risker 06:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Expansion of my comment: Lists in general, and these lists specifically, ignore the way that a typical reader will search Wikipedia. In this case, readers might look for "Songs about (Favourite Name Here)," but are extremely unlikely to look for "Songs about people whose names start with (Favourite Letter of the Alphabet Here). There might be something favourable to be said about keeping a list of songs using a particular name, but I cannot see any benefit to the reader or knowledge seeker in having a list of songs that start with a particular letter. I will also note that many of the songs listed contain a word in their title that is sometimes used as a person's name (e.g., Rose, Candy) but the song is not about a person at all. Risker 03:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I couldn't disagree more with the above. These lists provide an entertaining look at music across time, across genres, with the unifying theme of proper names in their titles. There are clearly definable criteria for inclusion. There's no ambiguity as to whether a song should be in or out - a criticism that some other lists have recently beaten back - and no reason has been given for their deletion other than that these editors see no reason to have them. But other editors presumably do - the dozens of editors who have contributed to these lists over a period of time. And the people who happen upon them and peruse them - maybe to find songs with their own name, or their child's name - bringing some pleasure to people. Also useful for writers' research. Do we suddenly have a space issue? One of the great joys about this online encyclopedia is its potential for having vast numbers of articles, lists, categories, essays that the millions of people who pass through our pages can enjoy. So why remove this? Tvoz |talk 07:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The lists serve no purpose unless someone actually wants to find out about songs about 'David' or 'Sara' in which case they serve that purpose admirably. The criteria for inclusion is clear, the songs are sourced and it's already been kept after an AfD discussion. Many of the objections to it on the first AfD asserted that the lists were 'unmaintainable', but as they've clearly been maintained and expanded since then this objection would seem null. Nick mallory 08:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete all - Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics. The songs on the list have nothing in common beyond a songwriter's happening to have used a name beginning with a particular letter of the alphabet. This does not tell us anything about the songs, the songwriters, the names, people with the names or music across time or genre. Otto4711 12:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • In that case, open your eyes: the are links to 98% of the artists, and 5% of the song has their own wiki. Besides people will always be looking for stuff related to their own- or beloved one's names, this is an important aspect to keep in mind. --Patrick1982 21:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
      • People look for a lot of things related to their names. They look at directories, at baby name lists, at discussions of name meanings and origins. But Wikipedia isn't any of those things. And this list isn't even about the names; it is about other people who have used names as an often-trivial mention in the titles of songs that are themselves often not notable. Put another way, how is this any different from a hypothetical (and nearly certain to be deleted) List of roads named after people, sorted by the embedded, bold-text names, with each entry linked to the city the road is in (since individual roads rarely have articles)? Serpent's Choice 03:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
      • You surely have some point there, but there is a great difference between a name in a song and a road; music has an greater overall impact (worldwide) than some sign in a local street of example. --193.67.80.4 11:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I was actually thinking that it would be a delete from me on the basis of the topic name, but I can certainly imagine many situations where users would turn to WP looking to find exactly this kind of information. It is also a perfect match of technology function as WP is the first encyclopeadia that can cope with changing this list as soon as a relevant new song is released. Agnetha1234 15:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment What item in that wiki link is relevant to this discussion please? I'm really not seeing it. Tvoz |talk 19:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. The best I could think of would be "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readibility and neatness of our articles". Ten Pound Hammer • ((([Special:Contributions/TenPoundHammer|Broken clamshells]] • Otter chirps))) 21:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, but it isn't that at all - I think that wiki link is not a appropriate one to cite in this. I don't see how this list violates any principle set out there, nor is it indiscriminate. So why bring it into this conversation? Tvoz |talk 22:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all per above. Arbustoo 17:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep no trivial value for names? you gotta be kidding... --Patrick1982 21:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A very well prepared list. But OK to nom in mass, because in this case they all stand or fall together.DGG 23:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I strongly agree to delete. It's nothing but a meaninless list of names. Someone mentioned that some songs have proper articles about them, in that case they would come up in a search anyway. I just find it as pointless as an article about "Names beginning with the letter x in the phonebook"....... Sweboi 14:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment Well, that assumes that one knows the name of the song to begin with. And many of the songs' artists have wiki articles but not the songs themselves, obviously, so searching does no good. For example there are over 80 songs listed with the name "Mary" but only 6 or 7 come up on the Mary dab page, and a wiki search on "Mary" yields over 100,000 hits so that's not a practical way to find this information. The list is of course not claiming to be complete, but it is an ongoing project like all good wikipedia entries, and is a compilation in one place that is a useful resource for anyone interested in seeing an array of songs for a particular name. It actually is nothing like a list of names beginning with x in the phonebook - nor is it like a list of songs that contain the word "the" in them. This is neither meaningless nor indiscriminate, and no one has explained why it so offends their sensibilities to have it here. It represents a great deal of work by a lot of editors who do find it valuable- so who is to say that their efforts are meaningless? Tvoz |talk 14:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete just an aggregation of things by name, not much different than List of songs whose title begins and ends with a vowel in aggregating unlikes together. Carlossuarez46 18:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment You really see no difference? Your hypothetical example is a totally meaningless random accident of spelling - this list's entries are thematically connected and not at all random. Tvoz |talk 18:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but the contents of the list are not thematically related. A title is not a theme. The songs with the same name in the title as each other aren't thematically related. Some of them aren't even about people of that name, for instance, a number of the songs listed with the name "Angel" are about actual angels, not people named Angel. Otto4711 14:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If that's the case, those errant entries should be removed, absolutely. But that's not a reason to delete the entire list. I'm sure it could use some editing - like everything. The items in the list are thematically linked in that they are not "all songs that start with A" or something like that - the theme that links them are the names in the titles - linking "Take a Letter Maria" with "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria" is the food of popular culture research - a well-established academic field in fact - and this list and other simlar ones on Wikipedia elevate us from a bunch of kids having fun, as some see us (would that I were still a kid) to a proper research tool. No one has given any good reason for deletion - these songs have a relationship to one another that scholars of popular culture find worthy of writing articles and books about. Britannica doesn't touch it - we do. Tvoz |talk 19:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no thematic relationship between "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria," a song from a Broadway musical based on a true story sung by a group of nuns in a convent dealing with an unruly novice, and "Take a Letter, Maria," a pop song sung by a man telling his secretary to take his dictation of a letter to the wife who is divorcing him. The claim that these two songs, written decades apart, sharing nothing of theme, genre or style beyond the presence of the word "Maria" in the title, is ludicrous. If the song were "Take a Letter, Conchita" or "Take a Letter, Evita" or (changing just one letter) "Take a Letter, Marina," what do the songs then have in common? And assuming for a second that the two songs do have something in common thematically because they have the same name in the title, the list is not "List of songs with the name Maria in the title." There is no thematic relationship between "Take a Letter, Maria" for the list of M names and for instance "Maynard's Tool" or "Hello Mabel" or "The Day I Met Marie" or "Live from Matt Malloy's Pub" or any of the other dozens or hundreds of M songs from the list. Otto4711 23:59, 25 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 to an appropriate article. Foreign relations of Liechtenstein seems popular and already to cover the topic, so I'm just going to redirect there. As an aside, it is not helpful for someone to say "yeah, redirect to some article on Wikipedia". -Splash - tk 22:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 Swiss incursion into Liechtenstein

2007 Swiss incursion into Liechtenstein (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This refers to an incident that received substantial coverage abroad because various media picked up on an "odd news"-style agency report during a slow news day. It received no coverage in Switzerland and Liechtenstein that I am aware of, though. That's because the Swiss Army is a militia comparable to the U.S. National Guard, its part-time soldiers have no handheld GPS, and consequently they stumble over some border very frequently (although admittedly usually not in company strength), and nobody cares about it or writes it up. Essentially, this merits a brief mention in Military of Switzerland (which urgently needs a rewrite, I notice), but not an article: we are an encyclopedia, not Wikinews. Contested PROD. Sandstein 06:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, I can't think of any reason this article should be kept other than that it's funny. There was an accidental incursion of Spain by some Royal Marines near Gibraltar a few years ago that was actually a minor diplomatic incident. I'd consider that the bare minimum for a real article. (We have none on that one.) --Dhartung | Talk 07:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge in full and Redirect to whatever seems appropriate, I'm not going to suggest a target. I believe this meets the notability requirements considering its coverage in the media (it doesn't matter if Switzerland and Liechtenstein news agencies didn't give a damn, WP:N doesn't specify where the sources have to come from so long as they're independent, reliable, non-trivial...). However, short of Switzerland invading a few more times, there is no hope of this article gaining any new, significant information. I would support keep as well though, stubs are certainly allowed to stay as stubs. Someguy1221 07:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename; using "incursion" in the title is probably too POV, but there actually is a reliable source (BBC), as silly as this whole non-incident was. *** Crotalus *** 08:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Foreign relations of Liechtenstein where the incident is already covered in as much detail as this deserves. Davewild 08:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no use as a redirect, and certainly no use as an article. This is as notable as a Mexican migrant illegally crossing the border into the US. --NMChico24 09:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect to Foreign relations of Liechtenstein or similar. There are sources available for this but it doesn't quite merit an article. Hut 8.5 14:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - just not enough substance to keep an article on. Agnetha1234 15:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I think I read about this in a New York Times op-ed. It fails the "ten-year test" for significance. YechielMan 16:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I feel I must comment on the recent votes for deletion of this article. NMChico24, does every Mexican migrant who crosses the border wind up on every major news station and newspaper in the United States? Hut 8.5, why doesn't it merit an article? It's a widely published incident, please give a reason. Agnetha1234, "substance" is irrelevant. This is why we have stubs, an article should not be deleted for being short, so long as what's contained within is proven to be notable and is sourced. YechielMan, how does this "ten-year test" pertain to Wikipedia guidelines? I never read it in a policy before. Further, an incident passing notability guidelines at one point in time passes notability guidelines always (ignoring changes in the guidelines themselves). Just because people stop talking about something doesn't mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. And yes, this incident was only widely publicied for its amusement value, but WP:N doesn't care why something is notable, only that it is. No one here has yet to contest that this incident received substantial coverage in English language media, so barring that, someone please explain to me per Wikipedia policy/guidelines why this should be deleted. I appologize if that seemed a bit rash, I'm just befuddled here. [User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] 22:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, imagine a certain celebrity steps out of her car with no underwear on, is photographed doing so, and this is noted in "Odd Enough" columns around the world. Should we write an article on the Paris Hilton Indecent Exposure Incident (22 May 2007)? No. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper; we don't write an article on every singular incident that newspapers cover. We write articles on notable subjects. The military of Switzerland and the foreign relations of Liechtenstein are such subjects, where this incident may be covered, but the incident in and of itself is not. Sandstein 05:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. And that certainly sounds notable enough for a piece of an existing article. And this is why I don't oppose merging the content in full, but what I'm actually left wondering over is all the delete delete delete votes. Someguy1221 06:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Probably because one of seven paragraphs in foreign relations of Liechtenstein is already devoted to coverage of the incident. There's not much more to merge; any more would give this incident undue weight in the context of the article's subject. Sandstein 06:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Military of Switzerland under an "Incidents" section, since it would be more appropriate there and since it is poorly referenced. --CrnaGora 00:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Foreign relations of Liechtenstein. --PaxEquilibrium 20:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge an invasion of a country, even accidently, is noteworthy enough. after all this event is comparable in scale to the accidental nazi invasion of Poland ( some nazi troops crossed the border too early and had to retreat quickly ).
  • Keep or merge. I'm okay with merging, but I don't see what the appropriate target article would be. Is this a Switzerland article or Liechtenstein article? It could be mentioned in both, I suppose, but I generally don't care for content to be repeated over multiple articles (creating a potential for contradictions). Cmprince 21:35, 24 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 under criterion WP:CSD#A7. Trying to remember why this was on my watchlist, and why I didn't nominate it for deletion before. – Riana ⁂ 11:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just Press Play

Just Press Play (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No notability. As the article states, 'Just Press Play' is just a school band with no significance outside St. Joseph's College, Gregory Terrace. I can't believe that this article has survived for two and a half months already. Rob Lindsey 06:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sr13 00:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The i20 countdown

The i20 countdown (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable radio show on a non notable community radio station. A PROD was contested by an anon editor with no reason supplied. Mattinbgn/ talk 07:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 07:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't even *try* to claim notability. Orderinchaos 07:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Per nom and Orderinchaos. Nothing more really needs to be said. Thewinchester (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy, no sources. John Vandenberg 12:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above -- Amazins490 (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The station appears not to have an article on it and may not be notable enough for an article. A shortlived program on it definitely doesn't qualify. Only source is a myspace page of one of the DJs. Capitalistroadster 02:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per comments made by John Vandenberg. Assize 10:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Grahamec 13:40, 24 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. Moreschi Talk 11:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Viona Ielegems

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

A photographer of pale-faced girls in forests. In contrast to modern photography Ielegems deviates from strict realism in art, the article tells us: this may come as a considerable surprise to many modern fashion photographers, let alone photographers in other genres. No claim is made for book publication. However, claims are made for exhibitions. Despite numerous polite appeals on the article's talk page, virtually all the evidence for these exhibitions come via Ielegems's own website. I shall Assume Good Something-or-other and shall take all of these as truthful. One was held at Antwerp and is shown here; it seems to have lasted from February till March of some illegible year. Another, in Luxembourg, lasted a single evening (shown here). A third, in Beijing, also lasted a single evening (here) and seems to have been as much a party as an exhibition. The sole independent source (here) is for the Luxembourg exhibition and puts our photographer within "a continuously changing group exhibition that runs for nine weeks during the Summer season. A great number of domestic and international artists from all disciplines will be presenting their work". There are two other apparently independent sources cited: this interview on what appears to be the private site of one Simona Vinati, and some article in Dark-Spy-Magazine, which I suppose refers to "Europas größtes Schwarz-Bizarres Musikmagazin!!" (not a magazine of photography). So, there's been just one exhibition of any possible note (though no claim is made that it attracted any critical attention that got into print), an article in an obscure magazine, and a privately-published interview. This is very thin stuff indeed, for an article to which there are links from Goth subculture, Neo-romanticism, and Neo-Victorian. Some claims (the contrast to modern photography) aren't credible, some (the exhibitions) aren't verifiable and perhaps aren't notable, the remainder isn't even slightly noteworthy. -- Hoary 07:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, no reliable sources reviewing work and explaining importance. Nothing in Google News Archive. Fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 07:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with the above. Not notable as a photographer, requests to provide sources have gone unanswered. Peter1968 08:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - source do not support notability. --Haemo 09:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: An IP has just now removed all the references to exhibitions (with no explanation). -- Hoary 01:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Reason for removing: Generally non accepted content and references need to deletion Armilos
  • NonDelete for higher importance and publicity of artist in world-wide goth scene (style icon) Armilos
  • NonDelete Google News of North America is not the foremost arbiter of relevance. Digging a little deeper, I get the impression that she is known in Europe, and even has a certain following among artists and photographers in the US. Krychek 21:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Question: where did you dig, and just what did you find there that gave you this impression? -- Hoary 22:33, 23 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 per means of withdrawn nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Africa

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

This is, to quote verbatim from WP policy, a "biography of a living person that is controversial in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral point of view version in the history to revert to". "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous". Groupthink 07:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Redirect to MOVE. JA's notability is entirely within this organisation. Further, he is not a living person; both articles clearly state that he died in 1985. BTLizard 07:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
My bad, I missed that he's nlp; but it's still controversial and potentially libelous material. Groupthink 07:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Under U.S. law, the estates of dead people cannot sue for libel. Only living people can do that. *** Crotalus *** 08:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
You missed the point. The Philadelphia Police Department can sue for libel. Groupthink 08:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Or perhaps Philadelphia can be sued. --Dhartung | Talk 08:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Which only goes to prove my point. It is not my obligation to research every unsourced claim made in an article. If one is going to claim that Philly PD killed 20 people, one needs to back that claim up with citations like the ones above. Such citations were not provided, ergo the material was controversial and potentially libelous. Of course I didn't know much about the case. If everyone knew everything about everything, there wouldn't be a need for Wikipedia. The onus to provide evidence, however, is on the page creator, not me. Groupthink 08:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, the founder of MOVE is certainly notable and the article does cite a reference, although not inline. WP:BLP, which you are quoting, is about editing the content of articles. It is not by itself a reason for deletion. It also pertains to living people, and Leaphart/Africa was killed in the bombing. Certainly such an article should have as many sources as possible, but that Africa was the founder of MOVE and the negative information in the article pertains to the Philadelphia Police, I see no reason to remove it. I see no evidence of discussion on the article's talk page regarding the {{totally disputed}} tag, such as what is considered factually incorrect. --Dhartung | Talk 07:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Per your request. Groupthink 07:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Please clarify: are you arguing that controversial material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, especially if potentially libelous, is by itself not grounds for deletion if the biographee in question happens to be deceased?!? And are you also arguing that since the Philly PD aren't the subject of the page, it's OK that they're potentially libeled? Groupthink 08:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Controversial material that is unsourced or poorly sourced should generally be removed from any article where it is found, but especially from biographies of living persons. Its existence, however, is not a ground for deletion. There is no reason that we can't have a balanced stub on any notable individual. Please familiarize yourself with the deletion policy, particularly alternatives to deletion for problematic articles. The article as I see it now is trivially verifiable, although some of the wording might be improved.--Dhartung | Talk 08:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I am quite familiar with deletion alternatives, but thank you for the suggestion. Your implication that I did not consider how this could be edited/fixed is wrong. Here is how the article would read if all of the unsourced and off-base material were removed:

John Africa (born Vincent Leaphart) was the founder of MOVE.
References
* Craig R. McCoy, "Who was John Africa?", Philadelphia Inquirer Magazine Jan 12, 1986

If the consensus is to keep that stub rather than delete, then fine, I'll make that edit right now. Groupthink 08:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I would hope in good faith that you would act to improve the article instead of trying to make a point. --Dhartung | Talk 08:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what point you think I'm trying to make here, other than the point that this article cannot be improved because it does not meet inclusion standards. Groupthink 09:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
510 Google News Archive results for "john.africa move philadelphia". That's quite a few for someone who you seem certain "does not meet inclusion standards". --Dhartung | Talk 10:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Boy, talk about disingenuous. I said the article, not the person, doesn't merit inclusion. I've been proven wrong (although please do remember that it's the quality, not the quantity of Google hits that count). Groupthink 10:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup; the founder and leader of MOVE is clearly notable. *** Crotalus *** 08:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The article fails to establish notability. In it's current form, it does not meet WP standards. Groupthink 08:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The article has now been rewritten to a point where it merits inclusion. I withdraw my AfD nomination, but since the article is now primarily about MOVE, I am going to request that it be merged with MOVE. Groupthink 10:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep The founder of MOVE should have their own page, with information about their life. DDB 10:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I've withdrawn my nom. Please argue against my proposed merger on Talk:John_Africa. Thanks. Groupthink 11:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep by means of withdrawn nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ramona Africa

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

This is, to quote verbatim from WP policy, a "biography of a living person that is controversial in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral point of view version in the history to revert to". "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous". Groupthink 07:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Redirect to MOVE, from which she derives her notability. BTLizard 07:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. As with John Africa, the nominator is citing the WP:BLP as a justification for deletion. Africa remains a current activist, most particularly in the Free Mumia case. 1100 Google News Archive results suggest that she is notable and that a balanced and sourced article could easily be created. --Dhartung | Talk 10:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Unlike with John Africa, WP:BLP directly applies. This person is living, and this article is low-quality... but you know what? In a gesture of good-will, I withdraw my AfD nom in the hopes that this material can be merged to MOVE, where it belongs. Groupthink 10:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bread and guns

Bread and guns (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Vanity article, something someboday made up at school one day 2005 07:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sr13 01:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC)

2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

First, the date wrote as in article is not true, AFC not officially released the schedule as what wrote in 2010_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification #Asia (AFC). Second, with the schedule not yet released, also the format is undecided, this consider crystal ball which Wikipedia not permitted. Aleenf1 08:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment The draw for the initial groups actually takes place later this year, but it's so poorly written I can't see a problem deleting now and starting from scratch. EliminatorJR Talk 19:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No use for this at present. Dave101→talk  08:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep This event is going to happen for definite between 2008 and 2009, although the details are not yet known. Some other articles for 2010 World Cup qualification in other zones already exist to boot. The article needs to be improved (e.g. adding in the referenced content in 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification#Asia (AFC) would be a good start) but I don't see the point in deleting if this article requires recreation in only a couple of months time. Qwghlm 09:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Deleteas above. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD A1 --Angelo 23:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (OFC) also needs to be condered. TerriersFan 23:02, 24 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. I'm not going to assume bad faith, but consensus and policy are clear. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 16:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimania

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

Not notable conference, The only hits its gets on Google news are blogs and it has not secondary sources. DXRAW 08:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment This should be fun. Nick mallory 08:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep The external links section of the article shows more than enough material to merit the article including from the BBC and the New York Times. Davewild 08:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The event is mentioned by several impeccable non trivial sources (Guardian, Boston Phoenix, BBC, New York Times etc) and so is clearly notable. (The nominator left a comment on my talk page asking for a constructive comment on this AfD so I will oblige him.) Nick mallory 08:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. The New York Times and the BBC among others cited are certainly non-trivial sources. Will (aka Wimt) 09:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - whenever I see "The Guardian", "BBC", "Reason", and "The New York Times" all writing articles about a subject, it's usually a good tip-off that it's notable. --Haemo 09:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per all. Notability established by external coverage. Maxamegalon2000 10:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:POINT may apply here... Charlie 11:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, article cites plenty of reliable sources Hut 8.5 13:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Plenty of reliable sources, and I'm sure that more can be added. It is also notable. Cool Bluetalk to me 14:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep as this is either a bad faith nomination or a highly mistaken one. [28] gets me Deutsche Welle, Spiegel, NPR, Business Week and Fox News all in the first five. And that's not even counting related stories which brings in the Times, USA Today and Wired. FrozenPurpleCube 15:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as bad faith nom. Subject clearly asserts notability through many reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Clear precedent in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs over fifteen minutes in length (second nomination). Krimpet (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs over ten minutes in length

List of songs over ten minutes in length (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unmaintainable list, fails WP:NOT. The list of songs over 15 minutes in length was deleted in November 2006 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs over fifteen minutes in length (second nomination)), but this is even worse. Prolog 09:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. This list is overly arbitrary and impossible to maintain. There are an impossibly large number of songs over 10 minutes so this could never be anything approaching complete. Furthermore, in its current state, it has no references at all and so is entirely original research. Will (aka Wimt) 09:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per precedent. As said, even worse than the other one. Punkmorten 11:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete next we will have "Songs over 1 minute long". Get rid of this article Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 11:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Actually, it's a list of RECORDINGS over 10 minutes. Agree with above comments that is arbitrary and unmaintainable. And what happens if I take a 9m 30s song and sing it slowly? Does it then qualify? Emeraude 13:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As being a non-encyclopaedic article topic. If this is an article than we may as well have categories of every song / recording duration. Also agree with Emeraude and would add that in classical music there would be many movements of many recordings that could qualify for inclusion in such an article as to create a nonsense listing article. Agnetha1234 15:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There are too many 10+ minute songs out there that will make this article into a sprawling list at best. Hydrogen Iodide 16:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was TRANSWIKI to Wiktionary. Herostratus 02:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of two-letter English words

List of two-letter English words was nominated for deletion on 2006-12-14. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of two-letter English words.


List of two-letter English words (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate listcruft. For some reason this survived while list of one-letter English words and list of three-letter English words were deleted. There is no assertion of why two-letter words are notable among other words and the list is as indiscriminiate as List of x-letter names or List of x-letter countries. Though I am aware of the "other crap was deleted" fallacy I fail to see the point of this. If this is useful to scrabble players then those interested in that should remember that Wikipedia is not a game guide. Also, as noted by the closer of the last AfD useful is not an argument tied to policy in anyway. Not keeping indiscriminate information with no assertion of notability is policy. MartinDK 09:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Tagged. MER-C 10:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per MER-C; anyway, remove from the 'pedia. YechielMan 16:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary per User:MER-C. A bit too trivial for Wikipedia, but pretty convenient for Scrabble players like myself. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per nom. (we had earlier deleted three-letter and one-letter lists; just follow the prior AfD which was somewhat contemporaneous with those deletions...Carlossuarez46 18:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn --NMChico24 23:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Henkel

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

Sketchy notability. As usual, prod removed by page author without edit summary. NMChico24 09:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Smith finished fifth at the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games in his event [29] and as an Olympian he's notable. This isn't 'sketchy' at all. There's a verifiable source given in the article for this. Nick mallory 10:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, no reason to delete, except large parts of the last paragraph is a copyvio from the given source. Punkmorten 11:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It's re-edited now. Nick mallory 11:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 00:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imperial Jets

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

The company [30] website states "Imperial Jets does not own, manage or operate aircraft. As an air charter broker, Imperial Jets acts as an agent for our clients seeking charter air transportation and assists them in finding the best operators for aircraft." As an air broker, it is not a notable entity Russavia 09:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and WP:CORP. YechielMan 16:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I would almost say this one meets CDS A7. Ninja! 17:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- fails WP:CORP Thunderwing 17:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Elrith 23:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nom per cleanup. --NMChico24 23:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smithy (The Bill)

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

Pretty much speaks for itself. This is a non-notable mess that has no hope of being cleaned up. NMChico24 09:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • WITHDRAW New version is just fine. --NMChico24 23:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. As well as this we have Smithy(the bill), which is a redirect to a redlink, and also by the look of things articles on all regular characters in the show. The Bill is a notable show - indeed I'm rather fond of it - but this is definitely over the top. We're not operating a TV guide or a fansite. BTLizard 10:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I have cleaned it up and sorted out the redirects. It looks like the mess was created by someone trying to move from Dale Smith (The Bill). He is a major character in a long running show and now that it is cleaned up deserves keeping. Davewild 10:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep been cleaned up. Deserves to be kept as wikipedia has other articles on the bill characters. Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 11:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support speedy keep The article looks nothing like what was nominated, and all major problems have been resolved. YechielMan 16:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep- per above- notable as a major character in a popular international TV show Thunderwing 17:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep even though I've never seen the show in question. The article as it exists now lacks sources, but other than that I see absolutely no reason to delete -- especially given the fact that a major cleanup has since been made since the nom. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MaxSem 08:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Visevic

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

Football player not yet with professional contract. PROD contested by the creating editor for the following reason detailed in the edit summary "This article should not be deleted as Daniel Visevic has an involvement with Melbourne Victory Football Club, and is notable because of this." While the article makes an unreferenced claim that the subject is training with Melbourne Victory, he has yet to sign with them regardless of rumours. Mattinbgn/ talk 10:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 10:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment; he was a Young Socceroo [31] John Vandenberg 12:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment makingv the national Under-20 team (as opposed to the adult team) does not meet notability requirements ChrisTheDude 08:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Checked various sites and it seems largely speculative. By all indications he probably will be notable in a few years though, however WP:CRYSTAL Orderinchaos 17:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    Playing for Australia national under-20 football team isnt notable enough? If the problem is the CRYSTAL problems, I'll turn it into a stub. John Vandenberg 10:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    Junior representative sport does not make one notable by itself. See WP:BIO for athletes for details on what makes an athlete notable. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 10:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete until such time as he makes it to the first team squad of a professional team. On a side note, the VPL is a really unfortunate name for a league ;-) ChrisTheDude 08:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree not notable. No secondary sources, therefore not notable. One mention in a newspaper article doesn't make the subject notable.Assize 10:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete For the record a really good player! I've been lucky enough to see him in action. However, until he gets up there, it would be difficult or impossible to write an encyclopaedic article about him. So I would say delete, without prejudice against future recreation as I think he will get there sooner rather than later. Zivko85 12:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not Delete He is a notable player, as he was in a reputable secondary source, here on the 8th page, [32]. Therefore he is reputable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bickers89 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment The source provided above by Bickers89 does state that the subject played in a competitive match with Melbourne Victory; 20 minutes in one game in a World Club Championship qualifier as a 16 year old in 2005 and at the time was on a four week professional contract. While this does not change my opinion it may be relevant for others. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 04:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - as the player has not yet played in a professional league, per WP:BIO. The World Club Championship is a cup competition, not a professional league. robwingfield «T•C» 14:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable yet. Come back when he's signed with a fully professional team. Lankiveil 23:41, 25 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 09:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No More Legions in Our Region

No More Legions in Our Region (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Appears to be either a crystal-balling or a hoax. No sources have been cited, and there is nothing on the BBC website about this. It also seems to be unverifiable too, per the lack of sources. SunStar Net talk 10:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Zero ghits, so perhaps this is one bit of ghastly reality TV that won't be made. Although if a BBC2 or Channel 4 commisioning producer catches sight of this it probably will be. BTLizard 11:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. If not a hoax then definitately crystalballery. A1octopus 11:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no BBC, AMG, or IMDB listing, zippo relevant ghits. SkierRMH 07:02, 21 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 09:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Total Gamer

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

An unreferenced article on a non-notable magazine. A contested PROD, no reason given. Mattinbgn/ talk 10:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Doc glasgow. Non-admin closure of orphaned AfD Hut 8.5 13:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irving mushman mayerson

Irving mushman mayerson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about an individual dog - and not notable enough to be in Wikipedia, in my opinion. greenrd 11:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Won a local dog show, now retired (!). It's hardly Crufts, is it? BTLizard 11:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, (Woof Woof) per {{db-bio}} (Woof) Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 11:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment technically though, articles about animals are not biographies, because a biography is defined as "an account of a person's life". That's the only reason I didn't mark it for speedy deletion.—greenrd 12:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. As correctly observed by Biggspowd, the notion that we should keep something because it was rejected from a 'main' article is indeed bunk. I would suggest that if a cleaned-up article were still unacceptable, that a better case for deletion would then be made. -Splash - tk 22:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pac-Man in popular culture

Pac-Man in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Yet another trivia article that is almost all mentions and spoofs of Pac-Man. Any relevant information (from this article) should be inserted in the Pac-Man article. This isn't encyclopedic content, it's just a cluttered trivia list with very little notable things. Yes Pac-Man has been spoofed and mentioned alot: but so what? Just about everything popular (and in some cases: not popular) is in pop culture. That doesn't mean we need an article here about it. One example from the article: In an episode of the TV comedy series Friends the character Chandler Bing is given a Ms. Pac-Man machine, and is seen playing it several times. That might be interesting to some, but overall: it's just not that notable. RobJ1981 11:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. The Pac-Man article is 47 KB long, so this material certainly needed to be spun off. Which is not to say that this article/list couldn't use some work... -- Visviva 12:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not merge - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics and trivia sections are to be avoided. This is an indiscriminate collection of unsourced trivia, gathering together anything that mentions Pac-Man or things that remind editors of Pac-Man, with no regard to the importance or triviality of the reference to Pac-Man, the thing from which the reference is drawn or the real world. Maintaining this article to keep clutter out of the main article is not a valid reason for keeping. The solution to too much trivial crap in an article is to delete it from the article, not to spin it off into its own free-standing trivia article. Otto4711 13:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Nominator recommends a large clean-up. So go ahead and clean up. Surely a request for a large clean-up does not need to come to a deletion forum and quality concerns should be first raised on the article's (currently unused) discussion page. Obviously Pac-Man has had notable appearances in popular culture. If, after clean-up, the list is too short to merit a stand-alone article, then discuss the merger on the main Pac-Man page. This is housekeeping not a deletion discussion. Canuckle 19:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't recommend a large cleanup, I recommend: notable information be merged back into the Pac-Man article. The rest is just trivia and cruft, not encyclopedic at all. RobJ1981 22:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Pac man is very promonint in Pop Culture. This article does need clean up however. DBZROCKS 22:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep highly notable subject; if you need to trim the article, go ahead and trim it. AFD is not the place to bring up minor cleanup issues. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • This isn't a minor cleanup issue. As he has stated, there is no need for the article in the first place. TTN 23:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Pac-Man is indeed a notable subject. That does not mean that every single appearance of Pac-Man or the name "Pac-Man" or somthing that kinda reminds somebody of something that looks like Pac-Man is equally notable. Otto4711 18:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The point of popular culture sections should be to describe the article's role in popular culture, not list every minor detail. There is especially no need for a break off article when the section should need three paragraphs at most. TTN 23:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Any particular reason for that limit? -- Visviva 09:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Given proper care and feeding, I don't see any reason this couldn't become a featured list in due course. -- Visviva 04:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete There is a building precedent that "in pop culture" articles are not suitable here, and the whole defense of "the main article is too long" is bunk, info like this should not be around in the first place. We are here to write articles, not a list of every time something was mentioned. Biggspowd 21:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Unless we're going to get rid of all pop-culture content, which would be nice, I don't see why we can't have topical lists of pop-culture content. What exactly about this material leads to such strong feelings? -- Visviva 09:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. The list needs to be shortened (remove one-off mentions of Pacman in other media), but the list itself should stay. AgentPeppermint 16:14, 26 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 deleted by User:^demon per CSD A7. YechielMan 05:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Purple Man

I originally put this up for Speedy but the tags were removed by someone other than the original author. A NN street artist fails WP:BIO Fredrick day 11:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I think this article should be kept or at least merged with another article about street performers Plus, the links that the user provided show that the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.139.211.181 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 20 may 2007.

what links? the article contains a single link to his own site - which consists of a single page with his email address and contact details. As a street performer, he is entirely Non-notable. --Fredrick day 11:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No. I meant the links on the talk page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.139.211.181 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 20 may 2007.

the first is an article about football which is discussing how people are getting ready for a match and he is mentioned in passing (because he plans to watch it from a bed of nails) - he is not the subject of the article so that fails WP:RS, the second is about his border troubles and again is not about his career as a street performer. He is not notable as a street performer and therefore fails WP:BIO. --Fredrick day 11:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If he was not notable neither of these links would have been avaliable. Anywho, I have a couple of friends who visited England and said they saw him in York. They were therefore interested in reading the article. Case Closed.

The debate is cleary over. You can let it go now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.211.181 (talk • contribs)

em no it runs for five days or may be be closed earlier if the consenus of multiple editors is clearly showing it should be saved or deleted before that time is up.--Fredrick day 12:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Purple Man. This gentleman is not notable. Otto4711 13:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No sources to show notability. Nick mallory 13:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only ghits are this article or his own website which, bizarrely, gives his contact address as c/o a branch of Snappy Snaps. BTLizard 13:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A7 (bio). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETED. -Docg 12:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shilpa Shetty rant incident

Shilpa Shetty rant incident (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is unverifiable, and appears to be a breach of WP:BLP. No sources have been cited for this "incident". There are no ghits for this 'incident' either. SunStar Net talk 11:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete A7, also possible attack page. MartinDK 11:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No context, no notability, no sources. CSD A7 doesn't mention unremarkable events, but it should. SunStar just beat me to listing this here. Deor 11:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as per {{db-attack}} Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 11:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, forgettable incident not worthy of WP article. WWGB 11:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence that it happened. 82.35.8.10 12:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that was me. Thought I was logged in but I wasn't. BTLizard 13:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 13:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jean Guyon

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

Doesn't establish real notability per WP:BIO. Neither being a mason nor being the ancestor of people would quite qualify. Crystallina 12:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and WP:HOLE. YechielMan 16:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh come on! This is a Speedy Keep. WP:HOLE gives the example that there is a difference between a non-notable person and a person whose notability is not adequately demonstrated. He's a 16th century colonist in Quebec so appreciate that he's a tad pre-Internet and all the best sources will be in French. We can expect such a mason to perhaps be notable because he's a colonist. A mason on the Mayflower would likely be more notable than a mason in Europe, non? The first page of hits on Google shows us that Quebec City has a park named after him and the bio describes him as a "master mason of excellent reputation" who worked on notable church (see here You can also blame him for descendants Madonna, Celine Dion and Canada's current Leader of the Opposition Stephane Dion source. Amazing what 60 seconds on Google can do... Plus don't people ever raise these issues on Discussion pages for articles? Canuckle 20:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Canuckle. I found a fairly detailed story of this guy here. However, someone who cares about this article needs to beef it up to make his notability more obvious. CharacterZero | Speak 22:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as it stands. The above arguments don't convince me - nor does Canuckle being patronising. This is NOT a Speedy Keep, esp in the light of recent tightening up on genealogical articles. Genealogical websites don't cut much ice, and at the end of the day despite all the surrounding detail the man still seems to be as per nom: a French mason who had a lot of descendants in Canada. The only reason I can see for keeping the article is if there are special standards of notability for people involved in the early days of new colonies, and physically being there and reproducing a lot really is enough. Anyone who wants to save this needs to put in a lot of work quickly. HeartofaDog 23:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • My apologies for sounding patronizing. I don't think the genealogy adds much to his notability. That was an attempt at humor. There don't need to be special standards for pioneering colonists. Reliable sources do that for us. The first page of Ghits shows an official City of Quebec site that explains why they think he is notable enough to have a street and a park named after him as recently as 2006. Canuckle 20:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion' The link stated is "Family history site by Judith Perrault Delmar"; (A really well done project, by the way). I added it as an external link, but it is of no real authority. I added a link (found there) to a published genealogy in 30 v. and growing, "Our French-Canadian ancestors", but I have not checked it. It's a published source, and would undoubtedly prove a usable one & if it gave refs. to the original data it would be an RS, and the sources there would be further RSs--and would support any article on every last person included. So I suggest thinking about it as "RSs that show notability", which these do not, unless we accept early European settlers as N per se--and then we need to define "early". DGG 00:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable at all. --Whstchy 00:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. He has a park in Quebec City named after him. That's notable enough for me. Just because you haven't heard of him and the article needs work, is not reason to delete. --Crunch 01:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • NEW CONTENT ADDED. I've added link and content from the City of Quebec bio that explains why they named a park and a street after him (as recently as 2006) Canuckle 20:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Still no demonstration of notability (Sorry, Canuckle, if I misread your tone!) This is presumably the City of Quebec link and it adds nothing to the question of notability: it just repeats what we already know and is being challenged as adequate - JG emigrated from France, got a land grant, worked as a mason and had descendants - end of.
The street was named after the park, not after JG, and I disagree in any case that having a park named after you (in Quebec or anywhere else) is automatically enough to demonstrate noteworthiness - often it simply refers to early land owners, which is what seems to be the case here. We're back to the question whether being an early colonist and havgin lots of descendants is in itself notable. If it's not, then I still don't agree that there's a case for keeping this article, because no-one has been able to demonstrate that JG did anything else. HeartofaDog 23:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that naming of a street or park in a provincial capital, one of the oldest cities in Canada, does not automatically demonstrate noteworthiness. But it does suggest that officials in that part of the world may think the subject noteworthy. French-Canadian wikipedians must consider him noteworthy as he's on their to-do list for biographies: [33] After the new seigneur, Guyon leads the lists of settlers who arrived in 1634, just three years after the British returned Quebec to the French in a treaty. That voyage increased the fragile population of Quebec from 100 people to 134, which is why the size of his family is so valuable and notable. Sure he's "just" a mason, but the other key settlers are carpenters (such as Marin Boucher and tile makers, the type of people you need to "build" a colony, particularly into virgin territory which is where his land was. He could read and write, too, which sounds mundane but which meant he could serve as a notary, an important role in a new colony. To provide more sources for the article, I've now added links to the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the Canadian Embassy in France and the population study by the Universite de Montreal. (And Inside Entertainment too (eww!) as "close friends" of Madonna say she's thrilled to be related to Camilla Parker-Bowles). Canuckle 07:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep but with a note to improve the article. I will not repeat the arguments above, but it is apperent that the subject was one of the founders of the colony, a vital member of the community, and has been comemorated with the naming of Public places in one of the oldest cities in North america. If that is insuficent to include him, then I fear that their are not too many historical figures who would qualify. I do agree that the writing needs some work. cmacd 18:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: It's quickly grown from just 3 sentences. And yes I agree it needs work. If it survives deletion, can we tag it with an expert needed? I'm certainly not one. Canuckle 20:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename after the park, and rewrite. Otherwise, the article seems like more of a genealogy work than a figure who is notable today. Deet 01:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- Canuckle 20:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Canuckle 20:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • DiscussionThree points to add regarding notability:
    1. Did the people of Quebec regard Duyon as a notable pioneer? I've been trying to access the Library and Archives Canada site during this discussion. It finally appears to be fully functioning again. Its Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online offers access to the officialy commissioned biographies. It was established as:

      "a Canadian equivalent of Great Britain's prestigious Dictionary of national biography. The original plan was for a dictionary of some 15 or 20 volumes that would provide critical biographies of the important figures in Canada's history from the 16th century to the middle of the 20th century."

Guyon has an entry in the first volume, given he lived prior to 1700. I've linked this bio to his article. In its bio of Guyon's seigneure, it describes Guyon and this group of pioneers as "all of whom were the forefathers of important families in the French-Canadian nation". Not news to us but more authoritative recognition from an encyclopedia-like source of his notability as a pioneer.

    1. Did he have a role in the colony other than clean land and be a mason? He was one of the founding members of the Compagnie des Habitants which gained a royal charter for a fur-trade monopoly for North America (except for Acadia). This was open in theory to all inhabitants but only the wealthiest leading families could participate.
    2. Beyond the celebrity news, is there notability for the genealogy? Guyon and his wife were identified in the Canadian Journal of Neurological Science as introducing the gene forFriedreich's ataxia into the French-Canadian population. Canuckle 22:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep DCB seems to be a critical biographical encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate one. They have currently about 8,000 articles, extending up through 1920. This is a reasonable number, and I am certainly prepared to accept that anyone with a biography in there is notable for WB purposes. Though freely available it is not PD, so material there will need to be rewritten; unlike DNB, the detail in the articles varies with importance; the detail in the present WP article is considerable greater & well sourced. DGG 01:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Most of the problems with this article would be dealt with if someone would just copyedit it so that it makes clear to a reader who has no particular knowledge of the history of Canada why this man immigrating at this time is significant. The article has been questioned, I think, simply because it assumes far too much background knowledge in non-Canadian readers. And although some work has been done, I think there is quite lot still to do. HeartofaDog 09:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. HeartofaDog I want to thank you for pushing for more demonstration of his notability. It's spurred me to learn more about this individual, who was almost unknown to me before. The sources were indeed brief and Quebec history (especially in French) is not my area. But I now have a better sense of it and will endeavour to overhaul. Of course, any contributions from better editors is most welcome! Initially, I did take some offense that Wikipedia would be so cavalier as to casually delete a 'founding family' type of Canadian colonist. In reviewing other pioneer articles related to Mayflower and other colonists, I do recognize your initial point that it is difficult to gauge notability in these cases. Several articles were somewhat questionable as stand-alone articles.(eg. Yes they signed the Mayflower agreement but aside from having lots of kids what else are they known for?) Canuckle 15:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Canuckle and DGG, but tag for improvement per cmacd. --JayJasper 19:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Thanks. I've held off major improvements because why waste further effort on something still listed as up for deletion. I did create Robert Giffard de Moncel, his neighbour who is easily more notable. I hope this content is more inline with what is expected. If people agree, please comment on the Talk:Jean Guyon page rather than in the delete conversation. Open to all feedback. Canuckle 21:43, 25 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'm not the deleting admin). Sr13 03:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Romero

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

Apparent hoax article. Can't find this guy on the roster of any level of Real Madrid's program. Metros 12:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as hoax An American player would at least receive some press here for making the team. These are just lies. Number 8 for Real Madrid this year is Emerson. Can we just kill this one now? DarkAudit 14:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax I think it's safe to say that if Real Madrid, one of the biggest football clubs in the world, decided to pick a 16-year old American in their starting line-up it would get a lot of coverage, and if he then managed the phenomenal goalscoring rate of 42 goals in 63 games it would merit even more coverage. Guess what? It hasn't. Because it's all lies ChrisTheDude 07:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Quelle surprise, the article was created by User:RoMeRo8, who has also removed prod, hoax and AfD tags from the article (i.e. vandalised it) ChrisTheDude 07:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax per all of the above. Dave101→talk  08:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax, creators username suggests this is a highly-exaggerated autobiography. Qwghlm 09:26, 21 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 09:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russell Parkhouse

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

Musician who doesn't meet the criteria from WP:Band. The article mentions many bands of which he has been a member, and although some have articles and could be considered notable, an individual in a notable band does not necessarily make the person notable. It seems that this artist has no notable work outside of his bands and thus is not notable. Finally, the only source in the article is an attempted link to his new band's myspace. Phydend 05:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak delete He has been the subject of secondary sources but they dont seem reliable, so Weak Delete. Regards - The Sunshine Man 17:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I need more proof of notability than what's there. A link to myspace is always a clue that someone is grasping as straws. YechielMan 05:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 00:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Valley Youth Theatre

Valley Youth Theatre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local theatre with 1 or 2 notable alumni. Delete. fethers 02:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, not convinced of this group's notability. Lankiveil 10:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability: This theatre is one of the most notable youth theatres in the country. A Google search for:
"valley youth theatre" phoenix

Yields 17,400 hits. On what do you base your claim of lack of notability? Alumni Max Crumm and Jordin Sparks alone should qualify this theatre as notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zzglenm (talk • contribs).

Max Crumm and Jordin Sparks are notable. The theatre's not. Famous alumni does not confer global notability to a location. fethers 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think this deserves more consideration... see news archive results: [34] --W.marsh 13:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Careful - that search is picking up things like "Fox Valley Youth Theatre". This one is clearer [35] revealing 71 hits, practically all from the local paper, with some advertisements and listings pages. A full Google search gives 359 unique Ghits [36], again a lot of which are listings and mirrors of the theatre's own website. There's not a lot of good sources online, so this might depend on written media; it's very borderline. EliminatorJR Talk 20:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • If Valley Youth Theatre does not qualify for a Wikipedia page, then I respectfully suggest that all other local youth theatre pages also be marked for deletion. A Wikipedia search of "youth theatre" yields 3868 hits. Allowing for search overspray, let's say that there are only hundreds of other youth theatres of similar or lesser "notability" than Valley Youth Theatre. Shall we delete these as well? What about other local theatres that are not youth theatres? Someone commented that the hundreds of news articles that reference Valley Youth Theatre were from "local" papers, implying that that was somehow a disqualifier. Other than Broadway, aren't most theatres local? Below are a few examples from the search. Are these theatres notable? --zzglenm
I've prodded what looked nn and left those that mentioned they were national companies or the first of their kind. That said, "these things exist so mine should too" isn't a valid argument on AfD. fethers 03:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Where is there mention of being "national" or "first of their kind" as criteria for notability? I couldn't find it on the Wikipedia:Notability page. Zzglenm 04:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
On what do you base your claim that precedent is not a valid argument? Nothing like that appears on the AfD page. Precedent is a powerful argument. Please let's apply the rules consistently and fairly. Zzglenm 16:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
You have now marked for deletion only a small sampling of one search that I did. Interestingly, you marked the ones that have the highest relevance ranking because I took my sample from the first page or two of results, so you've left many, many other, less relevant sites untouched. Arbitrary application of the rules cannot be in the best interests of Wikipedia. Zzglenm 17:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not my job to go through every article and nominate them for deletion or not. I'm not getting paid to do this, I just like to help out from time to time. Why so touchy about it? Saying that they're THE national company (such as Scottish Youth Theatre) is a claim to notability, and is easily referenced. Saying they're the first of their kind is a claim to notability, and easily referenced. I prodded the ones that were just stubs. There's a saying around here: sofixit. If you think there's other things that should be deleted, nominate them. If you think they're notable, supply some references to shore up the article. You don't like it? So fix it! fethers 03:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think that Valley Youth Theatre has some firsts, including a national first. I will check with the folks at the theatre and report back to this discussion after the holiday weekend. Incidently, I would think that Valley Youth Theatre alumna Jordin Sparks' win at American Idol should give the theatre just a tad more notability (her WP page makes reference to the Valley Youth Theatre WP page). Zzglenm 04:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 17:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eminem's fifth studio album

Eminem's fifth studio album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

It's one thing to have articles on future releases (many, including me, object to that), but an article on something that doesn't even have name? It can't be notable — it's a thing of rumour and speculation. Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. Evilclown93 14:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. The article says that it is "according to rumors", and an encyclopedia is not a repository of rumours. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete "Rumors", "could be", many unconfirmed content in the article. Until solid confirmations are released, this article should not be here per WP:CRYSTAL.--Kylohk 10:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules]]Inx272

  • Delete and throw a crystal ball at the creator because nobody would ever actually type Eminem's Fifth Studio Album into the search box when looking for an article. This is all ill-informed conjecture, if/when this album is actually announced (complete with title) then it will be notable under that name. This article, however, is a load of balls. A1octopus 15:34, 25 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 spam. --Seed 2.0 16:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cadma

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

Repeatedly deleted per A7/G11, repeatedly recreated for no stated reason. No assertion of notability, no references, questionable amount of personal information. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete per A7/G11. Wikipedia is not the place for self promotion. Raerth 13:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Heh, the page was even recreated with the {{hangon}} in place. Unfortunately, not G4-able but it's still A7/G11. Tagged and warned. I also suggest breaking out the salt shaker. -- Seed 2.0 15:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] August 17, 2006 Nanjing UFO Incident

August 17, 2006 Nanjing UFO Incident (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Event does not seem to be a notable UFO sighting, having an article perhaps only to buttress the single image shown. ScienceApologist 13:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair there is a short video on youtube/google video of this 'ufo' [37]. The links to it were removed from the article. I don't believe it's really an alien ship for a moment, but that's not really the point regarding notability. Nick mallory 14:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Oh no. The aliens are coming for us. Delete (per nom). Cool Bluetalk to me 14:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - i found the article ok, a stub can be expanded upon, wikipedia is open to allowing people to add and expand articles so leave as a stub instead of deleting (note: i did create this article) (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 14:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep cited by sources and looks authentic, but is there really more than what meets the eye??? Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 14:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless properly sourced. The Canadian article does not mention Nanjing, except in the captions of the admittedly spectacular pic, which reference it to Nationalufocenter.com. Since when is that a reliable source? Stammer 18:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Allow re-creation if ever sourced. Arbustoo 18:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Refs 1& 2 are indiscriminate sources, ref 4 is a Google video, Ref 3 is a newspaper account mentioning this story only as one example, but showing the photos. By interpreting the source requirements strictly we can keep such articles out. DGG 00:20, 21 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. Sr13 19:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Bearman

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

The article was deleted for speedy deletion per non-notability, but doesn't qualify, since there is an assertion of notability. I'm moving this to AFD instead. This is a procedural move, so I have no opinion. AecisBrievenbus 13:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, As it makes me say "Who?" Did not pass WP:N Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 13:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Keep I nominated the article for speedy right after I removed the dead link to the guys resume [38] Jeepday (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Change my vote to keep, DGG did a lot of good work on this article. Jeepday (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Author of a book that is of general interest (reviewed in numerous notable sources), could be defined as reaching one of the first two criterion of WP:PROF (an expert in his field or an important figure in his field) as the director of ISERP and former chair of the sociology department in Columbia University. -- Amazins490 (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The accomplishments cited by Amazins above put him just over the keep line, I think. I fixed the link to his Columbia faclty bio, which links to his vita if anyone wants to see it. It's also rather endearing that Miss Manners reviewed his book in the NYT. Deor 17:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. In addition to above, that national longtitude study on adolescent health sounds potentially notable and is mentioned in Adolescent sexuality in the United States Canuckle 20:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Definite keep, the article doesn't say, but he holds a named full professorship at Columbia, former chair of the dept, as well as being director of a major research center. Such people always have multiple publications, and the article say she does. They just need to be added, which I will now proceed to do. The general interest book, which has received multiple reviews, adds to it. It would help improve WP if everyone who found material while an article is on AfD added it, even if it were an incomplete reference. Book reviews establish N for a book. (It was of course totally wrong to place a speedy, as an assertion of notability is sufficient, & to say someone is a professor at Columbia is an assertion of notability.) DGG 00:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Definite keep. I work in field of adolescent sexuality, and Bearman was the first person to study virginity pledges, and the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) is the first and currently only nationally-representative study of adolescent sexuality.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. W.marsh 13:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McGhee-Mangrum Inventory of School Adjustment (MISA)

McGhee-Mangrum Inventory of School Adjustment (MISA) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

These corporate vanity articles and images were added by single purpose accounts, one of which (RLM2007) also attempted to redirect existing articles to their articles. There is a related report on the Conflict of interest Noticeboard. — Athaenara ✉ 14:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles:
  • McGhee-Mangrum Inventory of School Adjustment (MISA) - ({{db-spam}} tag removed)
  • Token Test for Children - 2nd Edition (TTFC-2) - ({{db-spam}} tag removed)
  • Five Factor Personallity Inventory - Children - (A misspelled redirect to deleted article)
  • FFPI-C - (A redirect to deleted article)
  • Five Factor Personality Inventory - Children - (deleted)
Images:
COI SPAs:
Single purpose accounts in order of appearance on this AfD discussion page


  ATTENTION!

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

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

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • Delete. Both these appear to list references, but the tests the articles describe were created this year, and all the references but one each are older than that. That one reference is to the test itself, so none of the material in these articles meets our standard of verifiability. Unless someone can come up with references that aren't self-published sources, then this appears to be original research posted with a conflict of interest. William Pietri 14:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article should not be kept unless there are third-party sources, independent of the authors, which testify to the importance of the test. Unless the test is shown to be notable, it is not reasonable for Wikipedia to have an article on it. The presence of a WP:COI heightens our alertness, and our desire to see everything well-sourced, which it's not currently. EdJohnston 15:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete article and images as vanity article lacking in verifiability, with WP:COI, and WP:SPS added for flavor. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom, COI fully evident. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I am not 100% sure that there is a conflict of interest here, as there are some indications that it may be just some over-enthusiastic school psychologists,[39] but in any case the extent and the way references and links were added into other articles was certainly inappropriate for such new tests and smacks of advertising, promotion and vanity. The information in the articles almost certainly comes from the test manuals, and as such is not much different from many of other psychology test articles on Wikipedia [40]. However, it is not clear how such new tests can be considered notable enough to warrant articles. Brief google searches confirm this. (Interestingly, I believe that the Token Test, original edition, would made the grade at present). In time, they may become more well-known including publication of reviews of these tests in scholarly journals and these could help them reach the notability threshold that they do not currently reach. Slp1 20:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Addendum. Pro-ed is a highly reputable publisher of psychology and other tests, and so I do not believe self-publishing comes into this. --Slp1 20:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep The publisher and the tests are notable, though the articles need to be cut down drastically. Will need 3rd party references, of course. Weak keep only because I don't think I will have time to find these.DGG 01:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Arbustoo 02:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article follows the format of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory, WISC, and Stanford Binet; and I see no call for those to removed. I am a practicing school psychologist and articles such as this are valuable in learning about recently published tests. This is how I learned about the Token Test. I am sure this is how parents of children with language disorders research about the tests their children are given. It seems to me that there may be other vested interests in keeping the list of test articles limited on Wiki. What a shame and itself a conflict of interst. — CGriner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:14, May 21, 2007 (UTC). and was subsequently modified by — 168.10.112.2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:18, May 21, 2007 (UTC).(diff)
    • As far as I can tell, no other vested interests were involved here. If you have evidence of that, please let us know, as it would be a serious issue. The core problem here is that no sources have been brought forward that meet our core principles, particularly no original research and verifiability. If you have sources like that we can work from, then please mention them. Thanks, William Pietri 04:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Helpful. I just logged onto Wiki to search about this test. I have a 7-year old child with Asperger Syndrome who was just given this test by the speech/language pathologist at his school. The test is so new, the only information I could find about it was here on Wiki. It was very helpful. I don't understand why this article will be deleted. I want to come back and check on it and investigate both the good and bad points of the test; Hopefully edited by professionals in language development. If someone has important information to add to the article, please add it. I want to read more about this test. Please don't delete articles like this. This is exactly what I thought Wiki was suppose to do - help people who desperately need to research something they can't find anywhere else. Thank you. — CindyClack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:49, May 21, 2007 (UTC).
    • Hi, Cindy. Here on Wikipedia we try to summarize and distill the world's knowledge in a way that's useful to the general public, so you've got the right idea about our mission. However, because we want to be a trustworthy source for people like you, we have pretty strict standards about the kind of material we can include. The drawback of this is that some information that's probably good gets thrown out because we can't be sure it's good. But we've gone from nothing to more than a million articles in a few years, so even if this test doesn't get covered now, I'm sure it will be eventually. Hope that helps, William Pietri 04:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article does not read like an advertisement. It reads very much like a typical test review. Let the editing process takes it natural course. Why is anyone surprised that links were made to multiple language articles? It should be. Particulary to the areas of receptive language, apahsia, and child development. This article could use editing, but should be kept. Let professionals and free speech handle this. — SLPgeorgia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:21, May 21, 2007 (UTC) (UTC).
    • If you believe the article can be improved to meet our standards, now's the time to do it. That's part of why we take five days to discuss the deletion question. As I mention above, I see the key issue as proving that we can write an article that isn't original research. If you can do that by supplying links to solid third-party evaluations of these tests, please do! Thanks, William Pietri 04:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have read both the MISA article and the TTFC-2 article. Both appear adequate to me. Although I am not an expert in behavioral disorders, I do have experience in the field of speech-language pathology. The TTFC-2 article documents the characteristics of the test without inserting commercial properties. In regards to the test itself, the TTFC-2 is considered the 'grandfather' of all listening comprehension tests. It holds the same stature as the Stanford-Binet and the WISC. Parents, teachers, and other professionals are often desperate for information about tests given to their children and students. Give this high degree of interest, expect more and more articles such as this > They serve a purpose. I made several edits to the TTFC-2 article and would expect other professionals to do the same. I also examined the accuracy of all reported references and they are legitimate scientific sources.— Drallens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:26, May 22, 2007 (UTC) (UTC).
Comment: as an SLP myself I will have to disagree with this poster and his/her clinical opinion. The Token Test (original version) might be considered the grandfather of all listening comprehension tests (it is very old, for sure) but the TTFC-2 has only just been published (2007) and is in few clinics or offices as yet. It certainly does not hold the same stature as the S-B or the WISC. More importantly for WP purposes there are no third party reliable sources about it yet. I expect there will be, but there isn't yet. Slp1 02:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This entire debate seems more like a choreographed effort to kill a n article, than an honest debate about the qualifty and accuracy of articles. This whole 'delete the article debate' reeks of hidden agendas and I'm seeing more and more of it on wikipedia... It's unfortunate.!.— JasonZell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 13:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC) (UTC).
You come jumping in, a brand-new participant on Wikipedia, voting to 'Keep' in a debate where a Conflict of Interest is suspected, and you think we're not running an honest debate? The votes of editors who don't have a track record here are often disregarded by the administrator who closes a deletion debate.
Everyone's arguments will be listened to, whether they are new or old. The article at present is quite lacking in independent third-party evaluations of the test, so it threatens to not pass Wikipedia's standard of notability. If the test is well-documented in the literature, you and the other new editors are welcome to add reliable sources to the article. They will be weighed when deciding whether to keep the article. As noted earlier in this debate, most of the books in the reference list actually *pre-date* the test under discussion, so they don't help to prove this particular test is notable. EdJohnston 19:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep All Ditto. The thought police are on the prowl in wikipedia! Some narrow minded people seem to think that just because something can be purchased somewhere in the world, any article about it should be banned! Ohhhh, I juut found an article about Wal-Mart! We should delete it because I can go there and spend money on crap! Get a life!.— AlliciaClav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC) (UTC).
Please be WP:CIVIL. You are welcome to review our policy on Wikipedia:No personal attacks. EdJohnston 19:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • comment I think these tests, though not yet the leading ones, might be sufficiently well established, and therefore N, if such could be supported by specific references. The present references are general, & do not talk about the particular ones here. The arguments of spas can be listened to on their merit; I think that there may have been an overemphasis on their spa status, & that the incivility is not altogether one-sided. The articles could be rewritten to eliminate the excessive detail that gives the impression of spam. DGG 01:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, without the specific references, we have nothing to write an article with. I guess we could trim back to a stub listing the test name and the publisher, but I'd prefer deletion to an article with no sources. Otherwise we set a bad example for all the spam, band listings, and vanity bios we already struggle with. William Pietri 02:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: I have being doing quite a search for the Token Test for Children-2, including basic online searches, google scholar and Medline and Psychinfo Ovid searches. I was not surprised to find nothing except publishers information etc since usually it takes several years for a test like this to be established and commonly used (especially as budgets in clinics for these are limited), for reviews to be written/accepted/published by journals and for the tests to be used in clinical research projects which then get published etc. Sometimes there are some preliminary articles written as the test gets developed but I didn't find anything like that. --Slp1 02:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks for digging! With special-knowledge items like this, it's hard for a layman to find and evaluate sources. I'm glad you've taken the time to get involved. -- William Pietri 01:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. There is no room for corporate vanispamcruftisement on Wikipedia. MER-C 08:35, 24 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 - Non notable. Aquarius • talk 06:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Mardi

Terry Mardi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Contested prod. Non-notable, WP:V problems. External link citing "Official Website" can't be reliable, considering the guy was born in 1869. Cool Bluetalk to me 14:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revenge of Chucky

Revenge of Chucky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Can't find any confirmation; Article is loaded with speculative, unsourced data mcr616 Speak! 14:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation of copyrighted ("© Pali Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved") non-GFDL content. This was a straight copy and paste of a web page from votesizing.org that lays out the "Guiding Principles" of a proposed political party. It wasn't an encyclopaedia article about that party. It was just an attempt to abuse Wikipedia as a free wiki hosting service for a straight copy of copyrighted literature written by the proponents of that party. Uncle G 10:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Empowerment Party

Democratic Empowerment Party (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page was proposed for speedy deletion, but the creator added the hangon tag. I googled the article name, and I got a decent number of results, but they were more blog-type sites. I felt that a discussion pertaining to the deletion of the article would be more appropriate. Evilclown93 14:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete At least until they join forces with the Judean People's Front. There's no sources or even mention of which country this 'party' is supposed to operate in. Nick mallory 15:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sr13 03:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Howie Hawkins

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

The article fails to cite sources, the guy fails WP:BIO. He's non-notable. Delete GreenJoe 15:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


Sources:


Subject was one of the co-founders of the Green Party in the United States, has mounted well publicied campaigns for state office, and is one of the leader of the GP in NY.

More to the point, GreenJoe has a history of marking dozens of GP politicians for deletion. Keep T L Miles 16:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Keep. PeaceNT 03:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fu Jow Pai

Fu Jow Pai (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This was originally deleted as a copyvio; however, one later revision did constitute original content. DRV found an assertion of notability, as well as several possible sources. This matter is submitted to AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete as only one independent source seems to be cited in the article -- if more are found, I might change to keep. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep In my opinion none of the sources currently cited are independent enough to prove notability, as they're all from the Fu Jow Pai Federation. However, I did find an article from a U.S.-based Chinese newspaper which discusses it non-trivially: [41] (one of the eight GHits for 虎爪派, i.e. "Fu Jow Pai" in Chinese[42]). There's also a couple of more hits in the Google News English archives which I can't access, one of them (the Florida one) which looks like it might be non-trivial: [43]. cab 02:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: (article's primary author) Not clear on the req'd breadth of notability. One difficulty is that Fu Jow Pai is inseparable from its Grand Master (Wai Hong); this is common in martial arts (try separating Jeet Kune Do from Bruce Lee). Here are a few other items/fun-facts of notability about the system which could be added to the article (but I'm not sure of the ideal format; "pop-culture references" ?). A) Grand Master Wai Hong was named by Inside Kung Fu Magazine as the 2nd most influential person in American Kung Fu, #1 was Bruce Lee. B) (pop-culture) System was one of the challengers to Jet Li in his recent movie, Fearless. C) Fu Jow Pai was identified in several of the Mortal Kombat video games as studied by three fictional characters (Nitara, Daegon, Sindel). D) Fu Jow was studied by Morgan Fairchild [44]. Fujowpai 05:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC) (J Scribner)
      • Keep (changed vote) Thanks for your latest expansion (after I made my comment above); the sources you have there now seem fine for establishing notability. As for the additional facts, we try to avoid "Trivia" list sections in articles (see WP:TRIVIA), but a "List of practitioners" section (Morgan Fairchild and anyone else) should be fine, and some of that seems worth mentioning in the body of the article itself. If you can find a source, you might also want to add the Mortal Kombat info to the articles of the individual characters, and wikilink it back to the Fu Jow Pai article. Cheers, cab 06:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (article's primary author) Per above recommendations, I added 3 independent citations: Inside Kung-Fu Magazine July 2006, Inside Kung-Fu Magazine Feb 1995, New Martial Hero Magazine "15"/2006 (chinese with english translation). At least 2 other Inside Kung-Fu articles exist from 80's and 90's, am working to get full citations for those in order to add. Fujowpai 04:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC) (J Scribner)
  • Keep Legitimate martial art. JJL 18:28, 21 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. PeaceNT 02:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Box Hill Chess Club

Box Hill Chess Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

They fail WP:ORG and the article fails to cite sources. They are not notable. Delete GreenJoe 15:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak delete Being the largest chess club in Australia, if that's true, is significant. However, the nominator's arguments stand up to scrutiny. YechielMan 16:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as there are no sources, and even if they were shown to be the largest Chess club in Australia, I'd like some qualification to that. If they really only have 160 members, I'm sorry, that's not significant. It'd have to be a bit higher, or have more of a meaningful impact on Chess in Australia and the world. FrozenPurpleCube 17:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as user has history of bad faith noms -- claim of largest asserts notability, but needs reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Delete per concerns by User:FrozenPurpleCube, below. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, there are no reliable sources for that claim, and according to their website, they have 160 members. I'm sorry, but even if they are the largest, at that size, it's not significant. In any case, accusing someone of a history of bad faith nominations is ill-advised, unless you can argue some particular bad faith here. Which I simply don't see. FrozenPurpleCube 17:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
My bad; I was a bit hasty. A quick Google search fails to find anything but Wikipedia mirrors as far as the "largest" claim goes. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
From what I can tell, which admittedly, isn't the whole article, none of those are actually about the club itself. Some of the examples are just calendar events (and thus not actual coverage of anything any more than my local swim club's meets being in the paper), others are just trivial mentions in articles that are primarily about another subject, rather than the club itself. In effect, it's like having a profile of a major celebrity to justify his elementary school having an article. FrozenPurpleCube 02:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete absent further sourcing. -- Visviva 23:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Most of the Google News Archive results are for tournaments at the club. We need some sources indicating notability in the world of chess to warrant a keep. Capitalistroadster 02:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The main thing which would make a chess club notable are achievements, such as winning the national team championships, and I see no evidence of that here. Membership numbers can fluctuate greatly from year to year, and is a too flighty measure for judging notabililty. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC
  • STRONG KEEP: This is an important article that can be expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam360 (talk • contribs)
I don't see why this is an important article. What about this subject is important and how can it be expanded beyond the trivial? FrozenPurpleCube 21:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: Above comment is from creator of article, who has also created a series of articles on "eisteddfod"s without bothering to explain what an eisteddfod is. I marked those articles for speedy deletion. JuJube 18:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - no sources at present; however, if the notability of being the largest chess club in Australia can be verified, I would be happy to support keeping the article. JRG 23:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, with same proviso as JRG above. Lankiveil 23:42, 25 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 `'mikka 02:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green Andy

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

Nonnotable "experimental rock artist" with a bunch of mp3 CDs for sale Mukadderat 16:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC on numerous levels. No verifiable, reliable, independent sources whatsoever. MySpace and fan sites do not count. DarkAudit 17:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete self released artist that did not have significant coverage. Fails WP:BAND. -- lucasbfr talk 10:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Has one reference to a source "Dead Angel eMagazine" but it is uncited. A minimum of another reliable source has to be found if it should be kept. I !vote weak because my gut feeling is there are other unfound sources. Royalbroil 13:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Testimony: "Dead Angel eMagazine" has been sourced, I have found other sources, I just need to put them on. This may get done tonight, but it is not likely all will be well. Tomorrow is a definite possibility for page cleanup. Article will be up to standards by tomorrow, rest assured. --Stealthrabbit127:: 02:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not enough reputable sources. `'mikka 00:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Could use expansion with some more reputable sources. Smee 09:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete unless links to multiple non trivial third party sources are added before the end of this AfD as per WP:Music. A1octopus 11:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as fails WP:Music. 11kowrom 22:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Gut feeling tells me that there are no sources, as it relies heavily on myspace articles as references. It would appear that the bio cannot be verified. Ohconfucius 05:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, rubbish references. Elrith 00:39, 23 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. Sr13 04:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earth mysteries

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

"Earth mysteries" isn't a subject, it's one of dozens of terms used in crank pseudoscience to describe anything they think is odd. The subject is covered by other articles. SchmuckyTheCat 17:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. The nomination makes the case for keeping this stub. The term is used by some people, and we have other articles covering the topic in greater detail. So long as the stub rightly directs people to that more extensive coverage, it serves a useful purpose. It requires some edits for NPOV ("multi-disciplined (holistic) approach?") but is otherwise fine. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The right way to direct people to more coverage is delete then redirect. SchmuckyTheCat 18:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep The nominator isn't even really contesting the article, but the subject of the article. Yeah, "earth mysteries" is complete and utter pseudoscience, the article says as much. That's exactly how Wikipedia should treat it. Explain what it is, explain why it's flawed. No valid reason to delete here. --JayHenry 19:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
No, "earth mysteries" is being used not as a subject in itself, but as an umbrella term for a bunch of concepts, we already have that list, and this term should redirect to it. SchmuckyTheCat 19:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, Earth mysteries covers some of the same topics as the List of pseudosciences, but in no way does it apply to all of them. The way the article is written "Earth mysteries" is, in fact, the subject of the article. It's a short article, and it's very clearly not redundant with the list of psuedosciences. Look, people who follow Earth mysteries are completely wrong. But Wikipedia has lots of articles about people, groups and movements that are completely wrong. My point is that "earth mysteries" is a belief that some people (sadly) ascribe to, and as such, it would be derelict for us to delete it. --JayHenry 19:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Prehaps this should be a category rather than an article Think outside the box 11:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as a valid form of pseudoscience, worthy of standing on its own. Sure, the article and the belief itself are both flawed, but at least the former can be fixed... Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - this is a very widely used term and the article needs expanding, not deleting. "Pseudoscience" is certainly not a reason to delete - want to take a stab at nominating Scientology and see what happens? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Sidenote: someone please take that stab - I would love to see that discussion. CharacterZero | Speak 22:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I suspect you'd suddenly wish you'd disabled "receive email" in your preferences... — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. This article mentions in the intro that scientists are skeptical of it, but then presents only "true believer" references, making it POV. I question that any pseudoscience is "valid." It looks like a linkfarm and catalog of pseudoscience books. Edison 18:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The best way to deal with POV is to balance an entry, not delete it. perfectblue 20:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: A broad and oft used term covering a wide variety of phenomona that includes both pseudoscientific and non-pseudoscientific topics. While it might be true that the "subject" is covered by other pages, but this entry isn't just covering the subject of Earth Mysteries, it's covering the term too, which isn't really covered elsewhere. There is no good reason for Earht Mysteries not to be in Wikipedia. - perfectblue 20:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean up (specific citations and the external links can be pruned) and possibly merge with the afornamed ancient mysteries (now "esoteric history"). ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 04:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - clean up and be more specific as to where the references are being used (references are there, the problem is I cannot tell where they are being used in the article) (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 19:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is a well-used term for a range of mysterious things (or pseudosciences if you want). I've even seen it on bookshop and library shelves. Not believing something is true is not grounds for an AfD. Totnesmartin 20:59, 24 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 to Craigslist - this is an incident not a biography -Docg 23:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nichole Marie Blackwell

Nichole Marie Blackwell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Rightly) contested speedy. While this does have multiple sources (I'd heard of her here, 6000 miles away), so technically does pass WP:BIO, I really don't see the need to have an article on her. Not only does she fail the ten days rule, let alone the ten year rule, but nobody is going to search on her name for this story. There have already been multiple similar stories since this one, and at most, this warrants a single paragraph in Craigslist — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep as it passes WP:RS and WP:V. I'd suggest a rename, but I can't think of anything it could be renamed to. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It's just occurred to me that it probably horribly violates BLP as it stands, since it's presuming guilt for a case that has yet to be tried — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentWhats the 10 year rule? Sounds like some sort of crystalballing. I thought once notable, always notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The 10 year rule is a guideline — not a policy — from WP:RECENT: "In 10 years time, will this seem relevant". IMO while this story undoubtedly has sources etc, it belongs on Wikinews, not here — iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:RECENT is not even a guideline. It's an essay. It even states at the top very clearly "It is not a policy or guideline;it merely reflects some opinions of its authors." (bold was not added by me but used in the actual quote.) It has the same status as Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose which is an essay and not a guideline. --Oakshade 19:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - In addition to the New York Times story, the topic is covered quite exensively by WP:RS [46] [47][48]. Meets our standards, notability is permanant, etc.. --Oakshade 16:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I have heard of this in the news as well, though I agree with Iridescenti that this article needs work to follow BLP. Needing work, though, isn't criteria for deletion.Ninja! 17:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Preferably Merge to Craigslist. Five bucks says she doesn't even get jail time. But I suppose it technically meets WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 20:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to craigslist. Canuckle 20:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge. This is about a minorly newsworthy incident from the "funny story to fill space on page 37" department - not about a person at all. There is nothing to write a worthwhile biography from. This is the sort of thing WP:BLP is meant to save Wikipedia from - David Gerard 23:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Completely fails WP:BIO - this is not Wikinews. Orderinchaos 23:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge without personal details to craigslist. The reference is there for people to see who she is, let's not make things worse. --Tony Sidaway 23:40, 25 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 09:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Ryan

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

A senior minister of some church who has apparently self-published a two books. This does not appear particularly notable. Judged by the tone of the article, it is written by people of his church in conflict of interest. >Radiant< 10:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Valrith 20:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename Delete. Skip Ryan. Although there's no article for him yet, a far more notable Joseph Ryan was the president of the International Longshoremen's Association. As for this guy, it seems to me that a minister of a 5,000 member church would easily be notable. WP:COI isn't reason to delete, but should instead be a flag that extra attention to NPOV is necessary (as with inumerable wikipedia articles). It's a stub that needs a lot of work, that's all. Bobanny 20:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • His name isn't "Skip". His name is "Joseph". >Radiant< 08:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the guy. The convention on Wikipedia is to use the name the subject is most widely known as for the title (e.g., "Sting" instead of "Gordon Sumner"), whether or not it's their legal or birth name. If he's only called "Skip" in certain situations or by certain people, then no, that wouldn't be the one to go with. Maybe Joseph F. Ryan or Joseph Ryan (Minister). It's not big deal currently because this is the only Joseph Ryan article. However, if you hit the "what links here" button, you'll find there's a Joseph Ryan in the 1934 longshore strike, one in the 1904 Olympics, another who's an Irish-American mobster, and a Winnipeg Blue Bomber. Bobanny 15:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks like we need a DAB page. However, the fact that we need an article on some of those Joseph Ryans doesn't imply that we need an article on this particular one. >Radiant< 08:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right, it's a little off topic. But since no one who has an interest in the article is around, what else do we have to talk about? Seriously though, I did a little work on it, and I'm considering changing my vote. His notability seems more dubious than it did at first glance. Bobanny 10:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

He has a couple of published books and multiple newspaper articles so I don't think it has a notability problem, but still it needs some work I would think. Billymumphry 21:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed my vote to delete. Looking a little closer, the subject doesn't resonate outside a very localized church circle. He has 2 books, that technically aren't self-published, but if you google the titles, all they produce are websites trying to sell them. No reviews or indication that they provoked any interest beyond his own small flock, of which he is no longer the shepherd. He was the minister of a church with money, and that's why he was published. Newspaper articles? He wrote an editorial years ago in a Dallas paper. The same paper announced his retirement. Not much else. His controversial stepping down has been pretty much kept under wraps except for an announcement on the church website admitting that he's a drug addicted deviant, just another wayward sheep needing restoration by the church (which no doubt consists of purchasing non-notable books from Crossway publishing). No one outside the congregation seem to care or have noticed, or else are too nervous about incurring the wrath of the church by saying anything publicly (at least that's the impression given on the talk page). Besides that, he met with Bono, as have a kazillion other people. Looking at the article's history, Bono's "people" stepped in disallowing a photo of the rev and superstar from appearing on Wikipedia, which doesn't bode well in establishing notability. Bobanny 17:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was list as CSD g4. Non-admin close. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment – My proposal of speedy deletion for this page was based on an incorrect premise. Article was not recreated as Ozgod stipulated (content was: '{{db-repost}}Joseph Ryan (born 1970) is a photographer best known for his work with the Grateful Dead (1992-2001) and the reuniting of [[B...'). Speedy deletion should have been proposed per CSD a7, as this content is not the same as the content of the article nominated in the AfD process (content was: '{{db-bio}}Joseph Ryan, Born in February 1991, (Day unknown) is the founder of Shakirism. He worships Shakira. So far, he is the only known worshippe...'). My apologies for any confusion this has caused. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 22:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Ryan

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

Article was recreated and fails to meet WP:Notability Ozgod 16:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Not notable. A few film credits are not enough. YechielMan 16:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Nominated for Speedy Deletion per CSD g4. AfD template removed from page. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. PeaceNT 02:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amaranth Games

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

Non-notable game with no reliable, non-trivial sources to support notability. Original research. Non-verifiable plot details. Andre (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Article needs a major overhaul and bringing back into the fold. Appears to have been an article on the Aveyond series which has been converted to an article on Amaranth, the developer, but the wording doesn't reflect that. Sources exist as reviews of the games, as well as some interviews to provide further details of Amaranth itself. Here's the Aveyond reviews I found: Quandary Land, Game Tunnel, Gameplasma, GameZebo and Netjak, I think there are more out there too. There's some reviews for Grimm's Hatchery: Game Tunnel, Gamezebo and Casual Review. Again, I didn't exactly scrape a comb across google, I expect at least another couple of usable reviews for that game. Couple of interviews: Gamezebo, Game Tunnel and womengamers.com. I'm going to try and bring it round during this 5-day period. QuagmireDog 06:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The game has won several awards as can be seen from the Amaranthia website and google searches. It's very popular for an amateur game and was a cornerstone for the RPG Maker XP community in proving that a game designed with RMXP could turn a profit. It's hardly non-notable or trivial - Escape Velocity was hardly 'widespread' notable to begin with either. I'm not saying this as a fan of the game, either. Apologies for not knowing how to format this correctly, still learning. - Scribblette 21:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 13:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gate 88

Gate 88 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable game with no reliable, non-trivial sources to support notability. Andre (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep This article is perfectly good, and certainly seems to note the subject's notability. I see no reason to consider deletion here. Ninja! 17:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • But the only reference is a forum posting! That's not a reliable source. Andre (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Perhaps this is just my bias against deletionists speaking, but perhaps it would be best to find and add sources rather than just delete the entire article? It seems to me that a need for improvement is no reason for deletion.Ninja! 01:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable game, lacking in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you look at the press page on the site, its been mentioned in several magazines and gaming sites. Surely PC Gamer UK is a notable source. And although I know this doesn't mean anything to Wikipedia, its got a bunch of google hits :).MisterPhyrePhox 18:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per MisterPhyrePhox. The PC Gamer UK cite and the other references on the press page appear to be legitimate and sufficient to make a decent argument for notability.--Kubigula (talk) 21:53, 25 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. Herostratus 03:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Provan

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

The subject of this article is a student who made a video which some people thought was funny and so he got some media mentions in a "famous for fifteen minutes" style exposure. I do not think this makes James Provan notable. Sam Blacketer 17:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: has previously been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Provan (student). Sam Blacketer 17:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability is (usually) permanent, and there are multiple reliable sources -- therefore I see absolutely no reason to delete, even if it was fifteen minutes of fame. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a mirror of everything which has 2 newspaper articles in a 2 day period. He has had his 15 minutes of fame for creating a stop motion video that people looked at on Youtube. Edison 19:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I see this as a perfect example of why coverage in reliable sources should only be a presumption of notability. I find a pair of fluff human interest stories that have essentially the same content to be unconvincing evidence of notability. That being said, I could probably accept the notability of the pancakes song itself, given this coverage and its rise on the Israeli charts.--Kubigula (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's a YouTube celebrity who has had 3 videos featured and has been in the media multiple times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.144.241 (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was REDIRECT to Order of the Arrow. There's little support for retaining the standalone article, and it's now been culled to contain so little substance it is an obvious candidate for a redirect as largely implied by Gadget850. -Splash - tk 23:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abooikpaagun Lodge

I'm concerned that this unreferenced article doesn't meet WP:ORG as while articles like Scouting in Arkansas is a possibly reasonable article (if poorly done), the various districts within it are not. What next? Individual scout troops? FrozenPurpleCube 17:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't recommend that anything be lodged other than the name, as there's nothing sourced there. Perhaps a delete followed by a redirect? FrozenPurpleCube 13:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
At least 80% of the article duplicates material found in Order of the Arrow, so there really isn't much to move. The article is currently tagged for a merge and a delete. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Scouting in Arkansas or De Soto Area Council. For the record, I'd like to not that the policy says usually. If this were a well-crafted article that was sourced and had a good history, I'd say keep. --evrik (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:ORG is just a guideline (and isn't flexible enough to deal with large national organizations), and I think that merging the article would make Scouting in Arkansas too big. Alternately we should create De Soto Area Council and merge it to that. --evrik (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a large national organization, and I don't see anything that's important about this lodge in particular. What's worth keeping about this page, and what's sourceable to someone *besides* this lodge? FrozenPurpleCube 01:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable chapter of national org. - Aagtbdfoua 13:44, 26 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 this version as an advertisement. If someone wants to create this article using published sources, not advertising copy, feel free. W.marsh 12:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cordarounds

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

"Cordarounds" is apparently a product name of a specific company. The article is writte like an ad. No independent sources are cited. Google gives some hits, but basically company pages, ad pages and blogs. Therefore the subject fails WP:CORP. I propose to delete the article as non-notable. Sent here as part of the Notability Wikiproject --B. Wolterding 17:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Although a brand name for aerodynamic trousers didn't sound too hopeful, I found multiple independent sources some of which were in highly reliable publications: [49], [50], [51], [52]. The article needs a major rewrite, however as it is pretty much just an advert at the moment. CIreland 20:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Vicary

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

Appears non-notable with no independent third-party sources reporting on him - he's simply the pastor of a church in Perth, Western Australia. Orderinchaos 17:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos 17:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No independent sources beyond a directory and I couldn't find any using Google (which turned up few hits anyway) besides a couple of short mentions on anti-cult websites. CIreland 20:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:BIO DanielT5 04:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep He is the leader of the Potter's House Fellowship in Australia as well as a pastor in Perth. — 218.214.37.212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:52, May 21, 2007 (UTC).
  • Strong Delete and SALT By looking at the contribs and talk history for the above unsigned comment, you can see it's come from a Single-purpose account which is bad enough, so it's been tagged as such. As for the article itself, it doesn't meet the notability requirement, contains no verifiable sources, and to be perfectly honest - Wikipedia is not a Soapbox. This is not withstanding the fact the original article was created by user Potters house, which is just clearly breaching conflict of interest. Seriously, this is a clear candidate for CSD A7 and G11, and i'd be applying the tags there right now if the AfD process wasn't so badly needed to deal with problems like this. Thewinchester (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Clearly does not meet Wikipedia's biographic notability standard and it would be impossible to find non-church-sourced information about him. Zivko85 12:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - the Potter's House Christian Fellowship is a notable pentecostal movement in America, led by T.D. Jakes; however, I don't think there's any need to keep this article unless more sources can be found; it can be summarised on the Potter's House article in one sentence noting that a branch exists in Australia led by this guy. There's no need to protect the page from recreation, Thewinchester - I'm sure that deletion will get across the point well enough. JRG 23:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
There's actually an entire article on Potter's House Christian Fellowship Australia - we're not debating the notability of the church, but of the leader (i.e. one man) of one particular congregation. Orderinchaos 00:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what I said. I don't think this article should be kept. JRG 13:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, sorry - blame assignment related stress. :) Orderinchaos 14:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
No worries. I completely understand :-) JRG 08:29, 25 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. W.marsh 14:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] V sinizter

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

Non-notable musician. No independent references. -- RHaworth 17:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 00:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Irish Famine (book)

The Irish Famine (book) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The Article fails to meet any of the criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (books). It could also be judged to be advertising and promoting non-notable material. Which in itself would be viewed as and covered by Wikipedia articles must not be vehicles for advertisement--Domer48 17:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment, I dont think that having short summary on a commercial website fulfills WP:BOOK. WP:BOOK states that the book must be subject to "multiple, non-trivial published works" - its doesnt, OR "won a major literary award" - its hasnt, OR "made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture" it isnt, OR "subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities" - not to my knowledge OR finally "book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources" - altough the authors are know they do not fall into this category. Therefore I am leaning towards delete until there is more references added that go beyond either a summary in a commercial website or we find an indepth analysis of its contents in a maintstream reliable source.--Vintagekits 18:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Article creator here, [53] says that the book in itself is not notable, "Far from it".Regards--Domer48 18:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep on the grounds that it is a work by a notable writer (two of them, actually), and as such plays an important role in interpreting that writer's personal creative vision. FlamingSpear 03:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails notability guidelines for books, as correctly stated. One Night In Hackney303 15:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:N, may become notable in future.--Vintagekits 17:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've added links to two reviews in decent publications - New Statesman and Socialist Review. Apparently it was also in the London Review of Books - but can't find that online. Here are links to two sites showing the book is part of the reading list for undergraduate courses at the University of Aberdeen [55] and University of Adelaide [56]. Without selective quoting Wikipedia:Notability (books) criteria one says a book may be notable when...
    "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." Therefore, these non-trivial reviews are enough to establish notability. Paxse 18:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I was unable to locate any mention in the two links provided, and those on the article page one being a commercial site would not constitute notability, i.e. “multiple non-trivial published works”. Again, the creator of the article has quite succinctly stated that the book its self is not notable, “the definitive, or best book on the Famine. Far from it, actually.” ,[57]--Domer48 19:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, ditto - thise links dont say anything about the book!--Vintagekits 20:18, 26 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 03:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smash (song)

Smash (song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable song. Cool Bluetalk to me 18:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. I doubt that album cuts by notable artists are inherently notable, even if the song is the longest on the album. If it were a Top 40 single I would reconsider. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no assertion that this song is notable for x reason. the_undertow talk 22:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete (note that I am not the deleting admin). Sr13 04:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FIFA 09

FIFA 09 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Complete Crystal-ballery - FIFA 08 isn't even out for several months yet. Prod template removed by anon IP without edit summary fchd 18:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Short article with absolutely no content: the fact that there will be a 2009 version of a major EA franchise goes without saying. It's one of the fundamental facts of life: we will all die at some point and there will always be another EA title. ;) And the second sentence is most likely not even correct since '08 is slated to come out for all three consoles. Stands to reason that '09 will as well but, hey, that's precisely the reason why the have WP:CRYSTAL. I also have a feeling that this is going to more or less snowball. -- Seed 2.0 18:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:CRYSTAL with no content whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete OR and no RS. the_undertow talk 22:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless EA has officially announced the game, there's no need to keep the article here. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  06:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CFD:A1/A3 (added db-empty on article page) // laughing man 20:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There was once content here... so not really a speedy. Of course I'm just delaying the inevitable deletion that will happen when this AfD closes tomorrow...--Isotope23 20:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It is a speedy, my reason for speedy was (in bold) - It is a very short article providing little or no context (CSD A1), contains no content whatsoever (CSD A3), consists only of links elsewhere (CSD A3) or a rephrasing of the title (CSD A3). // laughing man 20:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment - as original nominator, I didn't think it was (or indeed is) a Speedy, I coulndn't justify anything of those reasons. - fchd 21:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
or please wait another 24 hours, and then delete the article. Why delay the inevitable and waste our time discussing it further. // laughing man 02:54, 25 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. Sr13 04:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Killer application

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

No references and I couldn't find any good ones. Although I know the meme exists, it simply doesn't merit an article of its own. —AldeBaer 18:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as unsourced dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per other users below. Does need sources tho. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 19:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep important topic in the history of computer software. Plenty of sources [58], [59]. --W.marsh 18:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Which of the hits are you specifically talking about? Any website using the term is not automatically a source. If that were the case, there'd be plenty of sources for an article on "dog poo". —AldeBaer 15:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, expand This is more than just a computing meme, it's an economically vital concept, going well beyond software. Rhinoracer 19:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but prune before expanding. As it stands this article is 80% original research and unsourced opinion. However, this is an important concept and term that is applied outside its IT origins. CIreland 19:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. This isn't merely a dicdef, in fact, it seems to expand on the Jargon File's own definition of the term. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep although egregiously marred by WP:OR and WP:V problems. --Dhartung | Talk 20:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Clean up Per above. --Whstchy 00:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up per everyone else involved. Definitely more than just a computer term, and there are the makings of a very good "Where this phrase comes from" article (if it's not already there). Not quite sure that it's a "meme" as such, either. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm not sure how this is a "meme". Definitely could use more explanation and more sourcing, but a notable topic nonetheless. Maxamegalon2000 05:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep a simple observation like "No references and I couldn't find any good ones" should be made a speedy close criterion; AfD nominators really should demonstrate that sourcing the material has been attempted far and wide, and it's not just "I got buried under 678,000 Google hits and 4,580 Google Scholar hits and was too lazy to sift through them and add sources to this article". Please, leave it to the cleanup; the term has been in use for quite a while now, and this clearly has potential - even in present state - to be more than a dictionary definition. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Of obvious interest. JJL 18:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment In its current state, the article is nothing more than basically a dictionary entry with some arbitrary examples and OR. With no sources I mean I couldn't come up with any meta debate, the many times the term is found on Google (and scholar) is primarily due to the widespread use of the term, which makes it perfect for a simple and concise dictionary entry. —AldeBaer 05:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • And who says it absolutely never ever can be anything but a dictionary entry with some arbitrary examples and OR, therefore unquestionably deletable? Lack of imagination is not a reason to delete an article; lack of potential is. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 06:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Who could ever say that about anything? I filed for AfD because in my opinion, it won't ever be a proper article. —AldeBaer 09:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Yeah, we're completely wasting time here making any articles about, oh, any subject at all - they will all be vague random collections of more or less relevant facts that may or may not be sourceable. Wikipedia is obviously a failed experiment and we have to close the shop. Right? Look, all I'm saying is that this thing has a potential of being more than a dictionary definition with a couple of well-argued and sourced examples on different fields; I'm not saying this will ever be a large and extensive article, but it may very well be a rather decent short one - and there's probably no other logical article where this particular concept could be discussed. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
          • OK, I guess you made your point. How about merging it into Computer program with the current article redirecting to that section? Compromise? —AldeBaer 14:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
            • That would be okay. Better than outright deletion. Uruloki 17:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Rereading the article, I believe one reason I listed it here is that the term killer application should IMHO be put into quotation marks because it is a colloquial term. I agree that the concept exists and is notable, but I couldn't find any sources discussing the concept behind the moniker "killer application". So, yes, it should be mentioned somewhere, but not in its own article, that's really overdoing it. —AldeBaer 15:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Well known jargon term in computing. The example lists should be cleaned up however as they are subjective and OR. Rewrite with better sourcing. Dragomiloff 01:22, 23 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 Notable per the Blue Ribbon Award. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stanley Clark School

Stanley Clark School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article does not assert notability of this school. No secondary sources are given. It therefore fails WP:ORG. Notability warning was added last September; no major changes since then. Sent here as part of the Notability Wikiproject --B. Wolterding 18:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak delete I'm always somewhat reluctant to favor deleting school articles but I haven't really found any sources that assert notability and since this is a private school, there isn't an obvious article to merge the little content there is into. Seed 2.0 19:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. I agree with Seed. Most hits I got were school rating sites, nothing suggesting notability. CharacterZero | Speak 23:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete schools are not notable. Cedars 23:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep All school districts are notable; Many high schools are notable; some elementary schools are notable. This school is one of the small fraction of schools nationwide that have been selected for recognition by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, the highest award that an American school can receive. As modified the article makes explicit and supported claims of notability. Alansohn 04:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    The bolding probably isn't necessary but in light of those new cites, I'm changing my vote to keep. -- Seed 2.0 10:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 05:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I also went ahead and added a bit about this Reggio Emilia approach that the school's website talks about. I can't exactly tell how pervasive this educational philosophy is, but we do have an article about it. I'm not sure if this adds to notability in any way, but it marginally helps the article. I also agree that the Blue Ribbon helps out. Even though winning the award 20 years ago isn't the most compelling example of notoriety, it is certainly a start. So, again following User:Seed 2.0's lead, I'm inclined to change to a weak keep, though I'd like to see a little more work done on it. CharacterZero | Speak 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep because of the Blue Ribbon. Don't matter how old it is. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Blue Ribbon school. TerriersFan 02:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

*Delete Being a Blue Ribbon School (along with the other 500,000) does not grant notability. Delete as Non-Notable. --TREYWiki 00:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - Please don't quote misleading figures. In 1996 there were 3,000 schools and since then around 300 per year have been added. Blue Ribbon schools are about the top 5% of schools. TerriersFan 00:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Sorry to bother you with the facts, but the total number of schools in the United States is significantly fewer than 500,000, let alone the number of schools granted the nation's highest honor for a school. Your (mis)understanding of the numbers is off by a whopping two orders of magnitude from reality. A vote in an AfD -- to delete or keep -- should be based on Wikipedia policy, as well as a basic understanding of the facts. Alansohn 02:40, 25 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. I'm not terribly persuaded by the keep arguments; they seem to be a bit blinded by the Oxbridge Effect. The universities are notable, not necessarily a ski trip their students jaunt off on. But the debate doesn't delete it, and I can't reach that conclusion on some basis from the article itself. (Disclosure, not that it matters: I have jaunted off on this trip myself twice). -Splash - tk 23:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Varsity Trip

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

This does not appear to be notable. 34 unique Ghits, most of which are blogs from students who participated in it. Ohconfucius 03:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

addendum: as indicated below, the article did survive an AfD in April 2006. However, I believe the keep rationale was suspect, hinging on "has been going for 85 years supporting the ski competition between Oxford and Cambridge Universities which historically has been important particularly for the development of the sport in the UK", a claim not substantiated by any sources anywhere. Given that the jolly is attractively priced, hardly surprising that it enrols some 1500 students each year, but still hardly worth a wikipedia entry as it appears the intention is to promote this social club viz: "Today things have changed with the trip aiming to provide cheap skiing and promotion to newcomers to the sport", or to document the things a bunch of Oxbridge students do. There have been no earth-shattering improvements to the stub since the last discussion. Unlike the Boat Race, not all matches between the two arch-rivals merits an entry in wikipedia - this one has had little or no media coverage from what I could find. Ohconfucius 02:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Ford MF 06:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I thought this had been here before and was kept for a number of reasons including its importance for the history of the sport. However I can not find the earlier discussion. --Bduke 08:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Currently the material in the entry is poor, but event is notable. The entry should focus more on the historical role played by the Varsity Trip in the development of Ski Racing. I would agree that the current entry needs changes. --zadacka 16:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 18:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Those who wish to keep an article lacking in sources are responsible for providing them. the_undertow talk 22:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm working on adding sources. It appears that slalom skiing was born in 1922. It would seem unlikely that the first Varsity Trip was run in 1920 (I have found a source stating that it was 1922, and have updated this) but this means that the trip will have been instrumental in pioneering the new sport. I'll try to keep working on this...Zadacka 16:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable and now has an additional source thanks to Zadacka who is working on the article. Incidentally, this diff [60] shows the nominator removed two links to the Oxford and Cambridge clubs that host the event just before listing this AfD. Care to explain why these links don't meet WP:EL? These are non-commercial sites with no advertising, directly relevant to the article and appropriately filed under external links. Paxse 17:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. A new page could be created and this merged there as an editorial decision. W.marsh 13:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rizzo on the Radio

Rizzo on the Radio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy with a lively discussion on the article's talk page. Notable? Or not? You make the call! Herostratus 04:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Neutral as nominator, I don't have an opinion, I am just moving this here from speedy. Herostratus 04:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No assertion of notability beyond the Cleveland market. No sources to show that he is notable beyond the Cleveland market. In any case, it's possible that an article could be written about the host, but not this show. we certainly don't need information about his regular callers. DarkAudit 18:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Multiple sources exists covering Rizzo and the program, establishing notability; more exist and will be added. No Wikipedia policy exists that fame must be beyond one of country's largest cities. Material on callers was removed. Alansohn 21:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Make page on Tony Rizzo and MergeThe show itself is not very notable, but Rizzo is a notable broadcaster in Cleveland, much like Jim Donovan. His page could describe this show and his other accoplishments. Ben1283 18:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I second the notion that a Tony Rizzo (sportscaster) article should be constructed and merged with this material The show is merely a medium by which Rizzo gets his message out, and therefore is probably unworthy of its own entry. I'd like to see a Rizzo page (with a disambiguation) that contains more biographical information in addition to show info. AlphaEta 00:36, 24 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 Deleted per CSD G7. Log PeaceNT 13:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Summers (media/wrestling personality)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Mike Summers (media/wrestling personality)
Mike Summers (media/wrestling personality) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article was created by the subject and while claims have been made to the contrary on the talk page, conflict of interest remains a serious issue, particularly in the controversy section. COI not withstanding notability and sourcing are also a problem. Currently all info is sourced from the subjects own webpage, the webpage of his former employer a wrestling promotion and a profile on Online World of Wrestling, a website on which the profiles are largely user submited. If other source are provided during this AfD I would be happy to change my vote but currently it stands as Delete Daniel J. Leivick 18:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I protest the so-called "nomination" for Articles of deletion. I have every right to have a page here just as much as everyone else. This was in response to a couple of profiles that had my name on them. People wanted to know more about me, so my page was put up... only to have it continuously "nominated" for deletion. Mr. Leivick has voted it to be "deleted" which I also protest. I will NOT be responsible for other individuals who bash this site if it comes to that. Online World Of Wrestling and Obsessed With Wrestling are not even bothering to protest because of past dealings with Wikipedia. DO NOT DELETE!!! Summers95926 22:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment No, you don't have "every right to have a page here as much as everyone else." Because everyone else does not have their own page here. You may wish to take a look at Wikipedia is not a Soapbox, especially sections 2 and 3, and Wikipedia is not a personal webspace. Self-published articles are often scrutinized to a greater degree. You may also want to sample WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI. -Not taking a stand yet on the AfD until I've had time to read through it. LaughingVulcan 23:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Response Fine. But when I become well-known, you'll practically be begging to have my page put back up. I promise you that! -- "The Standard" Mike Summers
Response When you meet the notability guidelines for people, an article about you may (or will) be put back up. (Assuming that the AfD consensus here becomes Delete.) LaughingVulcan 00:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC) (Missed sig...)
Just to clarify no one will have to beg, subjects cannot control their own pages. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Mr. Summers - he has every right to have a page. I VOTE KEEP THE PAGE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.249.247 (talk • contribs)

Note: Anonymous author then blanked nominator's user and talk pages. -- Gogo Dodo 18:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per nom; appears to have no notability content and appears to be a vanity page. LaughingVulcan 03:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gorboth

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

Probable hoax, I doubt the references given really say anything about this character. Virtually the only Google hits are to video game and modern fantasy related sites. I'm listing here rather than proposing for deletion on the off chance someone turns anything real up about this. Cúchullain t/c 19:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator.--Cúchullain t/c 19:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - smells iffy, and you'd expect more confirming references from Google Books for such a detailed story. I'm very suspicious at the failure to give the full title of the Ward & Kuntz reference: the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Deities & Demigods Cyclopedia. Tearlach 23:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even though, according to an Amazon review, this Cyclopedia thing does contain "Gods from past and present real life religions", it doesn't sound exactly like an authoritative source. As for Curtain's Myths and Folklore of Ireland, Google books doesn't seem to find any reference to Gorboth in the book, and there's no mention of it in the previewed index. Flapdragon 23:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per above and my observations on the article Talk page. The only reason I didn't nominate it myself at once was the miniscule chance that some obscure character of this name exists in Irish folklore (not mythology); but even if he does the content of this article is patently pure nonsense (and I'm being polite!). Enaidmawr 15:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Elrith 23:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE and redirect -Docg 23:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Schlafly

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Andrew Schlafly Articles for deletion/Andrew Schlafly (2nd nomination)
Andrew Schlafly (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article Andrew Schlafly was nominated for deletion a little less than a month ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Schlafly. I have been trying to find sources for the article, and encouraging others to do likewise all this time. Nothing has come up, I was going to wait till a whole month had passed but have been encouraged to go ahead and put this in now.

One of the fundamental criteria for articles at wikipedia is verifiability. This is a core principle. Another core principle is Neutral point of view. If these two criteria can not be met then no amount of "notability" or "really wanting an article about something/someone" matters. I intend to show that this article can not meet the criteria for verifiability and can not meet a neutral point of view. These are the primary issues. I am not questioning his notability, his "worthiness" of an article, but rather the fact that no matter how much some of us would like a well researched article about this person it is impossible to build one meeting core wikipedia guidelines.

Article fails verifiability:

Below are all the sources that have been found the whole time we have been working on this article, and a month after a call was put out to find the best sources we can. These are not sources that can construct an article.

These articles focus totally on Conservapedia and offer only passing mention of Andrew Schlafly

Nunan, Tim (2007-03-08). Conservapedia Demystified. Nassau Weekly. Retrieved on 2007-04-23. [61]
Cotey, John (2007-04-03). Online Conservapedia pitched as conservative alternative to Wikipedia. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved on 2007-04-21. [62]
Weird, wild wiki on which anything goes. Metro (2007-03-19). Retrieved on 2007-04-23.[63]

These are primary sources

Eagle Forum University, Instructor ID. www.eagleforum.org. Retrieved on 22 April 2007.[64]
PoliticalMoneyline. cspan.politicalmoneyline.com. Retrieved on 22 April 2007.[65]

Sources that are referenced to address claims in the article but do not mention Schlafly

FDA Press Release [66]
HPV FAQ from the CDC [67]
Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, Peto R, Reeves G (2004). "Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83?000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries". Lancet 363 (9414): 1007-16. PMID 15051280.
Abortion and Breast cancer from National Cancer Institute [68]

Secondary sources that mention Schlafly not related to conservapedia

The Discernment Ministries: British-Israelism. Watch Unto Prayer. Retrieved on 22 April 2007. [69]
This source mentions Andrew Schlafly only once and only includes birth date and birth location, not really a great WP:ATT source either.
Catherine Kosarek, Medical Student, Marries Andrew L. Schlafly, Engineer - New York Times. www.nytimes.com. Retrieved on 22 April 2007.[70]
A Wedding announcement, thats it.
MSN Video of discussion on HPV Vaccine.[71]
Features Schlafly but tells us nothing about him other than he dislikes the HPV vaccine
Study of abortion-cancer link 'meaningless': Expert says surveyed group didn't include those typically hurt, WorldNetDaily May 4th 2007 [72]
Probably fails WP:ATT offers very little information about Schlafly.

This is it, there are no non-trivial secondary sources that we can use to build this article. Therefore, it fails WP:Verifiability.

Article can not be written with a NPOV

A review of the article history will show that it has been difficult to keep out inadequately sourced criticism. This is particularly worrisome for a WP:BLP article. The other angle though is most of the criticism is valid. There are things to say about this man that are not the most flattering. But there are no sources for it. There are no sources for the things that we can say good about him. The only thing we can put in this article are basic skeleton facts. Born, raised, married, children, ect. This is not an interesting article, and more importantly it is not an article that reflects a neutral tone when weighed against the extensive criticism that has been leveled against him and his actions.

This at first might seem like a contradiction, how can someone have extensive criticism and not have sources per verifiability? The problem is that the criticism is located in sources that fail WP:ATT.

Summary

Based on the above reasons and evidence I urge this community to reevaluate its previous decision to keep this article. Anything that needs to be said about Andrew Schlafly can be said in the conservapedia article since all the sources relate to that anyway.

Tmtoulouse 18:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete After !voting keep last time, I'm one of the ones who volunteered to source, expand and keep this libel free, and I (and everyone else) am failing on all three counts. While Schlafly has, obviously, received a lot of publicity, it's virtually impossible to find anything to say about the man himself as opposed to his role on Conservapedia. A number of editors are - I'm certain in good faith - repeatedly adding potentially libellous personal attacks on Schlafly, sourced from blogs, other wikis and Conservapedia itself, and aside from than nobody has managed to find any legitimate content to add. As those of you who've had any dealings with me on XfDs presumably know, I do make an effort to dig out sources & expand articles, but there really does not appear to be anything to add to this page. This article seems to be unexpandable and increasingly unmaintainable - and at some point someone will post something offensive enough to goad Schalfly & Brandt into taking action (yes, they'd probably lose - but do we really need the hassle and bad press). Although he undoubtedly does pass WP:N, I feel that in this case we should WP:IAR and delete this article, without even merging the content to Conservapedia, as attempting to preserve NPOV is proving impossible. If sources can be found to genuinely expand an article about the man himself, as opposed to the organisations he works for, the page can be recreated (although, I think it would warrant at the very least semiprotection from the moment of its creation), but with the sources as they stand at present, delete — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom on account of failure to satisfy WP:V. Article which talk about Conservopedia make only passing reference to SAchlafly, and things like his wedding announcement are also inadequate. Edison 20:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tmtoulouse & Iridescenti. A textbook case of how the lack of sources actually about a subject can make it impossible to write a policy-compliant article. Schafly is already mentioned at the articles Conservapedia and Phyllis Schlafly. (I'm unsure if a mention in Eagle Forum is warranted, but there isn't any there right now.) --Dhartung | Talk 20:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Conservapedia, which he purportedly founded; his curriculum vitae seems impressive enough for that, at least. 216.194.0.154 00:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Conservapedia. If all that we can write about him is in that context, then let's send his information there. His name is certainly associated with it (and thus a valid search term), so there's no real reason to axe this entirely. Serpent's Choice 10:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tmtoulouse & Iridescenti. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Conservapedia, don't delete entry totally. (reasoning as previous) --Aulis Eskola 14:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, leaving redirect to Conservapædia. A couple sentences may be worth merging, but not more than that. Anville 17:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe we should redirect Conservapedia to Conservapædia just to annoy him, since (as all the other familiar names I see here who tried to steer it vaguely towards sanity in the early days & got indefblocked for it will testify), it's a blocking offence there to use British spelling — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tmtoulouse & Iridescent, although a redirect will also work fine. JoshuaZ 23:23, 24 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 - There are no new arguments being brought out from the last debate. Aquarius • talk 20:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current international tensions with Iran

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Current international tensions with Iran Articles for deletion/Current international tensions with Iran (2)
Current international tensions with Iran (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a hodgepodge of info already covered under other pages, specifically Iran's nuclear program, Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran, 2007 Arab world-US coalition against Iran, and others. Title also makes no sense. What will the page be called in a year when the conflict is over? It may be well-sourced but all of this is already covered on other pages. Perspicacite 18:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As Interiot said on the last AFD: "When the article was created, the events already were tied together by Foreign relations of Iran. It's not clear why we need an article that focuses only on the tensions, and doesn't include the aspects of Iran's foreign policy that other countries can agree with. And there's no clear reason that we need the summary of current events to be separated from the summary of historical events (especially when foreign relations of Iran has long addressed both). --Interiot 07:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)" Perspicacite 18:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant article, "tensions" can be a bit WP:OR-ish of a word too... Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 22:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • keep very encyclopediac and well sourced article. Not redundent at all. This puts info into a new list and expresses modern views.--Sefringle 06:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. It's abundantly clear that there is an ongoing international crisis involving Iran; perhaps a rename might be in order to avoid loaded language, but the article, while in need of improvement, is encyclopedic and informative as it is. Paul079 22:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just finished reading - great article. Needs some tidying up with too many inconsistent styles but hell this would make a great featured article. Encyclopedic, well referenced (52 inline cites!) and definitely belongs here. Paxse 16:56, 26 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. Orderinchaos 09:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greythorn Primary School

Greythorn Primary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable primary school. The article provides little context other than its location. Mattinbgn/ talk 20:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 20:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Definately non-notable.
  • Delete. Article currently an unsourced one line stub. Google News Archives shows some results but appear to be trivial mentions. [73] '

Capitalistroadster 02:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom --Closedmouth 03:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Balwyn North, Victoria. Article makes no claim of notability. A review of the school's website (especially, the school profile), and searches on Google and Google News/Archive didn't dig up anything useful. Note that many of the links that do pop up are for a similarly named school in the UK. Alansohn 04:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 05:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A7: notability not asserted.Garrie 02:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.. Trebor 11:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balji Nath Pandit

Balji Nath Pandit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is still just a stub and no evidence of notability for the subject is given. There is no evidence that the works attributed to the author are notable. Buddhipriya 21:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment; the author has written many books: [74]. John Vandenberg 23:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to "Balajinnatha Pandita", which is the correct name. Actually, he is more commonly known as B N Pandit(a) -- he is esteemed scholar of Kashmir Saivism and discovered a cave temple called Hapatgund. His books are used in syllabus of Indian universities (for eg. Mumbai University). 220.227.179.5 04:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, per User 220.227.179.5; books used as textbooks meets PROF. So far we dont know whether he is not affiliated with the uni, but it doesnt appear that way. Wouldnt renaming to Balajinnātha Paṇḍita be better? John Vandenberg 04:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    He's not affiliated with the Mumbai University, only his book is listed in the syllabus. Balajinnātha Paṇḍita is IAST for Balajinnatha Pandita. Many scholars dealing with Sanskrit and Pali use IAST for every word of Indian origin, but generally, it is not used for names of modern places and people. For example, Kashmir is preferred to "Kāśmīra", Hindi is preferred to "Hindī" etc. Either is fine, but IAST makes it harder to search for the a word on a page (ASCII keyboards) and it also confuses majority of the users who don't know IAST. 220.227.179.5 07:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    Regarding use of IAST, there are currently no good standards in place for its use within the Hinduism project, but I have collected a variety of threads related to IAST standardization at User:Buddhipriya/IASTUsage. While a few articles use IAST in the article title, most do not, and on at least one occasion my insertion of IAST in an article title was reverted by another editor on the grounds that it would be difficult for users to search for the article. An example of an article that uses IAST in the title is Kaśmir Śaivism which pertains to this author. Buddhipriya 16:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The book I can find listed in the syllabus for Mumbai University is Aspects of Kashmir Shaivism: B. N. Pandit, Utpala Publication Shrinagar 1977. Are there other titles that I have missed? Apparently that particular book is out of print or hard to find, as only one copy appears to be available on Amazon.com. I have found one reference to Pandit, B. N. Pandit Kāsmīra-Saiva-Darsana (Hindi) Jammu, Shri Ranbir Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapitha, 1973 in the bibliography to a recognized academic work on Kasmir Shaivism, Mark Dyczkowksi's The Doctrine of Vibration (ISBN 0-88706-432-9) so that supports the notion that some of his books are vetted by academic sources. However I am unclear on exactly how the Wikipedia policy of notability would apply to a case like this. Buddhipriya 04:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    WP:PROF is the appropriate standard. I have expanded the bio with a few facts I have found, and listed a subset of the mans works. He has translated a number of Sanskrit texts. John Vandenberg 09:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    Based on WP:PROF and the evidence reported here, I now feel that he probably does qualify, but this is the first case where I have examined WP:PROF in relation to a stub article like this. Closer examination of his bibliography shows that some of the key works are in Hindi, which would affect the number of Western academic citations to them. Buddhipriya 17:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: over ten books, six of which appear in my research library, establishes notability--add "in need of an expert tag," since the article gives little context. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: the evidence presented, and now added to the article, establishes that the subject meets the tests of notability for academics. Buddhipriya 18:29, 24 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/speedy keep. Non admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 22:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Pope (Die Hard)

Greg Pope (Die Hard) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No notability outside of the film. Delete and redirect —Gaff ταλκ 22:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I will retract my nom. Can we speedy keep? Looks like there are articles for all the others. Oddly, however, the characters from Brave New World have all been moved from their respective articles into the novels page. Where can I find out the criteria governing these sorts of pages for fictional characters? —Gaff ταλκ 22:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 13:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Schriner

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

A write-in candidate for president, who has absolutely no chance of winning at all. The reason i haven't speedied this is because he does appear to have a tiny bit of publicity in small newspapers, but that is hardly notable i think. 11kowrom 22:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep for now, it does seem he has a small campaign going. James H. McCall has the same issue i think, as he also has a small campaign. I'm not sure if that makes them notable, but for now my stance is to keep. Borjon22 22:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete both Schriner and McCall. Just because they say they are running for president, doesn't mean anyone cares. For contestants in a national election, national media coverage is required to establish notability, and it's not there. YechielMan 05:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This guy has ran in elections since 2000, and has been campaigning in multiple states. He many have no chance of winning, but neither do Libertarians, and they have articles. 729roman 00:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Plenty of press coverage since he started out 7 years ago. I don't think 'chance of winning' should be a factor in notability. Lots of musicians have no chance of winning a Grammy but that doesn't put them up for deletion. 67.70.163.54 17:24, 25 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 - BLP violation or attack page. Newyorkbrad 23:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Faheem Muhammed

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

Contested speedy. Depending on how you want to look at it this is (a) a bio of a totally non-notable petty criminal; (b) a violation of WP:BLP (if the culprit's not been caught, presumably innocent until proven guilty applies to this guy) or (c) an unsourced attack page with some dubious allegations to boot (for one thing, what does the fact of being Muslim or African-American have to do with it; for another, what would a muslim be doing in the liquor store in the first place...) Since the speedy's contested & any prod will no doubt be deleted, bringing it here to go through the motions — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • NOTE: This page needs to be Speedied. I blanked it entirely because it contained unsourced slanderous statements, then added a Speedy tag. An admin will review (and presumably delete) shortly. Doc Tropics 23:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, page was blanked except for speedy tag. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The page wasn't blanked by the creator so {{db-empty}} doesn't apply - however IMO {{db-attack}} and {{db-bio}} both do — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Actually, no one is generally supposed to blank a page that's on AfD, but there is a common-sense exception for serious BLP violations and attack pages. Newyorkbrad 23:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. This is either an attack page, utter nonsense or just not notable. Committing a robbery and getting, what, 30 seconds on the local news channel? That has to be one of the worst assertions of notability I've ever seen. Tagged article for CSD for nn bio and tagged for disputed accuracy. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 23:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as speedily as possible. He's a juvenile to boot! --JayHenry 23:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per CSD A1 and A3. —Kyриx 02:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic criminal jurisprudence

Islamic criminal jurisprudence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The entire text of this article is a restatement of the title. There are also no sources. It also is not notable enough to merit separation from the article on Fiqh. Perspicacite 21:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 13:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gameboy light

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

The page Game Boy line already covers this all. C. Foultz 23:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Move to Game Boy light and redirect to Game Boy line-- I'm sure that someone may search on here for a Game Boy light, and a proper renaming/redirect might be in order. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As above. It's covered better in the "line" article anyway, which even has a picture of it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect both Since people are just as likely to type game boy and gameboy, redirect them both to the page named above. FrozenPurpleCube 23:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect I have personally seen this product before, however it has such a limited release and so few differences from the main mono Gameboy that it might as well be part of a list.--Kylohk 09:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was - Speedy delete (same as K-Dimez, and Young G)) - Nabla 22:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Truth (rapper)

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

The original version of the page was a copy and paste of the T.I. article, with "The Truth" substituted when needed. Most of that text has since been removed, but subject still does not assert notability per WP:MUSIC. No refs. I have tried to speedy several times, but the tags were repeatedly removed first by the original author, then by an anonymous IP. Bongwarrior 23:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Speedy Delete Per nom and under CSD: A7. --Whstchy 00:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral The nom is pretty damning, but... I've actually seen billboards with this guy's album on them (I live near a black neighborhood). Not sure what to make of it. As you can probably guess, Google searches are worthless with such a generic name. - Richfife 04:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC) (See below)
  • delete. Probable joke. The same author as since created Young G (speedy deleted) using the exact same method - Nabla 00:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Must be a coincidence or something. The billboard has since come down, and I didn't exactly study the thing, so I'm going to retract my previous comment as only muddying the waters. - Richfife 01:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: T.I. has been cloned again, this time as Yung G. Sohelpme 01:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And yet again as K-Dimez. I'll go ahead and speedy delete this one too. - Nabla 22:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Simpson (politician)

Tom Simpson (politician) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is about a local politician does not establish the notability of the person. There is only one citation referenced in the article and that is a university newspaper. Much of the text in the article is taken from the politician's campaign website. Please see the Politicians sub-section of WP:BIO.

I have attempted to help the creator of the article establish the subjects notability as well as to confirm permission was given to use copywriter text from the campaign website. See User talk:Hobartcanuck#Tom Simpson (politician). Patleahy 00:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. It appears that the issue is that the primary editor of the article is having trouble understanding the difference between an encyclopedia and a campaign brochure. However, as a candidate for political office the article can stand, it just needs cleaning up. I suggest the nominator do it himself. --Crunch 01:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a candidate for an office is not yet notable based on that office, and the subject has little notability otherwise. (We are deleting candidates, this week, aren't we?) There is strong opposition in some quarters to making Wikipedia a generalized election guide per WP:NOT. --Dhartung | Talk 06:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A candidate for electoral office is not notable for that alone and the subject of this article is not otherwise notable. It is important for the future of Wikipedia as a trusted independent source that Wikipedia avoid becoming part of election campaigns and vigilance is required against more sophisticated attempts than this. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 11:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

All material that originated from any campaign page has been delteted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.14.1.3 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC).

  • Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:N or WP:BIO. I agree with the above concerns, though I suspect we will have a hard time excluding candidate articles as they are likely to generate coverage in multiple sources. However, this particular article does not have enough sources to demonstrate notability or to write a decent encyclopedic article.--Kubigula (talk) 22:02, 25 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. W.marsh 13:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who Wrote the Bible

Who Wrote the Bible (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Isn't an important TV programme, article is a NPOV trawl through the Bible, from the POV of a believer, all of which is covered in more detail on the individual book articles. It also claims to be an up to date look at Bible scholarship, despite the fact the programme is now 12 years old. Gareth E Kegg 00:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete or at the very least add "(1995 TV Program)" to the title to put it into perspective. - Richfife 04:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems to place undue weight on a TV series that hasn't really gained notoriety - or if it has, the article writer didn't say so. I would sooner approve an article on Richard Elliot Friedman's book of the same name. YechielMan 05:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This program has to be as "important" as a Star Trek episode, each of which has a topic. However, as per Richfife, the title should be expanded with "(1995 TV Program)". --Interesdom 13:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, but Star Trek Episodes are fictional, and add something in telling a new story, but everything in this article is better covered in the articles on the indivdual books. Gareth E Kegg 13:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Importance is not the measure; notability is. For each Star Trek episode, there are undoubtedly dozens of people who could recite the dialog verbatim; I'd doubt there's a single person who could do likewise with even a 20-minute excerpt from this tv show. Carlossuarez46 18:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete seems more like a sales brochure; I don't believe that anything that aired on some network is notable, much less the resultant (and no doubt quite profitable) DVDs of such programs on which this article seems focused. Carlossuarez46 18:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep and Cleanup I think the article does require cleanup (for example, there is no reference that it is part of the Ancient Mysteries series of A&E programs, many of which have their own articles. Nor does the Ancient Mysteries page yet link to this article.) The program had one review, at time of airing, at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEFDD1739F93BA25750C0A963958260, and one other passing review as part of a group at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4207/is_19950317/ai_n10189427 (The Milwaukee Journal, via Findarticles) Don't know if that's enough to get it past notability, but it's enough for me. LaughingVulcan 23:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Cleaned up my own note above, sorry! LaughingVulcan 00:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Added the Ancient Mysteries link to the article, and the program to the Ancient Mysteries page. I may have been mistaken before, as most of the links in the AM article seem to redirect to the generic subject of the program, not a link to the program of the AM series itself.LaughingVulcan 03:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No signs of notability. Elrith 00:14, 23 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 wasWithdrawn by nominator'. As I said in the nomination, this was procedural and I see a pretty good reason to keep and source, so I'm withdrawing. Redirects, renames, etc can go on the talkpage.--Isotope23 19:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Gay Left"

"Gay Left" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I found this tagged as a speedy. I think there is an assertion of notability in this article, the problem simply is that it isn't sourced. Speedy isn't the way to go here, so I'm listing it here. No real opinion, this is a procedural nomination. Isotope23 15:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep If references were added I could see this being a suitable article. — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 16:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge with Socialism and LGBT rights and redirect - This publication addressed the interplay of race, sexual orientation and Marxist ideology in a radical new way. In this respect, it it unique worth keeping. It should be kept as is or condensed, supplemented with proper citations, and merged with Socialism and LGBT rights. AlphaEta 19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, rename to Gay Left or Gay Left Collective. Citations in Google Books and elsewhere that could be used to improve the article. Connection to Jeffrey Weeks should be mentioned. --Dhartung | Talk 19:28, 25 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.