Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 21

< May 20	May 22 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

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

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

The result was delete. Well as much as I'd like to spend hours creating a new list for you guys... that's not the closer's job. If anyone wants this content to work on a new list, let me know and I'll userfy it for you. W.marsh 13:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of Libertarians by occupation:

A libertarian politician is a notable intersection. A libertarian scholar is a notable intersection. This is just trivia at best. Bulldog123 00:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Most of these entries are unsubstantiated and I'd question the usefulness of lists like this anyway. BTLizard 11:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep This could be interesting if done well.--Gloriamarie 17:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe, but WP:INTERESTING. Bulldog123 15:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument. DHowell 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    - This is an encyclopedia, not youtube. "Interesting" is not a valid keep argument in any way. Instead of saying all that, I prefer to link to WP:INTERESTING. Bulldog123 20:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Unsubstantiated speculation. XTC, Steely Dan, Blues Traveler, Rush...??? Dragomiloff 00:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge all into a single List of libertarians (with a small "l"), à la List of atheists, and remove any entries which are not supported by reliable sources (noting that reliable source citations may exist on the article about the person rather than in these lists). Many of the people on these lists seem to have such sources. (And the article on Rush, at least, describes the band as libertarian.) DHowell 02:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Additional comment I really fail to understand why deletion would be prefereable to merging and pruning the list to reliably sourced (WP:RS) and verifiable (WP:V) entries, of which there are many among these lists. It would certainly not violate any policies, especially if improved, and would be acceptable under the WP:LIST guidelines. DHowell 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep It seems a value judgement to think that the political opinions of academics are worthy of listing but that those of musicians are not. Nick mallory 15:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I really don't know what you're talking about. An entertainer's political opinions ARE less relevant than an political scientists' or a politicians'. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Bulldog123 16:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  - If an entertainer's policital opinion wasn't important, then there wouldn't be reliable sources commenting on that political opinion. DHowell 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    - Wrong. Reliable sources can comment on a person's number of siblings and parent's professions. List of people who's fathers were doctors isn't gonna cut it. Bulldog123 20:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge all into a list of libertarians and prune uncited entries. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 08:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a typical undercited attempt to claim a list of minor celebrities for an unrelated causes. Mangoe 12:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete undercited, could cause large-scale disagrements about validity of entries, lists with no other content tend to be boring. Lurker 17:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Then remove the uncited and/or controversial content, and add content which makes it not "boring". People may find many articles on Wikipedia "boring", but "Wikipedia is not boring" is not one of our policies. DHowell 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per BTLizard. Clicketyclack 22:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete unencyclopedic intersection. I.e. this is an indescriminant collection of information and should be deleted even if it can be sourced. Eluchil404 23:45, 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 KEEP. —Ocatecir ^Talk 19:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heart of the Beholder

Borderline speediable as an advert IMO. However, that award does seem to be at least some kind of assertion of notability, and if it was genuinely banned, maybe got more coverage that it appears (I can't find anything, it has to be said, although the producers seem to have a sideline in spamming MySpace to judge by the number of hits there). I find it hard to imagine that a film would actually be banned "because it was made by athiests", unless the cinema in question was in Tehran — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of links and references, some of which look to be linkspam work, and others with organizations like PFLAG and atheist organizations discussing it. But I don't see any really good actual coverage of the film, which one would think should be out there someplace. It may not be online, is the problem. If the creators can get some refs into it, I'd be happy to see it stick around, but until then weak delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have created the article because someone on myspace sent me a message about the film. Now that it turns out that this message is likely spam, I would also nominate for a weak delete. On the other hand I found some reviews about the film here and here and it seams that the film itself may be noteworthy. --helohe (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

*Keep Found on the Internet Movie Database: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0415838/ Seems legit. Elrith 00:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

- Comment Anything can have an entry on IMDB; all it does is prove it exists, it's specifically excluded as a reliable source (see WP:NF). I can't find any coverage of the film in anything resembling a reliable source. It's two years old so the reviews, talk etc should certainly be out there by now. And I reiterate, if this film was actually banned in the US - which seems unlikely - why is there no press coverage of this? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, I took a further look at this, and I agree with you. I'm changing my vote to Delete. Elrith 01:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ - lacks reliable sources -- Whpq 16:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep - reliable sources have been found -- Whpq 14:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep The film has been reviewed by 6 different people, at least 1 of which I think is notable. I have found the reviews on RottenTomatoes. Link--Kylohk 16:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

~~Weak~~ Keep. I checked out the reviews from Rottentomatoes, and a few of them look passable (e.g.). Also the film's site claims that it won awards at five indy film festivals, which I verified (e.g.). I won't say it's an overwhelming case for notability, but it's enough for me to go with a ~~weak~~ keep. FYI - I don't think the film was actually "banned"; I think some theaters just refused to play it.--Kubigula (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing position to straight "Keep" per additional evidence from W.marsh.--Kubigula (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

keep per Kubigula and the fact that there seems to be some more converage than just those 2 critics: [1] reveals several stories in the Post-Dispatch. Our article needs some work though. --W.marsh 13:38, 27 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. Sr 13 02:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Innocence (Song)

And I quote (emphasis added): ""Innocence" may be announced to be the third single from Avril Lavigne's third album The Best Damn Thing". Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR. Kurt Shaped Box 23:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The article's single line in unsourced and complete speculation. ~~If the song exists in non-single form, redirect to the album, and~~ Delete, with option to recreate if/when it becomes released as a single. If the song does not exist, delete outright. There are no prizes for being the one to start an article; people need to WP:CHILL until a number of surced, verifiable facts are released. -- saberwyn 23:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to album for now, until song has been confirmed or denied as third single (and only if the single exists on non-single form). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Sarah Buxton also had a song called "Innocence", and I'm sure she and Avril aren't the only two singers who've had songs with that name. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. If there are other songs with that name, then why should it be redirected to that one song? The Hooded One 00:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete as being the name of a song by at least four people/bands at this point and thus would need to be a disambig page. Also note that Innocence (song) also exists, and is apparently going to be the third single from Bjork's upcoming album. Should we be discussing that as well? Tony Fox (arf!) 04:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It'll need a seperate AfD, as there's a different subject, slightly more information, and a source (although not much of one). -- saberwyn 10:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. "Innocence"...that was by Harlequin, right? And Avril Lavigne wasn't even 1 year old when I graduated from high school. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and there are several notable songs by that name so why should this one rate a special article? Dragomiloff 00:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--Phil500 (Talk / Contribs) 08:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Clicketyclack 22:56, 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. Sr 13 03:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montana Skies (Novel)

An unencyclopedic entry for a self-published book that fails notability Victoriagirl 22:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. POV and goes against the standard novel guidelines to boot. Dooms Day349 23:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable novel and slanted page to boot -- definitely fails WP:BK. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Per TenPoundHammer above. The Hooded One 00:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per my nomination and the observations above. Victoriagirl 15:16, 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. Asserts no notability at all. Sr 13 03:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Life Mein Kabhie Kabhiee

Non-notable film; recommend delete Dchall1 22:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, article does not assert notability. Dooms Day349 23:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 04:07, 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. PeaceNT 03:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fife fire (american football team)

Junior Team. I am questioning it's notability. In and of itself, one team alone can not reintroduce a game. There have to be other teams. I suggest an article on the league and this team is mentioned there. Postcard Cathy 22:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - If nothing else, this is a copyvio from [[2]]. --Dchall1 22:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete - an American football team in Fife? That's the European equivalent of the Bloomington, Indiana Rugby League team. If even the adult team has ever had a single press mention other than reprinted press releases in the local paper I'll be staggered, the youth team certainly hasn't — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, and it's written in the first person. Ab e g92contribs 19:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the fourth, but it still applies. Ab e g92contribs 19:53, 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. Sr 13 22:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Venomous Duck

Fairly obvious hoax page, accompanying image appears to be some sort of editing (whatever the term is). I strongly doubt that there is any truth to this. Dooms Day349 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete Enough said. --Whs tc hy 22:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's no speedy delete criteria for hoaxes (or so I was last told). Which is why I had to go through these channels. Dooms Day349 22:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What about WP:CSD#G1? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I mean get rid of it now, that's all.--Whs tc hy 01:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to seem like I'm combating myself on the deletion, but..."Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes." Dooms Day349 23:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Why not propose a CSD for hoaxes?--Whs tc hy 23:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Likely it's been done before, if I recall correctly it's on the account that it is always questionable as to whether it is a hoax. Thus AFD (or prod, maybe, but this user has objected a couple times, so...) is the better route. Insofar as my knowledge goes. Dooms Day349 23:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete article as unsourced and externally unverifiable. Article appears to be half about a 'monster' that terrorises Pensylvania (hoax), and half about how the duck doesn't exist but is a metaphot for sexually transmitted diseases (attempt to use Wikipedia to create slang). Unfortunately, this will have to be a standard-speed delete, as the article does not meet CSD G1 (although I am quite partial to snowcones). -- saberwyn 23:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Will the closing admin please also murder the image if this article is deleted? -- saberwyn 23:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete article as unsourced and gibberish. Venomous duck on a web search has many hits and different meanings, including this one (venereal disease slang) but hardly seems encyclopedic considering the vastly different meanings applied to the euphemism. If someone wants to re-create the article in a serious fashion attempting to cite all the different possible interpretations of the phrase, they can, though I doubt if anyone will.Markisgreen 01:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. JJL 01:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment It appears the author admits it to being fake. --Whs tc hy 02:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
One of those chased me around a park the other day. Well, it didn't actually have the big sharp pointy teeth or anything, but they were similar... Delete as hoax. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete as hoax. -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 02:14, 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 as WP:CSD#G7. Non-admin (yet) closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ümit Alkuş

This article violates WP:OR, WP:N, and WP:NPOV. --Random ^{Say it here!} 22:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete WP:CSD#G7 --Whs tc hy 22:29, 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 Tears for Fears discography. Sr 13 03:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs by Tears for Fears

Another strange one. Unsuitable for replacement by a category, since I suspect every song except Mad World will be a redlink, but I don't understand what purpose this list serves, given that each song is already listed on the individual albums' entries. We don't see the need for List of songs by the Beatles, List of songs by the Rolling Stones etc. I recognise that we do have a List of songs by Pink Floyd, but that serves a (sort of) genuinely useful purpose in showing who wrote what & what songs also appear on the "best of" — I really can't see this list serving any point — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Tears for Fears discography. Otto4711 22:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I agree 100% with that, but held off on doing it since the discography doesn't list the individual songs and I didn't want to kick off a revert war due to the fact — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per Otto4711. JJL 01:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect as nothing more than a vertical category that nobody could be bothered to fill in - there are several TFF songs with their own articles already. TBH, I'd expect articles for songs like 'Shout', 'Everybody Wants to Rule the World' and 'Sowing the Seeds of Love' anyhow. QuagmireDog 04:44, 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 DELETE. Herostratus 01:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of defunct music venues in Atlanta

And another one... That bot's putting more than its usual share of "weird lists" into Category:Stubs today. This one consists almost entirely of redlinks, and since the venues are, by definition, defunct it seems pretty unlikely that anyone will be adding more. As far as I'm aware we don't have anything similar for any other place, and Atlanta's small enough in terms of music venues that this could sit comfortably a the bottom of a List of music venues in Atlanta. Since any unilateral move on my part would probably prompt howls of protest, bringing it over for discussion first — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable list -- I really can't imagine anyone searching for "defunct music venues in Atlanta". Furthermore, the list is almost entirely redlinks with little hope for expansion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete even a list of music venues in Atlanta could come across as more of a tour guide than an Encyclopedia. Defunct ones? I'm highly doubtful. Maybe a category. FrozenPurpleCube 23:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Move/merge If it's appropriate for an appendix List of music venues.... D'oh! That list doesn't exist. OK, I've saved this content on my user page for later inclusion on an actual list. Of course, it appears lists of any kind are depricated these days :( Jolomo 03:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep - weird certainly but harmless - whoever created it saw a need for it and I can live with this around the store! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 07:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete: As a veteran of 688 and 40 Watt Club and Uptown Lounge, I think it's great that we have articles on these clubs, as they were really quite important for pop music, but the list really doesn't do much, and I have some very, very dark suspicions that it was created to memorialize (and page rank) a club that never could have warranted an article, or at least that it has come to be used that way. Some of the venues are decidedly minor/transient, and dead clubs are more numerous even than dead ants. In a city of 3,000,000 with a thriving scene, the stack of corpses is simply too high. Utgard Loki 12:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Tell me the 40 Watt hasn't closed! It's practically the CBGBs of the South. (Mind you, if they can close The Marquee...) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:52, 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. John254 03:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chongalicious

Many other videos on YouTube have been seen by thousands of people. It is unclear why this video in particular should have its own page here. LoserTalent 21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete completely non-notable. AKRadecki 21:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
keep - unfortunately, when you actually go and read the article and follow the links, you'll find this video was written about in the Miami Herald and featured in an article at the NBC TV site. I personally agree this topic is completely non-notable, but it seems to pass the Wikipedia notability standard (being written about in major press). Goes to show you, huh? However, feel free to begin a world-shaking debate on how Wikipedia's notability standards must be worthless if an article like this could be allowed to stay. I'm with you on that. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep -- passes WP:NOTE because of the media attention (which is linked in the article. -- MisterHand 21:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep -- definitely passes WP:V due to the media attention given by several reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It does pass WP:NOTE and may possibly be quite popular. The Hooded One 01:01, 22 May 2007
Keep. Passes. The entry list sources that verify the information 09:51, 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. John254 03:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian philosophy

Originally prodded, not contested, but given the subject and the size, I thought it'd be better to get a wider consensus input here. Procedural, so I'm abstaining AKRadecki 21:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete this may be uncited OR... but if somebody is willing to clean it up, then I think it would be better to slap a bunch of templates on it and give the author some time to do so. EG templates about standards/cleanup/OR/NPOV/etc. In otherwords, if somebody steps forward to work on this article, my vote automatically changes to "weak keep."Balloonman 21:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep The quality of the article isn't signifigant reason to remove it. Better to fix it. At least give time for someone to come forward to work on it. I might even be willing once I get through the massive list of articles on my queue. CJ 14:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep - the term was really used for different philosophies. - I think that this AfD was not neccesary; as far as I know, it is up to the person who prodded the article to put it on AfD if the PROD template is removed. Moreover PRODs are not suitable for elaborated articles with dozens of contributors like this, they should be AfDed directly if somebody thinks they should be deleted, because it enables a wide discussion.--Ioannes Pragensis 16:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep Notable subject, will make for an interesting article if done correctly.--Gloriamarie 17:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep Mainly needs sources and cleanup. Specifically: needs to define terms such as 'philosophy' and 'religion' to contextualize/introduce the article and needs to trace the origins of the phrase and usage of 'Christian Philosophy' and/or variants of this term. Deramisan 8:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep - but cleanup, as per above arguments. --JayJasper 19:47, 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. PeaceNT 03:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adrian Iandorio

A non notable football player who does not meet WP:BIO for athletes. A PROD was contested for the reason that the team he plays for is notable, which while true doesn't make him notable. Mattinbgn/ ^talk 21:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above. This was also a PROD contested for the same reasons as above. This article has more context than the other but it is unsourced and the subject still fails to meet WP:BIO for athletes.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 21:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete both - not only fails WP:BIO but nothing in the article is sourced so fails WP:V. Bridgeplayer 21:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, South Australian Super League does not seem to be a fully-professional league so the highest level of amateur competition (OLYMPICS) would be the only other special case. Of course if he had been covered in a non-trivial manner by two independent sources that would be a different matter.Ga rr ie 02:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Google News Archives comes up with nothing on him at all. Capitalistroadster 02:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment Note Elias Vlassis bundled with this AfD. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 02:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete both no references provided, up and coming players might be lucky enough to get a page in a few years time but not now :: maelgwn :: talk 05:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Both, as non-notable footballers. Lankiveil 23:43, 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. PeaceNT 03:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elaine Hartley

Delete. I can't find any evidence that someone by the name of Elaine Hartley is running for Senate (in 2008 or 2010). Google search for "Elaine Hartley"+Senate does not give any relevant results, and neither does "Elaine Hartley"+Governor+Illinois. Prod removed without comment. ... discospinster _talk 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-delete. This is the topic as a deleted article which was also created by the same user in November -- User_talk:Nick37#Elaine_Hartley. Suggest the administrator who deletes this provide a gentle reminder to the editor not to resubmit deleted articles. Horologium talk - contrib 21:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
strong delete non-notable and nonverifiableBalloonman 21:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete. I could not find anything that would verify the factual accuracy of anything in this article, and even if it could all be verified the subject still is not notable. --Tdl1060 18:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong Deletion I ahve looked, and found nothing that says she is running for Senate. This article is horrible, and it needs to go. Politics rule 11:08, 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 as a copyvio of this article from the "Aristasia Wiki", which explicitly forbids derivative works under its Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 license (CSD G12). No prejudice to writing a new article from scratch; a LexisNexis search reveals that the claimed Guardian/Independent/etc. articles do in fact exist, satisfying WP:BIO. Krimpet (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miss Martindale

Apparently non-notable dominatrix and creator of a fictional lesbian micronation, "Aristasia", an article on which was deleted several months ago as non-notable. Vaguely asserts that she is "famous", but cites no reliable or independent sources backing up this claim, or verifying anything else in the article. Krimpet (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Miss Martindale was a relatively public figure in Britain in the 1990s, self-published several books, and wrote as a magazine columnist as recently as 2005. Joie de Vivre 21:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: No one seems to contest that hundreds of female porn stars are "notable" for nothing other than having sex on camera. I oppose deleting an article about a creative woman who made a name for herself while keeping her clothes on. Joie de Vivre 21:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Also, the above description of Martindale is inaccurate: In the official Aristasia wiki, Martindale is described as having a clear dislike for S/M.[3] Nowhere in any of her writings or interviews does she describe herself as a "dominatrix". Joie de Vivre 01:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete I can't believe we're having this discussion. Two sources, both the subjects own website (one is a redirect so it looks independent at first glance). The five "external sources" consist of two links to her own sites, two to youtube and one to a nine year old story in the "Wanstead & Woodford Guardian". A search on UK Google brings up no hits other than Wiki mirrors, porn sites, "britishspanking.co.uk", and some videos on Youtube. Either should be judged under WP:PORNBIO in which case she doesn't come close, or under WP:BIO in which case her sole sources are a single local paper article and the fact that she was on a single TV show ten years ago when Channel 4 was going through its "artistic" phase — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: You sound a bit upset about this. Is there some reason for the hostility in your tone? Joie de Vivre 21:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been scouring for information on this "documentary," and from what I can find:

It's not a documentary of which she is the subject. It's a bondage flick.
It wasn't created by Channel 4; it appears to be an independent production. (The phrase "Channel 4 documentary" as used in the article seems to imply an air of credibility.)
It never aired again after a single airing in 1996.
It's not available on video/DVD/anywhere else except on YouTube, etc. Krimpet (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Further to the above, the "magazine" for which she was a columnist was The Chap, an occasional (3-4 times a year) spoof magazine sold mail-order and at a few bookshops & WHSmith branches, not a "real" magazine. Incidentially, on a leafing through Arastasia's bulletin board this "nation" appears to have eight active members. Joie de Vivre, where do you get "hostility" from? "Hostile" isn't a synonym for "thinks it violates inclusion criteria", otherwise today alone I'm hostile to Tears for Fears, an Australian footballer, international football stadia, a Canadian surrealist, the Iraq war, laser pointers and a dubious holocaust-denial text — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that you don't sound entirely composed. Joie de Vivre 23:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Iridescenti was only incredulous that there would be support for this article. Let's stick to addressing the points being made. -kotra 23:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep if the sources quoted here can be verified by the end of the AFD. The link quotes substantive stories from several unquestionably reliable sources which, if legitimate, clearly establish the notability of the subject. Otto4711 22:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

While it may be that they haven't archived that far back, "Miss Martindale", "Marianne Martindale" and "Aristasia" all get 0 hits on the Guardian/Observer and Independent websites — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If the sources exist offline they are still reliable. Otto4711 00:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marueta

Article sucks Qwertyca 20:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep So fix it. Last I checked, we do not delete articles because they are bad. Now, it does provide limited to know information, I can understand that. However, just because an article is bad, does not mean that that it should be deleted. --Trumpetband 20:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep no valid reason for deletion — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep and cleanup. You can't nominate an article because you don't like it. Granted, there's not a lot of info in the article itself, but there're millions of stubs on Wikipedia -- they can't all be nuked just because they "suck". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep if it's real, which I can't confirm, and clean up, delete if it's not. FrozenPurpleCube 23:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 04:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep I was able to find enough on Marueta that I'm willing to give this article the benefit of the doubt. (The Marueta references that I found dealt with region/villages/religion/river---nothing that specifically said "tribe" but it looks legit to me.)Balloonman 17:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per TenPoundHammer and Trumpetband. --Interesdom 07:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rename to Maco people: according to the sources I can find, "Marueta" is the name of a village and a river on their lands, but "Maco" is the name of the people and their language. Clicketyclack 23:34, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of international football stadiums

Yet another unmaintainable list. There are around 230 countries in the FIFA and each of them has at least one international venue and most have more than that - I can think of at least six in the last couple of years in England alone while even the US has I think nine. The list as it stands (and this has been up for six months, remember) is woefully short & serves no useful purpose, and if kept will grow woefully long and still serve no useful purpose, since the information's mirrored on each FA's article. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to national stadium--basically the same concept.Blueboy96 20:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I disagree - for example, Wembley is England's national football stadium, but Old Trafford, Stadium of Light, St Mary's etc are all recent English international football stadia — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment Stadiums used for International matches are not the same as National stadiums. Many countries (Germany and Italy to give prominent examples) play their home games at numerous, sometimes rather small venues. National stadium also means "most important/prestigious stadium". Malc82 21:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    - In that case, I say delete ... if it can't be redirected, this has the potential to be the mother of all cruft. Forgive this American for being unfamiliar with the diff between a "national stadium" and an "international football stadium" ...Blueboy 96 00:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete This list is bound to end up either massively lacking or much too long. Malc82 21:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as unmaintainable. The idea is fine, but the scope needs to be narrowed considerably. It is also a horribly named article, as the definition of "international" changes depending on what country you are from. Resolute 22:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Question Has anybody looked at List of stadiums or Category:Lists of stadiums? I am not sure the problem with this page is limited to this page. For example, this page is really a duplicate of List of football (soccer) stadiums by country. Thus I suggest a discussion to cover this subject more effectively than a single AFD. This is especially so given the nomination reasons, which is not that this page is a duplicate, or has a poorly defined purpose, but rather that it's unmaintainable. If it is, what about those other pages? FrozenPurpleCube 22:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Such a discussion might be necessary, but this AfD can be done independently. The List of football (soccer) stadiums by country for example might make a good list if sorted by capacity and reduced to 10 or 20 by country, while this one will never. Malc82 23:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment I think while List of football (soccer) stadiums by country is unmaintainable as well and should probably be deleted in favour of Category:Football (soccer) stadiums (or stadia - that "stadiums" makes me cringe even more than the "soccer"), it faces different issues than this list does as at least it's pretty obvious what is & isn't a football stadium. This list has the problem of what to include, as well — Villa Park has hosted 16 internationals, the most recent just 2 years ago - should it be on the list seeing as it won't host another until 2012? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not concerned about closing this discussion, it's one article of minor nature, but I do think addressing the issue overall is worthwhile. If somebody wants to start doing that, it'd be a good idea. FrozenPurpleCube 23:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's 2am in Europe, which is where most of the editors most interested in football are likely to be; I'd suggest leaving it open at least until they've had a chance to have a look at it — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, this discussion will go on for five days as usual as far I'm concerned, if not, it's only because it'd be closed to keep till a decision was made on the larger problem. Which I think may need to be examined. FrozenPurpleCube 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment We already have such a category: Category:Football (soccer) venues by country. I guess all venues in this cat are stadiums.--Victor D ^PARLE 23:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that category exists, but what about the other issue I brought up? This isn't just one list in a vacuum, but several. FrozenPurpleCube 00:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete, this is one of the issues that might be served only by categories. Do you have any idea of how many football stadia are in the world?!? --Angelo 23:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete A cetegory is enough.--Victor D ^PARLE 23:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Ref ^(chew)(do) 09:17, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shirle Klein-Carsh

Non-notable artist; some material seems like a hoax. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- Johnbod 20:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Amazingly, seems not to be a hoax - there is a 2000 UFO book by her & a geo-cities site on the art. But not notable as an artist, nor as an author I would say. Johnbod 20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment I'm sure this person exists, but I doubt the article's third paragraph is factual. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete Judge this, the last pre-vandalism version. Probably NN as I can't find any significant mention of her or the book — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Hoax or not, she is non-notable. Freshacconci 03:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Checked the geo-cities site and did some googling. Yeah, she exists all right. It's, um, interesting reading anyway. I loathe how she evokes Arthur Lismer in her bio. But that's neither here nor there: she's non-notable. Freshacconci 03:19, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DJ 5Fingerz

Speedy Delete From what I'm gathering this person is not notable. The only references mentioned are through a self promotion website. All of his albums are just remixes of the work of others (which might even open up the issue of copyright infringement). I did a search on google, and the only thing that I can find is the wikipedia article in question, and myspace links (and we all know that myspace never counts when it comes to verifiability/notability). I wouldn't even try searching on anything like J-Stor, since this person is obviously not in anything relating to academia. --Адам12901 ^T/_C 20:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom and WP:CSD#A7. --Whs tc hy 21:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Per Whstchy. --Random ^{Say it here!} 22:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Tip to nominator : Patent nonsense and non-notable group/biography articles such as this one can be speedily deleted. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 03:22, 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 Keep as notability is provided by refs. AKRadecki 22:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dandelion Radio

Contested prod. Non notable internet radio station, no verifiable independent sources about the station establishing its notability. Being inspired by a very notable DJ isn't enough... Note that while the "Festive Fifty" was continued after the BBC dropped it, the article doesn't say who asked to take it over, and I can't find any evidence that it was the BBC who did the asking (which would possibly be a claim to notability). Fails WP:WEB / WP:NOTE. Fram 19:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Dandelion Radio has a significant online presence, and several thousand regular listeners. Radio 1's former John Peel production team invited Dandelion Radio to continue the running of the Festive Fifty, as has been mentioned online in the blog posted by producer Louise Kattenhorn here. The radio station, its Festive Fifty and how to vote has been promoted on numerous occasions during Radio 1's late night special interest shows such as Huw Stephens and Rob Da Bank. The poster of the deletion proposal made no attempt to define exactly why he felt that Dandelion Radio was "non-notable", as he clearly isn't a listener to the station and is unaware of its listenership. Further evidence of the station's worth on Wikipedia can be found at online article from Portsmouth's local newspaper The News here. Content of the entry is factual and culturally significant, explaining what is a very popular Internet radio station that is fully licenced with the PRS-MCPS Alliance and PPL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.10.222 (talk • contribs) --— 86.153.10.222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Considering the comment about BBC and Festive 50 ...

While private correspondance with BBC staff is not available for linking - there is evidence available of support from BBC Radio 1 with on air trails and comment about Dandelion Radio running the Festive 50 by BBC Radio 1 DJs. Examples include those on Huw Stephens Radio 1 show on 7th December 2006 and 3rd Jan 2007. These links are being made available purely to aid in the process and are have not been more generally linked to.
30/11/2006
http://www.DandelionRadio.com/audio/wiki-lfjdoiulfnlkjsoisu09435.mp3
7/12/2006
http://www.DandelionRadio.com/audio/wiki-poiudsf87w9875jkf9.mp3
3/1/2007
http://www.DandelionRadio.com/audio/wiki-87643hjkg98734xdf098734.mp3

was also mentioned by Rob Da Bank on Radio 1 in November 2006
http://www.DandelionRadio.com/audio/wiki-753201gr543ew7yuhg.mp3

Happy to enter into further discussions on the topic (Paul Webster - Backroom at Dandelion Radio). —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulWebsterUK (talk • contribs)

The BBC Radio article is a blog which does not represent views of the British Broadcasting Corporation, so that shouldn't even be considered in this discussion. The radio station website appears to be very poorly designed and not up to the quality of reputable internet radio stations like shoutcast or live365. This leads me to believe that this station is even less reputable, does not have a large number of listeners. Anybody can start an internet radio station, but not everyone deserves to be on Wikipedia. This one is strong evidence for that. I also highly doubt that it has several thousand regular listeners as User:86.153.10.222 claims. If it is show, it should be able to provide some sort of evidence for those statistics. --Адам12901 ^T/_C 20:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment In response to the statement that, "The radio station website appears to be very poorly designed and not up to the quality of reputable internet radio stations" - anyone considering the quality of a radio station by its web presence is making a very strong case against their own qualifications to judge its worthiness or otherwise. The Dandelion Radio website is simple and functional, in keeping with the ethos of the DJ who inspired it. Shallow slickness was a very infrequent contributor to Peel's show and the Dandelion Radio DJs see no reason to make it a more regular feature. To be inspired by Peel would not be to adorn the website with showy visuals or Flash animation. This is not included in any case for keeping the DR Wiki page, rather to note that its deletion on a subjective judgment of its website's appearance would be nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.133.142 (talk • contribs)
Comment In response to the statement that, "The poster of the deletion proposal made no attempt to define exactly why he felt that Dandelion Radio was "non-notable"," look at the end of the deletion proposal - you will see "Fails WP:WEB / WP:NOTE." Those two links take you to two of Wikipedia's "Notability guidelines", which define what is and is not notable for Wikipedia purposes. If you want to make a case to have this article kept, I suggest you follow those links and read those pages. However, when you linked to the Portsmouth newspaper article you did yourself a favor. The big thing about notability is that on Wikipedia it boils down to are the claims made in the article verifiable from multiple, independant, reliable sources?. Notability is a guideline - but it is based on verifiability, which is a basic site policy. That newspaper article is one independant, reliable source. Dig up several more, make sure that each and every claim in the article can be traced back to one, and you'll have yourself a good article by Wikipedia standards, and it'll be kept. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC) (Edit conflict)

Comment Note - links to recordings of 4 references on BBC Radio 1 have been provided above.

Listener statistics are provided quarterly to the UK licencing authorities and form part of the basis of the fees that the station pays. One could argue that this action alone is worthy of making Dandelion Radio "notable" since very few internet-only radio stations have registered with the authorities (in the UK at least) and are paying their fees which in turn aid the copyright holders and performing artists. Evidence of this can be provided off-line since the issuing authorities do not appear to maintain a public list of which stations have registered and are paying fees. --PaulWebsterUK 21:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment There is a Radio Station in Portsmouth called 'The Quay'. It has an entry on Wikipedia: 107.4 The Quay. They are no less "notable" than Dandelion Radio in that they exist. Their entry is merely a couple of sentences, and is equally as verifiable as Dandelion Radio, if not less so. How does one define the difference between a radio station that exists as a commercial enterprise, or one that exists purely as a cultural and creative entity? It's like saying a charity run by volunteers is less significant than the aid that Governments pay from their citizens' tax.

And as for saying that an organisation or individual shouldn't be on Wikipedia on the basis of the design ethic of their website, that is pathetic. It is nothing quantifiable by its very nature, especially when you consider that Dandelion Radio is run by volunteers with full-time jobs to hold down, and that Live 365 has a team of professional web designers and a marketing team behind it. More to the point, the number of visitors a site gets isn't necessarily governed by its design aesthetic. Dandelion Radio is an online Internet radio station that many people enjoy, and many bands get equal pleasure from being given exposure on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.10.222 (talk • contribs)

Comment By saying that Louise Kattenhorn doesn't represent the BBC's official position doesn't mean that her blog should be discounted, as she was Peel's producer and friend. Also, Rob da Bank

and Huw Stephens are both are BBC Radio 1 broadcasters with established reputations, and Rob is a promoter, too. We're not entirely sure what more evidence you want other than private emails or telephone calls - and that would contravene the Data Protection Act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.10.222 (talk • contribs)

Comment Reference to Dandelion Radio running Festive 50 in The Guardian newspaper on 1st December 2007.

On-line version of this national daily paper http://media.guardian.co.uk/diary/story/0,,1963618,00.html (see entry for Wednesday November 29) PaulWebsterUK 07:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Article length is commensurate with its importance. Slightly Selassie 08:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment To aid with notability discussion ... some of the artists featured by John Peel over the years have recorded special idents/trails for Dandelion Radio. Random selections are played between shows - but rather than have WP editors have to go and listen to the station to confirm this ... here are some direct links (files will be removed once this process is complete)

Ted Chippington
http://www.DandelionRadio.com/audio/wiki-ted-lsadoiklmndsflshkfds.mp3
David Gedge
http://www.DandelionRadio.com/audio/wiki-DG-sljdf23094opjeipjr.mp3
Half Man Half Biscuit
http://www.DandelionRadio.com/audio/wiki-HMHB-soiufdsf098sdohfas334cxv.mp3

PaulWebsterUK 21:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC) — PaulWebsterUK (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .

Further external links have been added to support the case for Dandelion radio retaining the Wikipedia entry, including a BBC Radio 1 John Peel documentary with contributions from Dandelion Radio members Andrew Morrison, Neil Jenkins and Phil Edwards, two CMU Music Network industry daily newsletter items about the 2006 Festive Fifty and Dandelion-related events and shows, and a tracklist archive of Andrew Morrison's previous shows on the station.

Also included are links to the MySpace pages of Dandelion DJs that have them - containing further information about the shows and many messages of support and praise for the station from artists and listeners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.66.148 (talk • contribs)

Please keep in mind that myspace (a self promotion website) should NEVER be used to show verifiability or notability. --Адам12901 ^T/_C 22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. That had just occurred to me at the time you wrote the above message, as you will see from the time of my last edit in which I removed the MySpace links (they were rather excessive too). There are now more than enough external links to a variety of sources and media to justify ongoing inclusion on Wikipedia anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.66.148 (talk • contribs)

Comment I have conducted what we consider the final edits to this page to satisfy Wiki standards. It would seem that the reference to Dandelion Radio on Wiki's own page on the Festive 50 would make some entry for DR indispensible to Wikipedia. Sources from The Guardian, Portsmouth News and the blog of Peel's producer would seem to legitimate DR's status sufficiently to warrant a short factual entry such as this. We would appreciate further suggestions if you still don't think this entry is satisfactory. We would be especially interested if you still think there is a case for full deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.133.142 (talk • contribs)
Comment Thanks for your note about tildes. Putting DR's Wiki page on a five-day countdown to extinction imposed a pretty sharp learning curve on me and the niceties of protocol were not my priority. However given the frequency of Wiki's patrollers' intervention until the last amendments, I wonder if one of you could now advise the page's status as far as you're concerned? Thank you.--81.101.133.142 18:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION! Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Keep Article now demonstrates that the subject has recieved attention from mainstream news sources. Could still be a bit better; but the threshold for notability is met. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}
Comment Why is a citation needed regarding payment of royalties? This detail is included in Wiki's own Phonographic Performance Limited page. If evidence is needed that they distribute royalties, it should be for their page, not DR's. --81.101.133.142 08:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

problem solving 23:44, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FreeOnes

This is an ad for a porn site. It doesn't make sense for every porn site to have it's own article. The only thing noteworthy about this porn site is that it has its own Wikipedia article. Clerks. 19:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment, the sister article to this one Freeones has been deleted (because it was an advertisement) on two previous occasions; November 2, 2005 and March 7, 2006 Clerks. 19:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
DELETE what more needs to be said?Balloonman 21:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete WP:CSD#G11 (the big one) and WP:CSD#A7 (this could be argued). --Whs tc hy 22:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per no news results. Google search only reveals links to site. G1 gg y ! 11:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- Mailer Diablo 03:23, 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 03:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civicist

I can't find this term anywhere on Yahoo or Google--at least matching the defintion in the article. The author admits that the article is being used to "gather interest in a concept of global proportions and has enormous potential to create peace"--possible violation of WP:NOT and WP:SOAP. Blueboy 96 19:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Per nom -- this is clearly a violation of WP:SOAP, and quite possibly WP:NPOV as well, given passages like "Civicism gets rid of the notion that if you are not religious you are a non-believer." There probably is a place for this kind of page, but Wikipedia isn't it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete As above. I'd also like to comment it seems to be close to falling under CSD G11. --Whs tc hy 20:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
DELETE per aboveBalloonman 21:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as rubbish. Elrith 23:34, 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. John254 02:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popov (vodka)

NN brand of vodka -- Y not? 18:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete article with nothing much to say except it is cheap & popular with students, sourced only from a liquor store ad giving prices. DGG 19:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Major brand from a major producer Diageo; at least one source shows it as the US's second leading Vodka brand by volume sold [4] (data are of 1994); another trade journal [5] puts Popov #3 vodka in California (behind Smirnoff & Absolut), in 2002. To be in the top 2 or 3 in vodka sales establishes notability regardless of whether it tastes good or not. Carlossuarez46 19:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep. The concerns raised by User:Carlossuarez46 above raise some good points -- yes, the vodka's by a major manufacturer, and yes, it was once #2 in vodka sales in the USA. However, I'm not 100% certain of how far this article could be expanded -- I'm not finding very many reliable sources on it, so I'm going only with a weak keep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. "Popov, the booze that goes both ways without even being asked." More sourcing should be easy to find. The brand is extremely well known to the college-age population, at least in certain rather significant regions/markets in the US, such as California. --Dynaflow babble 08:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. It's about 3:30 AM here on the US West Coast, and the bars have been closed for about an hour and a half. I saw a drunk guy staggering by on the street outside a little while ago so, on a lark, I yelled to him, "What do you think of Popov?!" "It's shit!" he answered without hesitation. In spite of it being WP:OR, that experiment satisfied my lingering doubts as to Popov's notability. --Dynaflow babble 10:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've found some sources through a sort of shot-gun Google search. Here's an article from Salon.com entitled "How to avoid a hangover: buy vodka you don't like so you won't drink as much" [6].// "It's delicious. And not bad for stripping paint, either." Offhand mention in Modern Drunkard Magazine [7].// "Taking the Popov Challenge from Michigan Daily [8]// One of the top 20 brands of booze in Iowa [9] [10].// Some comparative sales figures [11].// Marketshare and discussion of market niche: [12] [13].// Discussion of its cheapness versus its quality [14]].// Discussion in a B-school case study [15]. More later if I still happen to be awake. In the meantime, anyone is welcome to do what they can with the new sources; the most relevant seem to be the ones I found last. --Dynaflow babble 11:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I have rewritten the article to make it a more-convincing and relatively well-sourced stub that should be able to survive AfD. --Dynaflow babble 18:05, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Insurgents killed in Iraq

Nothing but a link farm on a page which has to be updated daily to be current. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Corvus cornix 18:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep First of all this article has the most comprehensive list of insurgents killed in the Iraq war while any other site does not have. Second, newspaper? What do all of these numbers have to do with newspapers. Third, it's not your problem, me and user Publicus have been updating the list from the start since Publicus first put up the article six months ago. Fifth, we need this article, people can't find anywhere else on the Internet a good source on the numbers of insurgents killed in Iraq. As far as I know Wikipedia is just that, a good source for information. So I vote to keep the article.Top Gun 18:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:USEFUL is not a valid keep criterion. Corvus cornix 18:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep on the basis that the topic is notable as shown by coverage in the mainstream news media, thus satisfying WP:N and that the sources are official reports and articles, satisfying WP:A. I do not believe that adding up claims by troop commanders constitutes original research or synthesis. That said, the numbers may not be completely accurate since claims of enemy killed are often estimates, absent actual body counts, and in a war against nonuniformed opponents any dead civilian may be pronounced an insurgent, even if he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It appears that 3 or four editors have taken it upon themselves to maintain the daily updates. If they had done for a while and then quit, the complaint about the need for updates would have more import. Edison 18:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- So you don't think that a page with over 400 external links is excessive? Corvus cornix 18:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The links are citation/reference links. See: WP:CITE#HOW and Wikipedia:Embedded citations. --Timeshifter 19:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral The case for deletion has not been made in my view: (1) if the necessity of daily updating was a valid basis to delete an article, all current events articles are liable to deletion; and (2) the sheer number of external links is no reason to delete if 400 is enough, perhaps someone will nominate Deaths in January 2007 which has 413 of them. I am still trying to figue out whther this is really useful in any meaningful sense or whether WP will be the sole repository of this information (contrast this list with the various "executed people" lists, maintained all over the place, and at WP) which would indicate its nonusefulness or possibly a WP:SYNT problem. Carlossuarez46 19:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. They are not external links. They are references/citations. There are thousands of lists and comparison charts on wikipedia. --Timeshifter 19:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please point to two. Corvus cornix 20:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This wikipedia site search, and this one, pull up thousands of examples of lists and comparison tables. --Timeshifter 15:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad example. Those search criteria do not show thousands of articles with over 400 external links and hardly any text. Try again. Corvus cornix 16:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There are many examples among those thousands of search results. Examples of wikipedia lists and charts with over a hundred citation/reference links. And I have seen some with hundreds of citation links. See also my comment farther down about many lists of deaths found by another wikipedia site search.--Timeshifter 16:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment- surley this is just a list of links to news articles rather than an encyclopedic article? Thunderwing 20:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Update to Delete- per Chris below- this can never be a proper article if it remains links to external news stories without any context or content. Thunderwing 20:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- What content would be appropriate? A broader coverage of overall insurgent casualties in terms of battles, skirmishes, etc? The problem we had before this article was finding some way accurately track the casualties using sources. Prior to this, there just wasn't any source of information on insurgent casualties. Perhaps at some point the actual number can be released and then this article could shift to covering casualty trends, tactics, or specific important incidents.Publicus 21:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  - I added some text to the introduction: "Besides serving as an indicator of some of the numbers of insurgent deaths during specific time periods, this article allows readers to investigate the circumstances of those deaths by reading the citation articles. It also allows readers and researchers to investigate patterns in the type of insurgent tactics used, and the patterns in coalition responses." Over time some breakout quotes might be added to the article to show some trends in the circumstances surrounding insurgent deaths. Other text could be added too. This might assuage some of the complaints that this is just a list. Lists are allowed on wikipedia, but lists with more text and context seem to be more acceptable. The solution is to add more text, not to delete the article. --Timeshifter 09:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete - This is just a giant indiscrimiante list of links associated with an event. Citations are used to back up assertions in an article, not as the content of the article themselves. Even if you wrote out each name, that still is not what this project is for. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The assertions are the deaths themselves. The links are the citations that prove it. There are other lists of deaths on wikipedia. By date, by war, etc.. It is definitely not an indiscriminate list. It is a very specific list. To find some of the lists of deaths use these wikipedia site searches: This wikipedia site search, and this one, pull up thousands of examples of lists and comparison tables. Add the word "deaths" to the search to find other such lists. --Timeshifter 15:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment- in the main article of the Iraq war there is a breakdown of killed among the two sides, there is an extremly comprehensive breakdown of coalition, iraqi security forces and contractors killed. That is because there are dozens of sources on the numbers. What about the insurgent side? There should be no number of insurgents killed in the war? Is that what you are saying? There are no, repeat no comprehensive sources on numbers of insurgents killed in Iraq except this one article. If you have a problem white the 400 links, then how can all of those numbers in the article be verifyed. Huh? Those links there are only to verify the numbers are correct. Also they are not external links but references, sources for the article. How can the numbers be verifyed without the references. And like one other Wikipedia user ponted out there are other articles that also have more than 400 links. Delete them why don't you? Also, what's so indiscriminate about this article. Once again this is not a list of links. The references are there to verify the numebrs. It's not about the events but about the numbers in the links. And about the citations, they are used only to point out the totals of insurgents killed in the war. If we remove the references then the article WILL be deleted because the numbers will not be sourced and it will be said that all of the numbers in the article are original research which is not permited in Wikipedia. I once again point out a strong KEEP vote.Top Gun 20:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete This is just a linkfarm with no encyclopedic content at all. If there's an appropriate place for this in its present form it's at Wikinews, not here. All it is - and all it can ever be - is "list of news stories in which someone claimed to have killed someone who may or may not have been an insurgent", and that's not appropriate — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment- Again the point of this article is not on the news stories, what's wrong with you people, they are there only as citations/references. The point is the numbers of insurgents killed. That's the main reason why the links are there. For God's sake there are other articles that have hundreds of links. Oh and Corvus cornix, as for your request for an example of a chart article here's one Casualties of the 2006 Lebanon War or this one Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present). This is just one more article with a list of casualties of a war. Why are the numbers of insurgents killed any different then those of civilians or Israeli soldiers or American soldiers or whatever. Top Gun 20:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Both of the articles you pointed to have much more extensive text than this one, in particular Civilian casualtes of the War in Afghanistan (2001-present), but I do feel that Casualties of the 2006 Lebanon War also has far too many external links, as well. And why do you want to assume the bad faith that I'm trying to delete this for any political viewpoint? Corvus cornix 21:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  - If you want more text then add more text, don't just imediatly apply the article for deletion. Improve the article before deleting it just because you don't like it how it looks. Also don't get any ideas about Casualties of the 2006 Lebanon War. And for the last time does are not external links but references, there is a differenc. Top Gun 22:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep It could have a lot more context; maybe some internal links to other articles - but it's much better sourced than a lot of Wikipedia articles. It does not appear to violate any policies or guidelines, and it is useful (and don't tell me to read WP:USEFUL - some people will whenever the word useful is used, though "arguments to avoid" only applies when that amounts to the core of the argument - not the case here). I don't see how this is a linkfarm. No valid reason for deletion is presented - indeed, the deletion arguments seem to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep Maybe if some names of notable insurgents are added, and perhaps getting rid of all the links (by condensing the "various reported incidents" parts down), it could make a good article. --Whs tc hy 21:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Extremely strong keep-This is the ONLY non-classified list of insurgent dead on to be found on any article/website/etc. Since the Coalition and the Iraqi government are not reporting any kind of totals the general public is merely getting a brief snapshot of these casualties. It is similar to the attempts editors have been making to track contractors killed or wounded in Iraq. The Pentagon has said they do not track and have no intention of tracking contractor casualties--yet it is obviously an important casualty figure for this conflict, especially since it represents a unique aspect of the Iraq war. Overall, the article might need to be reworked to improve the look of it as well as the accuracy, but it represents an important attempt to keep track of a important casualty figure for this war.

Also, since in my opinion, the Iraq war represents the first major war to be chronicled by Wikipedia as it occurs, I think lists such as this serve an extremely valuable purpose for overall historical accuracy. For instance, just imagine if Wikipedia had existed during the Vietnam war and if editors then had taken it upon themselves to attempt to accurately catalog the various casualties on all sides-perhaps the overall casualty picture would have been much clearer and more accurate. Instead, the casualty figures for Vietnam are merely estimates that range over thousands of dead/wounded-since many of the public casualty figures had to be gathered months and years after the conflict had occurred. Publicus 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral with the strong suggestion to add content different than mere numbers in it. Keep in mind WP:MOS. --Angelo 23:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked at WP:MOS and found some pages dealing with lists: Wikipedia:List guideline, Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, and Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia. There are probably more guideline pages. --Timeshifter 15:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Needs improving but is possibly the only web page that attempts to document this important matter. Slightly Selassie 08:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Rename I dont think it really does what its says. Maybe a rename to Numbers of Insurgents killed in Iraq since 2003. I suppose it has some validity as a refence tool, but it would look cooler in some kind of frame/wikibox. I appreciate any editor who edits pages daily, but I can see a lot of pitfalls in just a few editors having to find sources continually. Mike33 08:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Lists of deaths. Here is a wikipedia site search that pulls up other lists of deaths on wikipedia. Hundreds of such lists:
- http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awikipedia.org+intitle%3Alist+deaths --Timeshifter 15:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  - You don't see the differences, do you? Those articles are text. This article is nothing but external links. Corvus cornix 16:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Many of those lists of deaths have very little text. See:

List of deaths through alcohol

Deaths in January 2007

List of people who died in aviation-related incidents

List of disasters in Australia by death toll

The topic of the list must be notable. It is good if the list is detailed. But it is not always feasible with a list concerning casualties numbering thousands. Here is a list linked below of deaths tabulated by year. This is similar to the insurgent deaths tabulated by months.

List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year. --Timeshifter 16:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. A lot of those are crap, too. But at least they have links to Wikipedia articles. But please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Corvus cornix 17:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If this article gets deleted, I plan on nominating List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year for deletion as well. But if it's decided that crap articles like this one should be kept, then there would be no point in listing any other similar articles. Corvus cornix 17:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Crap? You say this article is crap? Show me any other article, no any other site, on the Internet that has so extensive reserch on the numbers of killed insurgents in the Iraq war. Wikipedia should be a plce where you find information you wouldn't find anywhere else. Also Timeshifter you shouldn't have given him those examples because he obviously is not listening and it looks like he now want's to delete all of those articles as well. AND FOR THE LAST TIME DOES ARE NOT EXTERNAL LINKS BUT REFERENCES.Top Gun 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia is explicitly not "a place where you find information you wouldn't find anywhere else" — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are implying that it is original research. It is not. It has sourced info from reliable resources verified with citation/reference links. --Timeshifter 08:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

~~Comment~~Keep The other lists have sources which have analyzed the data & the numbers, and WP can report that--this is a page where you do your own tabulation by deciding from primary sources what will qualify. It's a very impressive job, in my opinion, and there should be many good places on the internet to put it. It's a valuable contribution to knowledge, but not for us.:I accept from the information below that the list can be properly maintained & is sufficiently encyclopedic. DGG 04:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC) DGG 01:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment as I have said before would favor some kind of rename or it confined to a wikibox. It dont look good an it probably is very falable (online newspapers change casualty figures by the hour, day, week) keeping up with those figures is not for wiki editors. My concern is if the "list" is to exist how can outsiders know it is verifiable? Spent a couple of ours in changed articles and there are plenty of things that go beyond bots or keen editors. If two editors have a wikibreak who can keep an eye on an update? This is a very big concern when wikipedia is under attack for sloppyness. I will vote now. Mike33 06:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete The amount of effort involved by two editors not only makes it unwiky, but just too much. a simple monthly list if editors wish to make added to any of the WAR ON IRAQ articles is enough. Although any list should incorporate any published newspaper or news agency figure. Mike33 06:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment As I have said earlier, I would favour some kind of rename or the numbers (from the list) confined to a wikibox in another article . The article dosn't look good as it stands (akin to a mathematical table on an acedemic site). Above all it is very falable. In that online newspapers change casualty figures by the hour, day, week. Keeping up with those figures is not for wiki editors. My concern is that if the "list" is to exist how can outsiders know it is verifiable? Endless references are for Phd scholars. I Spent a couple of hours in changed articles and discovered that there are plenty of things that go beyond bots or keen editors (inert vanadalism by regular users). If two editors have a wikibreak, who can keep an eye on an update? This must be a very big concern when Wikipedia is under attack for sloppyness. I vote below. Mike33 07:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete The amount of effort involved by two editors makes it unwiki. No article on wikipedia should exist by a single arbritor (or two or three). If the editors would incorporate there figures into a wikibox, & added to any of numerous articles about the Iraq Invasion, it would be of a greater benefit. (Although any list should incorporate any published newspaper or news agency figure. especially when it conflicts from editors figures.) On Wikipedia an article becomes a new born baby. Again I appreciate that - tiredless hours. But wiki hours can sometimes be more valuable on many things (Althought I would never suppose that any editor put one page over another) Mike33 06:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Many wikipedia articles are edited by only a few editors. If the editors of this page want to stop, they can put a date limit in the introduction. They can say that it is a list of some of the insurgents reported killed in Iraq through such-and-such month. Through May 2007, for example. --Timeshifter 08:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I added some text to the article. I think some more text and context can be added to the article. This is better than just asking to delete the article. --Timeshifter 09:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Mike33, like I said to Corvus it's not your problem but mine and Publicus, we are the ones editing the list and updating it. As far as me, I don't intend to take a "wikibreak", like you said, from updating the list because the list has to exist. I have been updating the list for the last six months and will be updating the list until the war ends. And if you are making all of this fuss over the lack of text in the article, THEN ADD TEXT TO THE ARTICLE, don't just delete the article because you don't like it, as a Wikipedia user you should improve the articles, not just delete them because you don't like the way they look. --Top Gun 13:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Top Gun, there is far too much deletion just because someone doesn't think the current content is good. --Interesdom 07:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Another list that serves a helpful purpose, but which doesn't really have that much text on it is Suicide bombings in Iraq since 2003. Admittedly it does have more text than this list, but more information is actually known about the various suicide bombings than the casualties reported by MNF or the media. Hopefully, as more time goes on this list will get filled in by more substantial reports from non-media sources such as academics or think-tanks. However, despite the skeleton nature of the article, I'm sure it is serving to give Wikipedia readers at least a general sense of the numbers of casualties. Publicus 15:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's sourced and can be expanded as necessary. Nick mallory 15:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Hopefully some editors will assist in adding more text to the list. If more editors are involved and the two editors are happy to continue (ad infinitum pursuit), then I am happy for a useful page for other researchers to exist. Wikihours are irreplacable but other editors need to be involved. Mike33 21:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep. The main complaint seems to be the number of referenced links (described as a 'link farm' but since when were referenced sources considered bad?). For sure, if there were far fewer deaths there would be far fewer links but then no doubt the complaint would be that it is not notable. It can't be both ways: the data is validated and made even more useful and notable by those references. I do think the topic could be improved by turning it more away from a list and having a sentence about each number but I can see that could be difficult to keep neutral. --Interesdom 07:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Not a linkfarm, but a reference farm. This is very useful research tool, perfectly encyclopedic. --ProtectWomen 20:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep and due rewrite Horribly written list, but encyclopediac.--Sefringle 06:13, 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 all. AKRadecki 22:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sea Slumber Song

Fails Wikipedia is not a database for lyrics. Also, these poems seem to fail Wikipedia's notability test. This article, and several related pages listed below, are just the exact texts of selected poems Black Harry (T|C) 18:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:

Black Harry (T|C) 18:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, not notable enough for an article anyway. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 18:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Remove lyrics, these are incredibly famous pieces by Edward Elgar. Gareth E Kegg 18:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No they appear to be rather unremarkable poems by assorted authors, which one guy decided to set to music. Why does that make them famous? Black Harry (T|C) 18:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep the "one guy" who decided to set them to music was an internationally famous composer and one of the poets was Elizabeth Barrett Browning. ( from the Elgar article, " honorary degrees from the Universities of Cambridge, Durham, Leeds, Oxford, Yale (USA), Aberdeen, Western Pennsylvania (USA), Birmingham and London. Foreign academies of which he was made a member were Regia Accademia di Santa Cecilia, Rome; Accademia del Reale Istituto Musicale, Florence; Académie des Beaux Arts, Paris; Institut de France; American Academy of Arts."; a baronetage, RVO, Master of the King's Music, etc etc. DGG 19:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, so by your argument, every poem by any famous writer deserves its own article. And even if the poem by Browning is notable, what about the other four poems? Black Harry (T|C) 19:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It might be debatable whether here or Wikisource is the best place for the texts, but their brevity surely makes them tolerable in the articles. Poems used as lyrics by famous composers stand out enough to support individual articles. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge without lyrics to Sea Pictures. The lyrics shouldn't be here unless they are treated encyclopedically (we aren't Wikisource), and none of the articles has any assertion of notability beyond authorship and use in the Elgar cycle. --Dhartung | Talk 19:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge without lyrics to Sea Pictures for reasons outlined above by Dhartung - there is little notability to the original poems apart from their use in the (certainly notable) Elgar work. Barnabypage 20:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment There have been at least 16 commercial recordings of the songs individually or as a group. DGG 22:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

While the recordings of the poems set to music are commercially available, I don't see how this effects the need for each having their own article. Also, you and others who have voted to keep haven't yet addressed the fact that Wikipedia is not a database for lyrics. Black Harry (T|C) 00:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The relevance of the number of recordings is that they show the very great importance of the work.DGG 01:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge without lyrics to Sea Pictures for reasons outlined above by Dhartung & Barnabypage. I can't think of a good reason to keep these entries separate from the song cycle. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 00:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
delete all and redirect to Sea Pictures. Lyrics should be in Wikisource, not here - unless they are being treated encyclopedically, which they are not. The remaining information in these articles is authorship, and that seems to be covered already in Sea Pictures, so probably no point in merging. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

PS I'm not disputing at all that Elgar is notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep The debate regarding lyrics is seperate to the deletion push. Personally, so long as copyright allows, the lyrics should stay. The article is a worthy stubb whose subject has provenance. DDB 08:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment Adam Lindsay Gordon's work is of national importance in Australia. DDB 08:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep The poems are clearly notable by virtue of Elgar's song cycle and some also in their own right. The libretti could be moved to Wikimedia at some point so that the articles could be developed. Slightly Selassie 13:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Copyright All the lyrics date from before 1920. DGG 04:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep: These are renowned songs and poems. Excuse My Dust 14:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep The poems are self-evidently notable. The articles could benefit from expansion to tell us about the poets' inspirations and Elgar's compositions. I don't see much point in creating separate wikimedia articles as the poems are so short. Eric Noonan 11:45, 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. WjBscribe 17:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flight Line Aviation

Fails WP:CORP the company is a small flight school and FBO in North Carolina. Millions of these companies around the world, nothing notable about this one. Russavia 17:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Web-search does not turn up anything notable about this one. Mrand 14:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Fails to cite anything but the company's own website (the mainpage of which it links to twice in a two-sentence article!), and does not assert any notability whatsoever. --Dynaflow babble 08:55, 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 Withdrawn by nominator - -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boeing B-29 Superfortress Survivors

An indiscriminate list of aircraft still in existance. This is Not what wikipedia is for. Listing the survivors of any set of aircraft just does not seem encylopedic. Where is the line drawn, for example a list of Cessna 172 survivors, would that be encylopedic? Would we list every old atari in existance, or any other old item that is approaching extinction? Sure, an article on this aircraft is 100 percent appropriate, a shrine to its existance with every aircarft still in existance is not. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

- Been told by many people that lists are not encyclodedic - Suggest that everyone take a jump to The Who discography -its a sub-article off of The Who and this type of article is acceptable under this group - in a form simular to what I have developed. Lets try The Rolling Stones discography and List of Beatles songs by singer and John Denver discography and The Smashing Pumpkins discography and Pearl Jam discography books Books about Stephen King and List of Ben & Jerry's flavors.
  
  All of these subject are easily avaible on the internet, yet editors have felt that placing the knowledge of these albums and songs is part of the rich tapestry that is wikipedia - all of these articles are lists with some reference/links added (And they have been openly accepted as a correct type of format for an encyclopedia). Since these types are acceptable - than my articles (as created) need a home on wikipedia as well Davegnz 14:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  - I have not told anybody that lists are unencylopedic. There is a fine line. A list of popular bands discography is alot different than a list of every single aircraft of one type left in existence, notable or not. the key here is notability. Is it notable enough to have been covered by multiple third party sourceS? If yes, create an article for it. You should use an example such as, would there be a list of every model T left in existence? It is lists of inanimate objects. Not a list of albu,s that have sold millions of copies. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    - Can you cite a specific guideline which makes this distinction? --Kevin Murray 18:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
      - The essay Wikipedia:Listcruft explains it very well. This is not a list of stuff that would be included in an encylopedia. An article on the airplane, yes. An list of every one left. no. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Finally got to what you are looking for - OK Third party list of surviving WWII aircraft:
Warbird Registry
B-29 by serial number
Brooklyn CUNY Aviation list
Warbird Worldwide magazine index (note articles on survivors)
Book - Warbirds Worldwide Directory of aviation survivors]

Does this satisfy you are do you want more? Have loads of third party references Davegnz 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

- - - - A link to [16] would be great in each of those articles. That is an amazing cite. We do not need to copy it all over here. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ - As nominator. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and fix - per comments and draft by Piotr below. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Your examples are ludicrous, condescending, and way out of context for the historical nature of these planes. This is a poorly formatted article, but the information has potential to be a rich appendix to the main article on the B-29. In essence each is a museum. --Kevin Murray 20:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, my examples are to show what this article opens the door for. I, as much as anybody have respect and fascination for older planes, however when it becomes a list of existing planes, that completley failes WP:NOT on many levels. The fact is, not every surviving aircraft is notable. There is arguments to merge this list into the main article. Is there third party coverage of each one of these aircraft, when they are the subject of the article? I do not believe so. When it boils down to it, it is an indiscriminate collection of non notable existing aircraft until otherwise cited. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 11:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris, your example is not the best. Cessna 172 is still produced, freely available on aviation market etc. B-29 and its derivatives are not produced and are not available on aviation market - that's really big difference. There is no sense for such articles about Cessna 172 or even Tiger Moth, there is too much of these aircraft still airworthy and available but B-29 is sth very different. I agree that this article is very poorly written but it can be improved. There is only several B-29s in museums / on displays and we can list all of them in separate article without making main article more messy and heavy. Piotr Mikołajski 12:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The example was used for contrast. The question is, where is the line drawn? At what point does an aircraft qualify to have a list of survivors here? 50 survivors, 100 survivors? Similarly, there are probably very few notable cessna 172's that would qualify for their own list, so again where is the line drawn for notability? Outside of the aviation aspect, would we have a list of every model T still in existance? I could have listed any of hundereds of aircraft not in production anymore. It is my belief that sure, they are notable, notable enough for an article about the aircraft itself, not for an article about each instance of an aircraft. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's quite simple. When aircraft is not registered as currently flying (except museums and similar collections) and is not easily available on aviation market (P-51s are still available as well as Avengers, Corsairs etc.), then we can consider creating such list. Of course such lists make sense only when there is more than 2-3 aircraft left and info about survivors will make main article huge and cluttered. Piotr Mikołajski 17:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, that does not sound that simple to me. How do you define each of those criteria? This would probably be a better conversation to take up at WP:AIRCRAFT talk page. However, I still stand by the fact that it is an indiscriminate collection of information. Any article that requires a "how to use this page" section most definitley does not qualify as encylopedic. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this particular article (as well as P-47, B-24 and CH-54 ones) is poor and have to be rewritten. Info "how to use" is senseless to me and I agree with your opinion that such articles can't be inserted into encyclopedia. But poor quality doesn't mean that such articles are senseless, IMHO it's the best way to make main articles smaller and insert more detailed info about survivors. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 17:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Was a suggestion posted on another talk page that table might be better for this type of information - found table formatting too confusing but idea was still strong so incorporated parts as a guide (this is where the how to section came from) (and guild and maps are encylopedic)Davegnz 18:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not the formatting, the problem is the content. Convince me the information is encylopedic and not just a database dump. The information in taht article could easily be contained within a simple relational database. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Another case, the P-51... need guidelines to tackle the 290 or 287 survivors, going to be a real challenge for someone to maintain this "notable aircraft of all times". Wiki article only lists two, and a ref to the external list.LanceBarber 15:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am ok with ref's to external lists. I think that is where it belongs. There are databases with this kind of stuff. Make another page, or even another wiki for it. Just dont put it all here. Wikipedia is not a collection of everything of all time. It is a collection of encylopedic information, of which lists of every remianing types of an aircraft are not. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - The few survivors with documented notability should be listed, with references, on the aircraft's main article. I've also tried to get a discussion going to determine what constitutes notability at the project talk page. AKRadecki 17:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right that this is an appropriate addition to the main article, except this information would make that article to long, which indicated the need for a separate supporting article; however, the article could be much broader based than this one. --Kevin Murray 20:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep There is a big difference between a Cessna 172 and this historic aircraft. There aren't that many still in existence, and most of them are in museums, which makes them notable, IMO. --rogerd 18:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - A 172 was used for a comparison. There are hundereds and hundereds of aircraft not as populous as the aircraft. Does each deserve an article of a list of every existing aircraft? It seems like a indiscriminate collection of information, hence my usage of a 172 for contrast. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per nomination. - BillCJ 18:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Rogerd. Edison 18:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - and add back most of the deleted "notables" with cleanup and come up with notable-guidelines for the other survivor articles under WikiProjectAircraft. The current Survivors list article can archived on a separate page under the B-29 Talk, for further research and reference. LanceBarber 19:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no encyclopedic value as is, indiscriminate. --Dhartung | Talk 19:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep or merge into an appendix for the main B-29 article. Is there a way to broaden this beyond a list and thus move additional clutter from the main article? --Kevin Murray 20:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - Gentleman, I don't see any reason to delete such articles. Main articles of really famous and important aircraft (B-17, B-24, B-29, Hurricane, Spitfire, Bf 109 etc.) are large and cluttered with sections and subsections. If we move details of Operators or Variants to separate articles, why we shouldn't do that for preserved historical aircraft? I agree, this one is really poorly formatted and has a lot of junk (wrecks etc.) but we can make cleanup and add some improvements. Piotr Mikołajski 07:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wrecks are the flyable / display airframes of the future - there are many P-51's, P-40's B-17's, B-25 flyable today that were considered wrecks as short as 10 years ago. My criteria for being considered is relativly intact airframe (not pieces) - The CAF crashed their P-47N, its a wreck but it is store pending restoration (R). Both Canada and Britain recovered Halifax,s from under water they were considered wrecks but not on display - there are three TBD's under water they are wrecks (W) but strong possibility of being recovered restored (R) and displayed (D).Davegnz 18:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - at best summarize the information and include in the main article. Unlike for the Avro Lancaster not one of these airframes is notable of itself. As it stands the article is poorly written, badly formatted for readability, is not wikified (with museum article links where notable - eg Imperial War Museum Duxford) and not even named according to wikipedia MoS.—Preceding unsigned comment added by GraemeLeggett (talk • contribs)
- Only two Avro Lancasters on display have war records - however, neither Lancaster with war records did anything notable except survive the war so I guess all Lancaster survivors need to be deleated.Davegnz 18:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Not one of these airframes is notable of itself - so Enola Gay and Bocks Car are not notable, Fifi is not notable, combat veterans are not notable. Yes the links are missing, but (and a big but) this is a BRAND NEW article - I do not have a computer at home and I get maybe 1-2 hours every couple of days to work on this information209.212.28.50 15:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

They are not notable in this context. If it is an extremly notable one, a mention in the main article would suffice. Every single one in existence is not notable. What it boils down to is just a list of information, something more suited for an aviation databse, not an encylopedia. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep: This information is useful to an enthusiast. Slightly Selassie 08:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note - This account is a new account whose sole edits are comprised of afd's. This may be a SPA
Strong Keep: This information is useful to an enthusiast - while there are places you can find bits and pieces of information regarding remaining WWII veteran aircraft, no place has detailed accounts for the aviation historian. As far as detailing the remain Cessna 150's or 172 do not be silly with this comparison (maybe in 50 or 100 years but not now) - WWII aircraft are a finite quantity and Aviation historians need a reference point to keep track of these remaining aircraft209.212.28.50 15:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Davegnz 18:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The comparison is to pose the question. Who draws the line? What qualifies as notable. Should the line be drawn at 50 surviging aircraft?, 100, 150? The 172 is probably the most produced general aviation aircraft. That makes it notable, does every 172 flown by somebody famous notable? Should there ba list of all notable 172's? It is just a list, there is nothing encylopedic about a list of aircraft. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

But Chris, this article can be improved. It's current state is pathetic but it's not so difficult to rid info about B-50 and Tu-4, remove all wrecks etc. and write more info about survivors - with sources etc. Please look at my recent updates in List of B-29 Superfortress operators - it's quite easy to bring survivor's list to the same standard. Piotr Mikołajski 17:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Piotr, once my survivors articles are gone, how long do you thing a seperate, stand alone article on B-29 Operators etc.. is going to last - Its going to be open season on article like mine (and yours) once the door is openDavegnz 14:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
My problem is not with the quality. My problem is with the encylopedic value of the content. I dont care if it is dressed up nicley and easy to read, that does not make it encylopedic. Your list in my opinion is slightly more encylopedic, the formatting has nothing to do with it. I have no problem cleaning up articles and very regularly do, it is the content itself that is the problem. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

To everyone that has commented on condition of article - as I stated above " this is a brand new article " did a lot of work on it today, added links, added references. It's been stated need to get rid of B-50 & TU-4 survivors / actually this is the best place for all surviving B-29 variations (the B-50 was initially the B-29D) - have more links to add - need to find and add pictures (do not want to duplicate photos from related pages)Davegnz 18:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete As nom. This isn't what Wikipedia is for. Elrith 00:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hey Elrith you have not even published one aviation article, you do not know aviation history - so go awayDavegnz 14:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

- I now pose a question to Chris - right now every Star-Trek episode is currently available on Wikipedia, does Wikipedia really need to promote a subject that has untold countless web sites, webpage, blogs conventions, etc, etc... Before you complain that my article has no use in wikipedia, maybe you should be using your skills to kill off these type of Trivial article (that openly mock Wikipedia policy of not revealing plots and storylines)Davegnz 14:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  - - Uh, Dave, please read Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Wikipedia's policies ALLOW spoilers, though spoiler warnings are usually required in such cases. - BillCJ 16:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Lets compare apples and oranges, we all know how well that works ;). The argument that they are aleady adequatley covered by other websites is faulty logic. If you look above, please note that is not the basis for my argument. Could all of the information about the star trek episodes be covered in a small relational database with 5 or so fields? ALso, your agument that there are many other sites that cover this also strenghtnes the article for star trek inclusion as each episode must be notable due to the large coverage of it. Never the mind, it is a comparion of two unlike things. This list is a list of existing things, list of star trek episodes are lists of highly populized television shows with mass media coverage. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep This is not an indiscriminate list, as the nominator contends. This is a finite list of surviving examples of a vitally important and iconic aircraft. The development of the B 29 cost more money than the development of the atomic bomb. The hard work of genuine enthusiasts should be welcomed on Wikipedia, not spurned by those with no interest or knowledge of the topic at hand. Nick mallory 15:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- First off, i do have knwoledge of the topic at hand, and I understand what the B-29 is and its significance. That is why I am ALL for an article on the B-29. I would love to see the article on the B-29 be promoted to FA status. I am not trying to spurn any particular editors contributions, i am attempting to stand for what I believe is best for this project. There are many other things in life of such significance and a list of every one left is just silly in my opinion. I appreciate the hard work, however feel that this is just a list, not an encylopedic article. I would love to see another webiste host this, i truly do appreciate the information but i also believe that I must uphold the highest standards for this project. In short, it has nothing to do with the accuracy or formatting of the content, it has to do with the fact that it is unencylopedic. This is wikipedia, the encylopedia that everybody can edit, not Wikipedia the repository of every aircraft still in existence.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment It seems that the nominator is blanketing this discussion with a virtual prosecution of the topic to prove that he is right or for another agenda. He should stick to citing specific actionable guidelines rather than his personal opinion about what is unencyclopedic and what is best for the project. Defacto, lists are properly included at WP as evidenced above; this is much ado about nothing. Let it go and move on! --Kevin Murray 18:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - AFD's are not votes. I believe it is the nominator job to support their argument for deletion which I believe that I have done here. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Chris, I agree to an extent, but it seems that you are a bit over the top with your passion on this one. It might be time to stand back and evaluate your position considering the improvements in content and references. I'm just not seeing any violations of either guidelines, policy, or our de facto standards regarding lists. If you feel strongly, maybe you should rescind the nomination and post a fresh AfD since the article is so much improved. --Kevin Murray 21:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    - Again, my problem is not the lack of references or formatting. Thoise can be fixed and I never nominate something based on that. I still believe the list is unencylopedic. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
      - Chris, "I believe" is not a compelling reason for a nomination to delete. What specific guideline or policy is breached by this article? Or are there significant precedents from prior AfD discussions that demonstrate a measurable consensus against this type of list? Those would be compelling reasons. --Kevin Murray 01:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
        
        I understand Chris' point of view, at least partially. This list is unencyclopedic because there are info about wrecks etc., not only about aircraft exhibited in museums. For me survivors are aircraft owned by museums or flyable by special teams of flights, not "aircraft-which-can-be-restored-to-display-condition-or-even-some-day-made-flyable". ~~I can prepare~~ I've prepared rough template of such article without "how to use" section. This can be improved, tweaked, updated with photos, wikilinked, referenced etc. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 06:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
        
        YES! I like that. that is a good job. I propose that a.) we rename the article to agree with the MOS on lists and then make it in the way piotr has requested. That looks great and contains encylopedic content. Good job! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
        
        Great job, Piotr, I heartily support this approach to the problem. AKRadecki 14:11, 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. -Splash - tk 23:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bedhampton Social Hall

Contested prod, fails to meet WP:NOTE MisterHand 17:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, not notable. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 18:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Even the suburb of Bedhampton is lacking in notability and could be merged with parent Havant. SilkTork 18:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - NN Peterkingiron 22:00, 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 03:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timothy Casey

Ho hum. A college professor with nothing to distinguish him. Clarityfiend 17:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:PROF. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete if he's not notable enough to be mentioned in the Mesa State College page, he's not notable enough for wikipedia. Misterdiscreet 17:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

He is on the page; you have to scroll down past the administrative staff till you come to the faculty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

that's not the page i'm talking about. Mesa State College is. Timothy Casey is not mentioned on the Mesa State College page. Misterdiscreet 05:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

But we almost never include them; we have categories for the purpose. It would otherwise distort the articles for the best universities. DGG 01:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete There is nothing about any publications by him...academic journals, texts, articles, etc. If he had published something, I would "consider" making my viewpoint a keep, but with the way the article is now, no way in heck. --Адам12901 ^T/_C 20:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No claim to notability. Stammer 20:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. as per TonyTheTiger Bigdaddy1981 20:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete with Explanation: He's an associate professor at a medium-size state college with a PhD from Arizona State. He will probably not have published much. However, I did look. The college page list him as "T. TIM CASEY which is a little tricky to search.. Looking for his thesis in Dissertation Abstracts, I find it was "The Chief Seattle Speech: A case study of textual reproduction and consequence" I also find his full name "Casey, Terence Timothy" -- PhD theses always give the full name. Searching for that in various variations in Google Scholar, Proquest & Google there is not anything likely. This is the minimum -- I consider any search less than this inadequate. For completeness, I'd really have to use some additional indexes, but this is enough to show there is not any large body of work. Are you all leaving it up to me to do the searches? Everyone has at least Google Scholar available. DGG 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I actually did a Gscholar search and found nothing, then I looked at the guy's webpage at Mesa State. It seems he's having a good life, his fav song is What a Wonderful World by Louis Armstrong, but that's not something notable. Neither the article, whoever wrote it, nor his webpage try to assert he's notable. That comes pretty close to my threshold for delete. I don't really feel the need to document a search that did not turn up anything notable. He may be a hidden gem, but it's not like everyone has to go to the Library of Congress to check every AfD. If you are willing to go the extra mile, however, that's obviously meritorious. Stammer 08:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did try; it helps sometimes to have people say what they tried. I don't usually do Diss Abs searches, but I thought it advisable this time; first, to see if he actually did exist, since that was challenged , and second, to try to get his full name, since the college site used a nickname. Occasionally people have missed everything on searching all kinds of topics by not searching all the variations where the name used on the article isn't the exact form. I am very wary of zero result searches, and there are many articles that look NN where people dont know enough to put in the right evidence. Most faculty at his level would have published one or two articles & I was concerned when I didn't find that. You are right, and he's less notable than average. DGG 04:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete I did look in JSTOR and the EBSCO databases and got nada. Sci girl 04:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- Mailer Diablo 03:27, 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. WjBscribe 17:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jon & Kate Plus 8 (video game)

Suspected hoax, no references provided, web search revealed no indication of a forthcoming video game based on the TV show. jwillbur^talk 16:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I conducted several searches as well. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 18:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete Per nom and above.--Whs tc hy 21:02, 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 03:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Groombridge

Autobiography of unremarkable person. 115 Google hits for the name, few of which help the articles case. Google test isn't always the end all and be all, but when you consider that he's involved with Internet publishing, you'd expect a lot more hits from someone who is notable. There are no reliable sources given for this. Metros 16:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - autobiog of non-notable individual. --YFB ¿ 16:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I am the person, I don't understand why people are trying to delete the entry?? Please help! Tinylee 17:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- There is only one safe way to write about a subject close to onesself, including writing about onesself, in Wikipedia. It is laid out at User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you. You aren't writing that way. You aren't working from sources that are independent of you, citing those sources as you first use them. If you can cite multiple non-trivial published works that are about you from sources that are independent of you, demonstrating that an article can be written in the aforementioned way, you can make a case for keeping the article. If you cannot do that, then really you should not have written about yourself in the first place. Uncle G 17:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
What does 'Autobiography of unremarkable person' mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinylee (talk • contribs) 2007-05-21 17:12:33
- Autobiography is a biography written by the subject. An "unremarkable person" in the Wikipedia sense is someone who doesn't meet our notability requirements. Wikipedia is not a host for people's resumés, so unless multiple, non-trivial independent works have been written which discuss you and show that you are notable, you can't have an article. You should also read our policy on conflicts of interest which states avoid ... editing articles related to you. --YFB ¿ 17:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  - - It means that you wrote the article yourself and that you're not very notable. Metros 17:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - autobio of not-so-notable individual (no offense tinylee) --Chuck Sirloin 18:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete: non-notable person, fails WP:BIO, no sources or verification. RGTraynor 19:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, nothing to indicate notability via reliable sources. Perhaps you want WikiBios. --Dhartung | Talk 19:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete, Thanks for the explanations above please delete the entry then. I am new to Wikipedia so I apologise if this has caused work for people and/or I have broke any rules.195.171.110.125 10:14, 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 03:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forgotten Kingdoms

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Forgotten Kingdoms (2nd nomination)

No claim of notability per WP:N, WP:WEB or WP:ORG. No independent references whatsoever (WP:V, the mudconnector link is merely a directory entry}. Kept on previous AfD on the grounds that it has "a player base of over 600", "appears notable", and the ol' "well wikipedia has other MUD articles..." Marasmusine 16:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 16:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's a link to the article: Forgotten Kingdoms (perhaps someone can tell me why I get the redlink above, even when I follow the 2nd nomination instructions on WP:AFD). Marasmusine 16:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:WEB, WP:V. No independent references. I'm sure they're all very nice people, but since when does my unfounded and unsupported supposition matter? (Oh, much like "appears notable.") RGTraynor 20:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Lack of independently verifiable info. Generic name makes Googling for sources difficult, "forgotten kingdoms" + RPG doesn't give me anything useful. Wickethewok 03:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - For the usual mess of MMO article reasons. Unverifibale, no assertion of notability, no reliable secondary sources. DarkSaber2k 09:11, 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. -Splash - tk 23:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joe A. Kelly

Article on some local newspaper writer doesn't assert notability. Seems to read like an obituary. waffle iron ^talk 16:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep, sports editor (not just "some newspaper writer") at the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. NawlinWiki 18:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, there are thousands of sports editors, and no indication why this one was notable outside of Lubbock. Reads like an obit.--Dhartung | Talk 19:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:BIO, WP:V. Heck, I bet that's a copyvio from a published obit, come to that. Two of the three links are extremely trivial mentions ("Joe Kelly, a former veteran sports writer for The Avalanche-Journal, also remembers the fire, but said it didn't affect the stadium significantly." is the sum total of one of the links) and the third is locked to registered users. May I ask what elements of WP:BIO this fellow is purported to pass? RGTraynor 20:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Articles by this author frequently read like obituaries precisely because this author frequently creates biographical articles sourced by just about nothing more than a person's obit in the local paper. (That's what the third, registered-users only link is: the guy's obit in the local paper, which is quite obviously the only source for this article.) The author has been cautioned about copying and pasting such obits and has since generally made the effort to at least re-word each sentence first in an effort to avoid copyvio's. Author has turned a deaf ear to all requests to stop creating such bio's in the first place, though. Family-provided obituaries are not an indicator of notability (anyone can get one) and are not fact-checked to be reliable sources. As noted above, this article provides only trivial mentions of his notability in Lubbock, Texas, and nothing to indicate he had even the slightest notability anywhere else. Mwelch 01:32, 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 03:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ansett Regional Airlines

Fails WP:CORP, there are no secondary sources on this start up aside from a trademark application which appears to be going to Federal Court. Searches for this entity result in regional airline operations relating to Ansett. Russavia 16:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: This AfD is not about Ansett Australia, Ansett New Zealand or Ansett's former regional airlines Hazelton Airlines, Kendell and Skywest (Australian airline) or their successor Regional Express Airlines - they will continue to have articles.

Comment, the further one looks at this, the more obvious this 'airline' is a piss-take. As this Google cache of one of their domains shows[17] --Russavia 22:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 22:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete Not entirely sure it is a pisstake, although I could not find any evidence of existence through Google, but the article is unsourced and possibly breaches WP:CRYSTAL. If and when it starts flying, then re-create the article. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 23:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Mattinbgn. -- Hawaiian717 23:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, suspect this is a hoax, and if it isn't it fails notability. Euryalus 00:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree Delete per Mattinbgn - WP:CRYSTAL and Russavia WP:CORP - besides I find it difficult to believe that a company will exist (or would want to) with permission or desire to use the name of a failed airline? So Hoax? - we will see - if wrong then re-create.--VS ^talk 01:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Ansett. Ansett had a number of regional airlines prior to its demise. [18] There are no sources on Google News/Google News Archives that verifies the current contents. Capitalistroadster 03:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The article talks about a "proposed airline" not a previous one, and that "It is in no way whatsoever connected with the former Ansett Australia which ceased operations in 2001"--VS ^talk 03:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:CORP, WP:CRYSTAL, poss WP:ADVERT. Orderinchaos 09:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete I did a quick scan of the literature and "Ansett Regional Airlines" was never an incorporated entity [19] until 2005 when the entity that is the subject of this article was created. Hazelton, Kendell etc appear to have been separately registered (see HZL Limited, Hazelton Air Services Pty Ltd, Anst Lednek Airlines (Aust) Pty Ltd). Zivko85 12:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as unfunny hoax, as per Russavia above. Lankiveil 23:45, 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 03:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swami Shankarananda Saraswati

I believe this article does not pass WP:BIO. There is no assertion of notability other than "Australia's leading meditation teacher". The sole source of that statement is a website which the subject appears to be associated with. There is no 3rd party reliable source listed that confirms the statement. There is also no 3rd party source listed that confirms his status as an expert on Kashmir Shaivism.Delete TheRingess (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete, advert; nn-bio; the footnote reference is indeed fake and points to what appears to be his publisher's website. Tempshill 16:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Sink into nothingness ... err, Delete: When ~~Russell Kruckman~~ Swami Shankarananda is touted as Australia's greatest meditation teacher yet can only muster 24 hits on the Australian Google [20] that's desperately non-notable. Fails WP:BIO large. RGTraynor 20:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 22:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete My first thought was to keep as I thought it was Swami Sarasvati who I remember from early morning television in my childhood. Alas, it is not and as this article fails to adequately assert the notability of its subject, I feel it should be deleted. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 23:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, nn; no books in OCLC. John Vandenberg 00:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless notability can be established beyond the current Rudra Press self-promotion inline citation.--VS ^talk 01:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete cannot use primary sources to assert notability. Per RGTraynor there does not seem to be much else said about him.Ga rr ie 02:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as there seems to be no independent confirmation of notability. Buddhipriya 03:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per all above. "Australia's Leading Teacher" is a very subjective term anyway, and I'd want to see some third-party evidence of his credentials. Lankiveil 23:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC).

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- Mailer Diablo 03:30, 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 keep. Sr 13 07:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sudan at the 1968 Summer Olympics

Yes, I admit it, I've been seduced by the dark side. But, darn it, this time she's right. It's a one sentence article, with little hope of ever becoming more than that, with no information that is not better conveyed by a list of "the following countries participated" at our article on that Olympics - and, guess what, it's already there: 1968_Summer_Olympics#Participating_nations! Please help me burn it with the heat of the 1968 Mexico City sun. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm going to bundle a bunch more like that here. They all have the important facts in common - no awards, no notable participants, one sentence that merely says they showed up, no information beyond that. So as not to confuse the issue, I'm leaving out every article with a single bit of information more that that, even Guatemala at the 1968 Summer Olympics which at least says that country hadn't competed for 16 years, that's at least something. Everything else is darn close to a speedy deletion candidate for no assertion of notability. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I see these articles as stubs that can be filled in as editors who are interested in the subject get around to it. Is there a reason to delete them? Some day they might turn into good articles, and the information necessary to make them good articles does exist out there somewhere. Tempshill 16:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Deleting these isn't getting rid of a single bit of information that isn't encapsulated in that list I linked to. If someone wants to write an actual article, they can do so just as easily without informationless stubs. On that basis, we may as well take, oh, "Who's Who" or the New York Times obituary pages for a given year, and make every entry into a stub "John A. Smith" was a person. "John B. Smith" was a person. "John C. Smith" was a person... and wait for someone else to make those into good articles.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It all seems rather pointless. I agree with AnonEMouse, they are pointless stubs that, while have a possibility of becoming full, rich articles, have a bigger possibility as languishing exactly as they are now, complete wastes of space because the information is available somewhere else. Vaguely 17:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep — The nominator fails to recognize that these are clearly stub articles that in fact do have hope of ever becoming more than that. The conventions established at Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics are that we organize Games results by sport and by nation. These articles are clearly part of the latter series. The type of content that could be put on Sudan at the 1968 Summer Olympics are results for all the Sudanese competitors at those Games. Take a look at Sudan at the 2004 Summer Olympics for an example of a more complete article of this type. The 1968 stub includes a link to a website that hosts all the PDF files for the official reports for past Games, so the framework is set for an editor to take up the job of expanding the stub. We simply haven't got around to it yet, but of course, there is no deadline. I assert that keeping these articles as incomplete stubs is more useful to the project than deleting them until one of us gets around to the 1968 results. Andrwsc 17:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Followup: I've just added the results of the five Sudanese competitors for the 1968 Games to that article, just to prove that it can easily be expanded beyond what the nominator claims. Andrwsc 18:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep for this and all other listed articles as per Andrwsc. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 17:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep These pages are part of the WikiProject Olympics and the work is still in progress! Doma-w 18:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Thered is no point to creating scads of stubs which merely say "Madagascar competed at the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City, Mexico." Creators being part of a project does not overrule the notion that Wikipedia is not a directory. When you have an article, create it. These stubs are not needed as placeholders to remind someone to write an article when they get around to it. Edison

These stubs are more than just placeholders. They are targets for wikilinks in various results pages, as generated by the {{flagIOCathlete}} and related templates. Take a look at a completed page for a recent Games, like Canoeing at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's K-1 500 metres to see how this works. Our long-term goal in the Olympics WikiProject is to have full results from all Games presented in a common style, using these kinds of wikilinks to connect results pages for individual events to results pages for individual countries. Removing these stub "Nation at the year Olympics" articles until there is something substantial to be listed will have the effect of breaking this system by creating lots of redlinks. Andrwsc 20:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I just wrote up the Ghana entry, and will proceed to boldly remove it from this deletion nomination as the concern has been adressed properly. It's not particularly easy work, but I do it out of respect and understanding of the nominator. More write-ups will soon follow, and I'll keep you posted. Punkmorten 18:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I did some more today. More to come tomorrow. Punkmorten 20:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep per User:Andrwsc. These pages are expandable stubs, not useless spam. Kolindigo 18:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I just added athletes/results to Israel at the 1968 Summer Olympics and am boldly removing it from the list of stubs. I don't have time right now to get the article the same exact style as other Country by Year pages, but I think the info is what counts. Kolindigo 20:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete any that remain no more than "Fooland competed ...." a week's prompting for input is enough for the stubs to blossom. On a technical note (not being an Olympics follower myself), do the countries "compete" or do the athletes compete; I thought is was the latter. Carlossuarez46 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- You're kidding, right? There are literally tens of thousands of stubs on English Wikipedia, and you are proposing a one week limit for those in Category:1968 Summer Olympics stubs to be completed? Andrwsc 19:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment - not it's not a "one week limit" - some of these have been completely useless stubs for nine months or more. That's plenty of time for some content to have been added. Delete for now and re-create when and only when someone is prepared to do the work to make them worthwhile. - fchd 07:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    - The AfD process is a wake-up call to those who want to keep these. If a one-line stub Fooland competed in the YYYY Olympics is keepable; why not "Fooistan did not compete in the YYYY Olympics"? Carlossuarez46 16:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment The WP:OLYMPICS project is a massive undertaking, with a tremendous amount of work required to "complete". These stubs serve as the outline of how we intend to proceed. For example, because the infobox contains links to all the other instances of the nation competing at other Games, and the navigation box at the bottom contains links to all the other nations at these Games, we have a very effective way of browsing Olympic history. Deleting these stubs would create hundreds of red links and break this navigation system. Your point is analogous to saying that if we were building a house, we should not put up any walls unless we intend to finish them off before moving to the next wall. We'd rather build the foundation first, then the frame, and so on. Removing the framing while the house is still under construction is counter-productive. Andrwsc 17:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. These are stubs that begin at an obvious starting point. It may or may not be the case that further desirable data will be added to any or all of them in my lifetime. This does not change the fact that the single sentence each contains along with its infobox and template is verifiably and reliably true, and that each of these countries' Olympic teams and their several accomplishments or lack of same are notable enough to support an article. There really isn't a valid reason to delete these stubs. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep I honestly don't care about any of these countries role in any Olympics, but unless you're saying they weren't there, this isn't a deletion issue. It's a content-development one. In the interest of encouraging said development, I'm saying keep. FrozenPurpleCube 19:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
YStrong Keep All are perfectly legitimate stubs that can be expanded. Although it may never be expanded greatly, it is definitely notable enough to keep. Reywas92^{TalkHow's my editing?} 19:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep, these are legitimate stubs. I can see Kelly Martin's point, but that could be said about tens of thousands of other articles. Unless we have an objective bar to measure which countries have competitive teams to write about (and of course that varies by sport), the only fair approach is to write about all of them. The Olympic gold medal count may look like a parabolic curve, but all those countries with one bronze medalist deserve some systemic bias love.--Dhartung | Talk 19:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep- legitimate stubs that have scope for expansion- topic is notable Thunderwing 20:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom (and not only year 1968 olympics). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jklamo (talk • contribs)
Keep Being a stub is no reason to delete an article. Data can be added, and will be if people with interest and expertise in the sporting history of these nations comes around. That some have already been crossed out only proves this. Resolute 22:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Punkmorten's furious work shows that these articles can become more than just one sentence, and that the information is out there. CharacterZero | Speak 22:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Articles such as this cheat the reader into following a link only to find no content that could not be deduced by reading the article title. While an informative stub is useful, a one line stub created for the sole purpose of removing a redlink or holding a place is worse that useless, it is damaging to the repuation of Wikipedia. If an article can't be created with at least minimal context, there is nothing wrong with waiting until such content can be sourced. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 23:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It can be created and can be sourced. It just hasn't been yet because there's a backlog. Kolindigo 23:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment Why not wait until someone has the time to create at least a useable stub with that information, rather than a one line stub. My point still stands that one line stubs are worse than useless and Wikipedia is better off without them. Deleting these articles would mean no loss of information to Wikipedia, the backlog would not be affected as no extra work would be created (for all intents and purposes the articles are empty anyway) and we would be honest with our readers that we do not have an article at this stage. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 23:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment Why are these particular stub articles being targeted for deletion? There are many, many, many thousands of stubs, and the consensus of the whole Wikipedia project is that stubs are useful and accepted. The original nomination claimed that these articles had "little hope of ever becoming more than that", which we have quickly shown to be false. Therefore, I think turning this into a debate about the usefulness of stubs is inappropriate. Andrwsc 23:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment Other stuff existing is not a valid reason to keep. I agree stubs with some context are useful but I would dispute that there is any consensus that one line stubs are useful. Furthermore, it is entirely valid to make reference to the usefulness of one line stubs at AfD. Discussion through the AfD process is one way that community consensus is discerned. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 00:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
        
        I unfortunately feel that our project would be put at a loss if pages were deleted like this. I can see your point in thinking that they are just normal stubs and should be deleted, but they are entirely notable events that deserve pages. Eventually, when we at the project have free time or are not doing anything related to another project, we will expand these pages, but you must understand that there are a lot, and deleting them with both reduce my interest in starting them up again, as well as set us back a few months in work! I just don't think deletion is a viable solution to the problem, and I would urge you and anyone else reading this to consider helping out at the Olympics WP. There is always something that needs to be done, as you can see, and your help would be greatly appreciated, even if you don't contribute there often. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐ 11:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Reply comment (outdent) I am very well aware that "other stuff" is not a valid argument; my question was more to understand your rationale for deleting these stubs. You've answered that by saying it's because they are "one line" stubs, but I think that is quite misleading. It's true that they contain one line of prose text, but that's because I moved much of the extra details into the infobox. Before I developed those infoboxes, the stubs had more information written as prose. See this edit for example. Currently the infoboxes tell you: When did the nation first compete at the Games? How many times? Did they miss any Games? Did they win any medals at these Games? What is their country code? Some stubs also include links to the appropriate National Olympic Committee articles and websites (see Ireland at the 1968 Summer Olympics). I assert that all of this provides suitable context for these to be valid stubs. What more do you think needs to be there? (I'm not asking for a complete article; I'm asking for what you think the minimum level for stub status is.) On another note, I should say that before I created all these stubs, there were hundreds of redlinks present on Olympic articles, and many of those articles were listed on Wikipedia:Most wanted articles. A couple of editors thought enough of my work to eliminate those holes by awarding me barnstars. I find it greatly ironic that another set of editors feels so strongly that we should completely undo that work. Andrwsc 17:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep: These articles are being worked on by a group of editors. I basically concur with everything Andrewsc has said in his comments throughout this discussion. --Sue Anne 00:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. These pages are all viable stub articles. There is a finite (but growing, if you can make sense out of that) number of articles for the Olympics, and it is important to ensure that they are all there. While our efforts at WP:OLYMPICS have shifted recently to other areas, we recognize that these articles still have potential and should be kept. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐ 00:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep The editors working on the history of the Olympics have a huge task on their hands and deleting these pages would be a slap in the face for them. The articles need expanding in time, as they will be, not deleting. Nick mallory 15:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment Thanks folks. I'm quite glad if you can prove me wrong, and these can actually grow to have useful information. Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard is one of my favorite essays, and these seem to be meeting it. Now please don't stop due to me thanking you. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate this statement, AnonEMouse. I hadn't seen that essay before, but it sure is compelling! However, I hope the expectation isn't that we immediately turn our attention to working on this set of 1968 articles just because they are current AfD candidates. It would be discouraging to the WP:OLYMPICS contributors if we felt like we were being "coerced" into a particular work plan based on prodding from AfD nominators and commentors. We have an immense amount of work to do, and part of the appeal of this project (at least for me) is that we can tackle different parts at different times, based on personal choice. I want to set my own work agenda, because after all, this is just a hobby.... Andrwsc 17:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep, the topic is obviously notable, and we can wait for as long as it takes for people to expand it (although some expansion appears to have already occurred). Everyking 10:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep as all these stubs have potential for growth. Tim! 10:56, 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. WjBscribe 17:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vertex4

Non-notable company, fails WP:ORG. Procedural nomination after article creator disputed my prod. David Eppstein 15:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete, advert Bigdaddy1981 16:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, the article is completely unsourced. LittleOldMe 16:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Skywalker was the author that contested the prod. Taemyr 21:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per NOM. Mrand 01:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, can't find any refs. Henrik 21:34, 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 redirect. W.marsh 13:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antilapsarianism

Stub article about a theological concept; only reference provided is "A Dictionary of Difficult Words." I find about 50 unique google hits when searching for the word -wikipedia, and at a glance very few of the results seem to be actual discussion invoking the topic. Stub was created in January 2006 and has not been substantially improved. I prodded this article on May 2, 2007 and prod was removed on May 6 with comment that the article is under construction and this is a "major theological concept," which may be true but is not established by the article. I then placed notability, references, and orphan templates; article has not been improved since then (and is still orphaned). Propaniac 15:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete, dictdef. Tempshill 16:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The only thing that I can find supported by sources is the first sentence, or a rough approximation thereof, namely than an antilapsarian is one who does not believe in the doctrine of The Fall of Man. The rest of the article, that attempts to characterize this as a creation/evolution argument, is unsupported by any sources that I can find, and original research. The article is also incorrect in what it says about Protestantism. That appears to be a conflation of antilapsarianism with supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism. The first sentence is the only thing that can apparently, from what the sources say, be said abut antilapsarians. Just redirect it to The Fall of Man. Uncle G 16:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per Uncle G. The purpose of this page seems to be to make a tendentious claim that evolution necessarily implies human perfectibility and denies original sin. While a valuable article on antilapsarianism might be written in the future, this is not it. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Notable enough in theological academic circles. No longer orphaned or unreferenced. An argument for deletion is NOT how rapidly the article advances by prods. Decoratrix 17:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment A dictionary definition (the reference you added) is a trivial source and does not establish notability. I included the history, including prods, to be upfront about both my own interaction with the article and the fact that someone previously did not believe this article to be deleted, despite the apparent low interest in improving it. Propaniac 17:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirect just a dic-def and so uneeded, but is a possible search term. Eluchil404 23:57, 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 03:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wicked Lasers

In the midst of an article history riddled with justifiably-deleted spam versions, DRV found a reasonable version, and requested its listing here. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete I can find plenty of places selling their stuff and entries on them as manufacturers, but no significant coverage of them as a specific company, rather than as one of many laser-pointer manufacturers. And I'd also like to point out that anyone using a 200mW laser pointer to light cigarettes is likely to spend the rest of their life with the nickname "the idiot with the glass eye" — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, advert. Tempshill 16:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails company notability criteria. Elrith 00:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep - this company is fairly notable. There are about 40,000 relevant Google hits. --Ixfd64 19:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Prove it - I've tried and couldn't. There are actually 454 Google hits (you have to go to the last page to get the correct number, as the number on the first page is an estimate which is often wildly wrong), not a single one of which is a bona fide source by WP:N standards — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete I'm somewhat familiar with this company and I don't think it's possible at this point to write a neutral article about it that's cited to WP:RS standards (i.e. the company and its products have been involved in controversy that's relevant to any neutral article but hasn't made it into traditional news sources). Therefore the article should stay deleted even if enough bland info turns up to squeak it in under the regular notability guidelines. Also, current version of article is too promotional. 75.62.6.237 06:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable company (per WP:CORP) that sells neat products with the aid of a cool, but equally non-notable, marketing effort. --Dynaflow babble 03:05, 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 12:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dysart High School

Contains no assertion of notability whatsoever. Was a contested PROD in last September; no significant additions were made since then. Fails WP:ORG unless it is considerably improved (which has not happened since the notability warning was added in September). Sent here as part of the Notability Wikiproject --B. Wolterding 15:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Believe me, folks, sending school articles to the AfD is really not my favourite. But this one fails the criteria by far. Had id not been for the contested PROD, this article would even qualify for speedy deletion under criterion A7, since it does not assert notability. --B. Wolterding 15:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you've been with WP for a very short time. Might your time be better spent trying to improve articles rather than proposing deletions, in the early stages of your involvement? A suggested method for dealing with non-notable topics is to try to improve them by doing some research. If you don't feel you have enough knowledge on the subject you can seek help. Most high schools will be found to be notable with a little research; not having references is not by itself a reason for deletion. --Kevin Murray 20:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently working to reduce the backlog of the Notability Wikiproject. That is, the articles I am considering have been tagged with the "notability" warning since 6 months or more, given the current status. I'm trying to find hints for notability as far as possible, but sometimes there's not much more to do with the articles than nominating them for deletion. (Frequently there were reasons for tagging them with notability concerns.) If you disagree with the deletions proposed, I appreciate your comments. --B. Wolterding 07:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete As regards the deprodding, the only way you'd get an article less "vitally important to Wikipedia" would be if there's a Dysart High School ON WHEELS out there — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. If no one has cared enough about it after a prod eight months ago, there is little prospect of the article being improved. RGTraynor 16:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Just redirect it to Dysart Unified School District. Uncle G 17:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep and research. Delete it looks like research has been attempted, but the nominator should make that clear in the nomination. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 20:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Feel free, but after eight months, it's a bit much to wait perpetually for it. RGTraynor 20:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

- Comment I've tried... there's nothing to research. I can't find anything other than the most basic "This is a school" information and Wiki mirrors (this is the sum total of the school's own website) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You convinced me to change my opinion. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 22:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment The school has won 3rd place in an interschool science contest organized by the Arizona State University. The prize list is here: [www.eas.asu.edu/cor/mesa/scores/high.htm]. Participation of a contest organized by a State University seems to be rather notable.--Kylohk 11:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- comment Um, actually 2nd place if I read that correctly, and no, participation in contests organized by local universities happens all the fraking time for all schools. There's no notability there at all. JoshuaZ 14:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've done some additional research and the school apparently had a recent National Merit Scholar of which about 10,000 are awarded a year. I don't think that by itself is enough for notability by any reasonable standard but I'm still researching the school. If anyone else has more time than I do, a Nexis search would be helpful. JoshuaZ 14:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Clearly non-notable per the nom and others above. Eusebeus 14:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 08:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:N and WP:V. The national merit scholar is a crock, btw. It just means his daddy works for the right company. I would have been one too, but my father's company was too small to offer scholarships, so I am forever saddled with the tag "semifinalist". True story. --Butseriouslyfolks 09:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IPython

Page originally put up for speedy deletion, {{hangon}} was added, and I'd keep the article, but I feel some debate is needed. Evilclown93 15:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I don't see a speedy tag in the article's history, and there's no reason for deletion stated in the nomination. So where are we going with this? --Butseriouslyfolks 15:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a hangon and some explanation on the talk page... Evilclown93 18:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep - after going through every single revision of this article, it's never had a speedy at any point - User:Ianozsvald added a {{hangon}} with nothing to hang on for. I'd guess it was posted in error/misunderstanding after receiving this copyvio warning. As it stands I can't see any reason to delete providing the current content isn't a copyvio — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep - there was initially a copyvio in copying a few words from the project's own website description. But that's been corrected, and we can easily expand the description with our own words detailing what IPython does. LotLE×talk 16:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above, was never tagged for speedy deletion. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 18:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. That was my copyvio warning, but I had already removed the copyvio passage. I see now that a section of the cv template I used assumes the whole article is a cv and suggests the {{hangon}}. I'll have to find a better template for cv portions of articles. In any event, I was able to excise the cv from the original article, so there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:50, 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 redirect. W.marsh 13:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cassandra Franklin

NN Survivor contestant who has done nothing besides the show. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Survivor: Fiji. As the article currently stands, it tells nothing more than what is in the other article. Tizio 14:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect as per Tizio. - TexasAndroid 14:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Survivor: Fiji if applicable. Include URL referring to the subject. --Aarktica 14:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment I could have redirected the page myself. The point of an afd is to determine whether or not it should be deleted or not. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And some people think a third solution is better than either of the ones you offered. Happens often enough. AFDs are not supposed to be just votes on two options A or B, but a discussion on the best outcome, which may very well be option C. - TexasAndroid 17:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge and delete. Fails WP:BIO; this article is unlikely ever to be more than a couple-sentence stub. RGTraynor 14:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect, non-notable. Tempshill 16:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep, She was the runner-up, and the other runner-ups of the other Survivor seasons have pages. Also, the page could possibly consist of more than this in the future. Jordan 22:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete and redirect. Because of her behavior on the show, there is very little that can potentially be added to this article one way or another. - DaoKaioshin 15:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to season. NN outside show, no potential for expansion. We dont create pages on every Deal or No Deal or losing Jeopardy contestant just because they been on a game show. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 03:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect as per Tizio. If all of her fifteen minutes of fame were contained within the show, then her lasting Wikipedia presence can be contained within the show's article, at least until (if and when) she gets involved with something else notable. --Dynaflow babble 03:10, 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 keep. I think discussing this through the Pokemon project page might be more fruitful. Neil (►) 13:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Porygon evolutionary line

Pointless page when these Pokémon all have their own pages. Cipher ^{(Talk to the hand)} 13:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the same layout and format as the Porygon article, and are just as unnecessary:

Strongly deleteThese articles lack a proper introduction, a proper picture at the top, the information from other articles is not being merged properly and above all, they try to show that evolution of a Pokemon is more important than that Pokemon itself, which is totally wrong. Their sections contain all information about various Pokemon but that is not related to the remaining content. Vikrant Phadkay 15:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep These pages are part of an on-going merger project at Wikiproject Pokémon. The reason for this merger is that the individual articles for each Pokémon rely too much on unreliable sources and original research. Please give this merger time, as combining hundreds of Pokémon pages is not a small project. Bhamv 15:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Conditional keep to allow the project time to complete the merger. Revisit the issue after a month or so and if no satisfactory progress has been made, consider relisting. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep See Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 15 and the actual talk page - there is discussion going on, and this AfD appears to be premature (as in, nom didn't bother to read the discussions). Give them time to work it out. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 16:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
comment since my keep rationale wouldn't add anything to the conversation i'm merely going to post a link to WP:PCP/Layout for people wanting more information on the merge in general. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Close as this is part of a concerted effort to collect numerous pokemon articles into fewer places, I don't feel that AFD is the appropriate place to discuss it. Participation in the ongoing discussion, or opening up an RFC would be my suggested route. FrozenPurpleCube 17:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ all. They add nothing to Wikipedia not covered elsewhere. Relation to a Project is irrelevant, pages must stand or fall on their own merits. - fchd 17:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect, as the intent is to remove the coverage elsewhere, with a different organizational scheme. Ignorance, or even dismissal of this is a hindrance to developing consensus. FrozenPurpleCube 17:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I still think a single list/table of all Pokemon should suffice, but am not stupid enough to realise that such a notion would ever get anywhere. - fchd 18:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Edison 18:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The nominator's rationale holds no water. It states that these articles should not survive because other pages exist with this information. Once all merged pages are complete, 491 of the current 493 Pokemon creature articles will become redirects, effectively nullifying the reason for deletion. The single creature pages whose information has been merged are only currently up for the sake of consistency. You Can 't See Me! 18:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? You are going to merge so many notable articles with non-notable ones seeing no signs of development? Ridiculous! The world's largest encyclopedia must not bend down before behavior that is as childish as puffing in a Gameboy cartridge, taking it to be a mouth organ! Vikrant Phadkay 09:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the articles are not notable. In their whole existence on Wikipedia, there have not been any sources that allow them to pass WP:NOTABILITY. --Teggles 11:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Further comment: To avoid any further confusion after this point, I will begin to redirect the creature articles into completed merged pages as soon as this discussion draws to a close. You Can 't See Me! 02:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

comment please don't. i don't think this many articles should have been created in the first place, as content&layout have not really been figured out yet. it should be sufficient to add an invisible comment to the top of each article, directing the person to view the talk page regarding the last AFD (this one) before nominating it again. that should be enough to dissuade most people who are only nominating because they weren't aware of the merger. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 12:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Note very well, merger experts!We are having many important articles that have a lot of content. Unimportant ones, like Ivysaur and Crawdaunt also do. Merging will make them overly long and many articles will lose out their important content. Finally, many merged articles would be proposed for splitting. And also, merging will not remove the so-called sources problem. Vikrant Phadkay 15:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Crawdaunt's article is rather short once all of the filler information in the middle is gone. Almost the entirity of its "In the Video Games" section is gameguide. Ivysaur also has quite a bit of gameguide, and its "In the Anime" section is slightly inflated with filler content. Before you mention anything about the sources in those two articles, an unhealthy load of the facts are sourced to fansites such as Serebii and Psypoke. Citing unreliable sources is no more of a fix to the sourcing problem than is a merge. In fact, the merge actually helps by eliminating that sort of filler content while still keeping a healthily-sized article, getting rid of a large amount of unsourceable material. You Can 't See Me! 18:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You are severely narrow-minded if you think that some descriptions about a Pokemon's unique battling potential is fanatically a game guide. Vikrant Phadkay 09:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It would seem you are "severely narrow-minded", considering all you did is provide an ad hominem attack. --Teggles 11:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should not be considered bad game guide if merged articles talk about a Pokemon's unique battling potential if it is particularly outstanding, such as Rampardos having an astronomically high physical attack rating. That type of info should be considered encyclopedic for the sake of providing information, whereas what should not be considered encyclopedic is putting in much more generic information like every last location Zigzagoon appears in the Hoenn region. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 16:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's true; Pokemon with the highest of a particular stat (or if that stat is notoriously high, like 120+) will have that mentioned. Porygon-Z and Alakazam are examples of two that are already up. The thing is, it won't go into detail about what the monster could do with every possible attack. There also shouldn't be things about ability if it is non-notable (non-exclusive abilities, Levitate if it does not eliminate a weakness, etc) or specific type influences unless the monster is notable for having 0-1 (maybe two if they're just Ghost/Dark, essentially the same attacking type) weaknesses. You Can 't See Me! 17:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. In fact, Magnemite evolutionary line was nominated for deletion recently and survived. I vote keep per rationale there. You Can 't See Me! 18:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
KeepPer merger.--Zxcvbnm 20:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep all. I've glanced at WP:POKE and I can tell that this is a merger in progress just like the Magnemite evolutionary line that survived as the result of a withdrawn nom. Just give them time to finish housecleaning first. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Merger in progress. hbdragon88 21:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep and merge. This article is helpful, and could easily be merged rather than deleted outright. Sir 0rion 03:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep: The individual articles should have been redirected to these. It's what you call a "merge". --Teggles 04:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete All I am opposed to the mergers being discussed at the Poke project, and there is no reason for these to exist. TJ Spyke 05:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why don't you bring up your concerns over at the POKE talk page? They've only been discussed for, like, at least two months now. hbdragon88 06:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  - TJ Spyke, you've made ZERO reason for deletion of these articles. Yet you've said "strong delete all". Bias much? --Teggles 06:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep --valepert 12:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep All! These are good. They give information about all the Pokemon in the line. --Riley the Kirlia 18:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep: At the heart of this proposed merger of 493 separate articles about Pokemon species are pages like this, which cover Pokemon that are obviously related to each other together to improve the context of the information (it's now easier to illustrate to readers how Porygon evolves into Porygon2, and Porygon2 more recently evolves into Porygon-Z), as well as provide a larger amount of practical material for each of these merged pages so that material frowned upon by the Wikipedia community, such as game guide and original research, do not need to be added to "fill up" these pages. How the actual pages themselves are laid out is a different matter, but in theory merging Pokemon by their evolutionary relations will count as a massive improvement to the way Pokemon species are presented to readers. (The aspect of the merger that needs discussion, IMO, is how to merge the species that don't have any evolutionary relations; I invite everyone to read my most recent proposal about that here, which is relevant to the other AFDs the nominator provided against the merger effort, this and this.) Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 21:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- What did you say? The evolutionary line articles do not overcome the sources or original research problem in any way! Instead I see tham packed with OR! Pidgeotto(anime) and Metagross(games) lose their notability completely when merged with their evolutionary family. So the Pidgey and Beldum evolutionary line articles must be deleted. Vikrant Phadkay 09:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Well, it's just that I shudder to think what would happen if outside aministrators impose their own solution to the hundreds of specie articles with the sources and OR problems; by normal Wikipedia standards ,if such pages can't be merged anywhere, then admins and other users would support deleting them outright. I'd much rather not see coverage of Pokemon species on Wikipedia be completely removed, so in a sense I'm hoping we can save the Pokemon specie articles from mass deletion by merging them together into pages with more substance. I'm sure you don't want to see the Pokemon articles deleted either, so merging seems an excellent compromise. (And really, part of the point of merging species by evolutionary line is to remove content from the original separate pages that are considered OR and badly sourced; such bad content was needed to fill up the specie pages when they were independent, but they won't be needed to fill up merged evo-line pages, which is why merged pages will feature less OR than non-merged pages.) Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 18:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete: There is absolutely no reason to try and figure out how to merge all of the articles into arbitrary collections based on their in game evolutionary line. If it isn't broken, then why should it be fixed in the first place? The concept of evolution can be covered in the separate articles, through the Pokeinfobox or whatever it's called now. Just leave everything be and have lists that don't require illustrations.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It's not arbitrary if they're being grouped by established connections from multiple first-party sources. Second of all, the articles are broken in a sense. Sourcing is a terrible problem due to excessive "filler" content, which was only added to de-stubbify most articles. By merging the creatures together, need for that filler content will disappear. Additionally, putting the creatures together adds more context in terms of similarities and differences. Furthermore, an article per creature is undue weight, even for a subject such as Pokemon. This really isn't the best place to talk about reasoning behind the merger, though. You Can 't See Me! 23:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So eliminate the filler content that cannot be sourced. Or source to the episodes if necessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, this isn't the place to discuss reasons for and against the merge. Continue the discussion, as you have been, at the Wikiproject page. The merger is set into place already and this AfD is not about stopping the merger, but rather getting rid of the already-merged pages. As it stands, these pages should be kept because the merger is still in progress; to delete them, the merge has to be stopped first, which is not the goal of this particular AfD. You Can 't See Me! 23:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral: I say, I say, I don't get it! We've got some people complaining that each and every Pokémon has its own article, and then when we step to reduce the number of articles, people want to delete those! --Brandon Dilbeck 03:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- That seems to be because there are a lot of users in both camps, and the concept of toning down the number of stubby, crufty Pokemon articles from 493 to much lower is just the sort of dividing issue that provides a grand For-vs-Against controversy. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 17:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete: There's already separated pages for the 3 pokemons --SuperHotWiki 20:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: As stated several times, there won't be for long. You Can 't See Me! 21:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I heavily doubt that anyone here voting "Delete" (including the nominator and excepting Ryulong and TJ Spyke) has read any of the debates over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Layout. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Er, good point. I'll mellow out for now. You Can 't See Me! 21:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep But I agree though. Redirects should be there. Hopefully with the Gyarados and Magikarp line, the vandalism about Magikarp being "crap" will stop. TheBlazikenMaster 20:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. They all fail our inclusion standards. --- RockMFR 14:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep And all evolutionary lines should replace the individual articles for pokemon with evolutions. It's just more convienent, and easier to read. 64.236.245.243 14:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Even though it's perhaps pointless having pages like that when they've all got their own pages linked too each other already, but for somepeople it is interesting to see pictures of them all near each other to compare them. - Steveking89 18:55, 25 May 2007 (GMT)

Erm, Steve, read the links I laid out above in my comment. They *won't* have their own pages before too long. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 18:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

- You are not supposed tp prophecise the result of this AfD. Vikrant Phadkay 09:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep but do not merge for now - This seems contentious to make a bold statement. On one hand, there are camps in which they claim that not even 493 articles on individual Pokémon belong, just because it fails the out-of-universe notability (but I can name plenty more articles that would fall from this logic - for example, I have never read Harry Potter and from that perspective, I'd think that the articles there would be cruft). On the other hand, some believe that it's overkill for 493 articles because of the fact that not all species can be taken from some independent context (for example, only on rare occasions do a lesser-evolved Pokémon enter competitive battling), making the typical game use section redundant. Some unrelated Pokémon do not appear independently of these contexts either (I've heard movements to merge all 36 articles on the starter Pokémon together, for example, or at least to merge the Nidorans, Sandshrew/Ekans, Seedot/Lotad, Shuppet/Duskull, Miltank/Tauros, Volbeat/Illumise, Growlithe/Vulpix, and the list goes on). Some advocate keeping the originals and making articles on evolutionary lines, just from a compromise standpoint, or to provide some support to individual articles. On the articles on evolutionary lines, I fail to see (except for rare circumstanes such as Combee, Ralts, Snorunt, etc.) the context in which the line is more notable than the individual Pokémon that make up the line. Until we can agree on what exactly we are doing (I'm not even sure if WP:POKE is inclusionist-dominated or deletionist-dominated, but it seems to be the latter, and my argument can very well extend to the stuff out there that's far more than 493-of-a-kind, like Digimon: Digital Monsters, Monster Rancher, and so on), we should not take action. kelvSYC 23:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: WikiProject Pokemon's members seem to be mostly either mergist (not unlike myself) and inclusionist; there are very few people who want any non-filler info deleted. Anyways, the only creatures from different evolutionary lines that are planned to be plopped onto one page are the legendaries from each generation, Lunatone/Solrock, Plusle/Minun, Volbeat/Illumise, Zangoose/Seviper, and the Nidorans. The thing is, we sort of have come to a general consensus on what to do (see the layout page and the discussions linked at the top). The movement itself was started because individual pages are not up to Wikipedia standards. You Can 't See Me! 04:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why the duos? There's also Oddish/Bellsprout, Meowth/Mankey, Glameow/Stunky, Magmar/Electabuzz/Jynx, etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Those duos were selected because they are treated as pairs in the games and anime. Plusle/Minun have the obvious similarities and linking abilities, Volbeat/Illumise and NidoranM/NidoranF are basically extreme gender variations of the same species (much Burmy's evolutions), Zangoose/Seviper are described as bitter, irreconcilable rivals, and Solrock/Lunatone are counterparts. The others listed (Oddish/Bellsprout, Meowth/Mankey, etc) just happen to be version-difference monsters with no other common link. You Can 't See Me! 23:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What about Caterpie/Weedle? They're viewed as opposites. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you feel like it, you could discuss what gets merged where on the Layout page. This AFD debate doesn't seem like the right place, though. You Can 't See Me! 03:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Did somebody say that this is not the place to discuss the merger? Hah, there are so many places where this issue has been seen! So anyone can blindly, or selfishly, assume that this merging is not being opposed! Such users go on merging, and it is as clear as crystal that they violate either WP:POINT or WP:OWN. Vikrant Phadkay 09:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss the merger. This AfD is a discussion over whether or not Porygon evolutionary line and related artciles should be deleted or not. As of now, no they should not because the merger is currently going on. This AfD is not about whether the merger is right or not. Take that up on the WikiProject Pokemon page. And please, bring some arguments backed up by Wikipedia policy rather than an array of complaints, distortions of policy, arguments that should be avoided, and personal attacks. You Can 't See Me! 17:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep If all Pokemon have their own article, then these ones should too. G1 gg y ! 04:08, 28 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 09:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Pokémon (1-20)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon (1-20)

Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon (1-20) (2nd nomination)

This page is pointless. There's no need for a small synopsis when one can be found on every Pokémon's respective page. Cipher ^{(Talk to the hand)} 13:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Suggest creation of a new category which will dynamically list each entry. That way, the notable subjects (with their respective articles) will be included in a single directory. This will also spare all the extra effort that might be spent on maintaining this list. --Aarktica 14:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Conditional keep per related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porygon evolutionary line. The Pokemon wikiproject seems to be in the midst of a large merger project involving these articles, and given the scope of the effort I am willing to allow them some time to complete the merge. Suggest revisiting this issue after a month or so to check for progress, and if its still in a poor state, relist here at AfD. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep See my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porygon evolutionary line - it also applies here. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 16:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep Nominator's reasons seem to ignore the past discussion that went on at the last AFD. This is a merge in progress, the duplicated information will eventually be deleted and redirected. For more info, please see WP:PCP/Layout. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Another user had complained about the split of the larger article in to these articles during the first AfD back in April (which is, evidently, a merge in progress at this time). My opinion hasn't changed - the attempt to delete these reeks of a WP:POINT to me, since consensus on the Pokemon project page seems to have stated that this should be done. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep per the tiger above. This is a merge in progress here. Give it some time to finish merging, and then wait for the redundant info to disappear. If the redundant info's still around a month or so from now, then AfD it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete I am against the PROPOSED merger, since it doesn't solve the "problem" that resulted in the merger idea (lack of RS). TJ Spyke 05:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep per above. Merger in progress. If nominator opposes merger, discussion at WT:POKE is the more appropriate venue. hbdragon88 06:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep: Merging in progress. Stop trying to prevent it with faulty nominations. We've made consensus, it's over. They're being merged. --Teggles 06:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I should notify everyone that using the series of descriptive, supplemental List pages of which this page is a part of may not be the only way to cover the many Pokemon species that don't have evolutionary relatives (which is actually the purpose of this page; to fill in the gaps left behind by merging Pokemon into evolutionary line pages like Porygon evolutionary line). I have proposed what could be a viable alternative to this series of pages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pokémon/Layout#About_those_Pokemon_that_don.27t_evolve...; everyone may want to hold a discussion over there about that. If that plan gets consensus, I will support deleting this page. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 20:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete If it ain't broken, don't fix it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is broken, at least read the backstory or even this page. The majority of Pokemon articles are being merged into evolutionary lines. However, because some do not have evolutionary lines, they would need their own article. The problem with this is that those articles most definitely fail WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOR. Solution? These articles. We are fixing it, and as I've shown, the thing is fucked. :) --Teggles 12:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep. The articles are not redundant, because they are a part of a merge process that would seek to make the articles not redundant. No point in deleting. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I heavily doubt that anyone here voting "Delete" (including the nominator and excepting Ryulong and TJ Spyke) has read any of the debates over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Layout. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete I find listing rediculous. There shouldn't be little details, and three links leading to the same article. I agree with the merging, but I still disagree with this. It should be on some list, but this isn't right list. This isn't a main article. Most lists have less detailed info anyway. TheBlazikenMaster 20:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The article can easily change to be more in-depth. This will happen when they are actually merged. The fact that you voted "strong delete" is pretty ridiculous. --Teggles 04:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I'll call this one saying that this is unencyclopedic. There is no need to split "1-20", "21-40", and so on when List of Pokémon do just fine. Furthermore, the format of these articles seem to be more like "articles for naviational purposes" rather than true encyclopedia articles, making this redundant (if the information is in here, it would be better in List of Pokémon. I also question whether the consensus to proceed with the merge even exists if there is so much opposition to it, but that's not of the concern of this nomination. kelvSYC 23:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I find myself inclined to agree here because this is a duplication of information that is meant to provide places where Pokemon that don't evolve, such as Farfetch'd, the space to get their due coverage; it would be at List of Pokemon (81-100) that one section would be much more comprehensive than others, and not have a Main Article link, and that's Farfetch'd's section. This was Zappernapper (talk · contribs)'s plan for dealing with Pokemon that don't evolve and therefore can't be merged into each other; I believe I have thought up a better alternative to this list page for covering unevolving Pokemon, and it's detailed here, which is a way to merge unevolving Pokemon together more directly without the need for list pages like this. I wonder if that would get more consensus as a component of the merge plan than these supplemental list pages. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 23:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete There are so many websites on Pokemon characters. It's just not wikipedia material. I understand we're different from Britannica, but no. Too open. Feydakin 00:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Your reasoning also applies to Dungeons & Dragons, Naruto, Harry Potter, etc. The fact that there are other websites has little-to-no bearing on Wikipedia - in fact, read through Wikipedia talk:Pokémon Collaborative Project/Archive 14#We're in trouble. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 01:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is actually in favor of you. It helps us to cut down the number of Pokemon articles by merging them here. You've also made little basis in terms of policies and guidelines, simply said "It's not Wikipedia material". --Teggles 21:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete Give each Pokemon its own page, or there is little point. Pokemon like Pikachu and Meowth are well known and so there is a lot of information on them. It seems consistent to keep pages for all other Pokemon too.--Michaelritchie200 17:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is that Pikachu and Mewtwo are the exception, not the rule. Meowth is already detailed with the rest of Team Rocket. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 17:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
First off, notability, not popularity. Secondly, saying that every Pokemon should have an article if two others do is illogical. They all have different notability levels. Pikachu, for example, is well documented, but Vileplume is unheard of. --Teggles 21:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just naming two for examples. And Meowth the character has been documented on the Team Rocket page, but not the Pokemon. Michaelritchie200 07:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep Per comments above, and per original nomination. Don't keep nominating this just to make a point. Pokemon articles are here to stay. G1 gg y ! 04:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete... we've long since passed the point where 6000 pokemon articles is considered acceptable... thats why there is such a thing as Wikia ... make a freaking pokemon wikia, fill it to the brim with the sort of random cruft we have here. There is 0, absolutely no reason this encyclopedia needs an article for each and every single pokemon, each game, lists of who what when where was released... we certainly dont need multiple lists of said data. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please understand, these articles are for cutting down the amount of Pokemon articles. They are placed to merge the main Pokemon articles to. So basically 500 articles will cut down to 200 or something. I agree with you, but I'm disappointed in the fact you didn't read anything other than the nomination text. --Teggles 07:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I still say Delete, but one more thing - every single Digimon has its own page too. Are they to be cut down as well? Michaelritchie200 07:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they should be. But don't start pulling a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS on me. --Teggles 07:30, 28 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 10:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Pokémon (21-40)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon (21-40)

Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon (21-40) (2nd nomination)

This page is pointless. There's no need for a small synopsis when one can be found on every Pokémon's respective page. Cipher ^{(Talk to the hand)} 13:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Suggest creation of a new category which will dynamically list each entry. That way, the notable subjects (with their respective articles) will be included in a single directory. This will also spare all the extra effort that might be spent on maintaining this list. --Aarktica 14:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Conditional keep per related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porygon evolutionary line. The Pokemon wikiproject seems to be in the midst of a large merger project involving these articles, and given the scope of the effort I am willing to allow them some time to complete the merge. Suggest revisiting this issue after a month or so to check for progress, and if its still in a poor state, relist here at AfD. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep See my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porygon evolutionary line - it also applies here. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 16:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep, per my reasoning in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon (1-20) (2nd nomination). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep per above.--Zxcvbnm 20:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep per above. Merger in progress. If nominator opposes merger, discussion at WT:POKE is the more appropriate venue. hbdragon88 06:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I should notify everyone that using the series of descriptive, supplemental List pages of which this page is a part of may not be the only way to cover the many Pokemon species that don't have evolutionary relatives (which is actually the purpose of this page; to fill in the gaps left behind by merging Pokemon into evolutionary line pages like Porygon evolutionary line). I have proposed what could be a viable alternative to this series of pages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pokémon/Layout#About_those_Pokemon_that_don.27t_evolve...; everyone may want to hold a discussion over there about that. If that plan gets consensus, I will support deleting this page. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 20:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete If it ain't broken, don't fix it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep, per reasoning in other AfD. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I heavily doubt that anyone here voting "Delete" (including the nominator and excepting Ryulong) has read any of the debates over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Layout. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete For the exactly the same reason as I had here.
- But your reasoning is not based on notability, but your personal preference. You want it one way, so you use the AfD and say "rather than assert a policy or guideline violation in it existing, I'll say "I don't like it". - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete, same as the list of 1-20.--Michaelritchie200 17:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning uses the exceptions. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 17:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Bulbasaur, Treecko and Lugia, for more examples, are all pretty important. I also say Delete because no one has even completed this page yet. Maybe because it's up for deletion but it sat there for a couple of weeks before that and wasn't edited. Michaelritchie200 07:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Besides, does it make that much difference to the running of Wikipedia if each Pokemon has its own page? If we do this, does it mean we have to chop down the number of character pages for Harry Potter, Digimon and Final Fantasy and other character heavy games. Michaelritchie200 07:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep Reeks of making a point. See reasoning at other pokemon related nominations. G1 gg y ! 04:11, 28 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 03:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naruto Headbands

Unencyclopedic, mainly a list with POV in the introduction. WP:NOT#INFO applies Digitalsupernova 12:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Trivial info, not encyclopedia, not even linked to any other pages. Tarc 13:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Note to nominator: although the creator of the page has been inactive for five days, I suggest leaving a note on the user's talk page about this AfD. --Aarktica 14:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Extremely trivial information, no links, citations or references. I note that there's no reference to these headbands in the comprehensive and well-written main article. RGTraynor 15:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per RGTraynor Bigdaddy1981 16:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per RGTraynor - unreferenced, fails WP:A. Relatively minor detail in the series. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 17:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as purely encyclopaedic. Maybe a one-sentence mention in the main article, but no more. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Naruto. It should come under a "headbands" section, containing the same information at this article, and yet after the list is converted into prose.--Kylohk 15:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 00:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, unless there's a lot more than this to say on the subject - I can't imagine there would be, but... Snarfies 03:50, 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. Apart from those things mentioned below, the article is a bottomless pit of atrociousness. I suspect it originates from a website other than this one. -Splash - tk 23:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Igor Tkachenko

Fails to meet WP:BIO notability criteria Futurano 10:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Contested ProD: the user added several external links in order to approve notability. But 4 out of 5 websites seem to be under control of the person in question. Sent here as part of the Notability Wikiproject --Futurano 10:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. With a discography this long, we need evidence that the record labels are non-notable before we delete. WP:MUSIC says "2 records on notable record labels". --Alvestrand 12:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Those awards are genuine, and even though none is a Grammy, the number of them does stack up. (I really hope Glory hole means something different in Odessa, though) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The burden of proof is on the editors adding the material to demonstrate notability. This article is completely unsourced, with no references to back up the claims of having "notable appearances". None of the record labels who have produced this guy's music have Wikipedia articles (save one record) and that's not a very good sign as far as notability goes. A brief Google search fails to come up with evidence of notability. Willing to retract this !vote if reliable sources are found to the contrary, but it is the duty of the author to support these statements, and that has not been done. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Only 50 Google hits (including Wiki mirrors) on a directed search for "Igor Tkachenko" + "composer" [21], and the lead hits are his personal website and the Wikipedia article. A search on the Aspen Music Festival website (one of the awards the article claims) doesn't turn his name up, while a Google search for the "FIFI International Internet Film Festival" from which another award is claimed turns up only 8 hits, this article being two of them; the purported web address for this festival is a broken link. I could find no evidence - nor does the article proffer any - that he actually won any of the claimed awards. The record label for most of Tkachenko's work, Tigor Music, has only ten Google hits, and its article was AfDed from Wikipedia last year; that record nukes that of JHS Records, the second principal label on this article, for which there are three Google hits, all in Tkachenko-related articles. Tkachenko doesn't appear on AllMusic.com, and neither do his labels. RGTraynor 16:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - further to that, he doesn't appear on the Prix Arthur Honegger list either - on closer inspection every hit on his name and Arthur Honegger is a wikipedia mirror — iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per the three votes above. Pavel Vozenilek 12:25, 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, however the sources in this afd need to be integrated into the article. —Ocatecir ^Talk 03:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SkyscraperPage

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/SkyscraperPage

Articles for deletion/SkyscraperPage (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/SkyscraperPage (3rd nomination)

This page is unaware of the existence of WP:RS and WP:V. Not a single source outside of the page itself. No claim of being the subject of multiple, non-trivial works as required to establish notability. There are a significant number of G-hits, but they seem to be blogs of people who contributed pixel art there, failing as reliable sources. M^ask? 09:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems not to meet the WP:WEB criteria. Delete. -- Karada 13:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"This page is unaware of the existence of WP:RS and WP:V..." Say what? --Aarktica 14:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I used personification. I do it all the time :) -M^ask? 17:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Artcile does not differs from Emporis article for example. The site is biggest open source for techdata on skyscrapers. Elk Salmon 20:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't change the fact that without independent references, it does not meet the criteria for inclusion. And the fact that it's just like another article is a textbook version of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. -M^ask? 23:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That is called prejudice. You stick rules to one article, but reject to stick them to another article, which is exactly the same. It's also part of rules - WP:NPOV. Elk Salmon 13:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV applies to the tone and style of what we write, not what we nominate and don't. If the other page warrents deletion as well, nominate the thing. -M^ask? 14:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as i know it's also relates to policy and behavior of editors. Elk Salmon 12:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

delete. wikipedia is not a web directory and sources are not independently verifiable. Randella 01:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

does it mean Emporis should be deleted as well? Elk Salmon 13:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well BBC news has plenty of links to skyscraperpage.com. It's funny though, how wikipedia doesn't seem to like blog references. My own blog is syndicated in print magazines, so the print magazine content is an acceptable source but the identical blog isn't. Haha. Just to add a little more to this notability crap, I see wikipedia itself has 976 pages referencing skyscraperpage. I'd say that's notable! --Gothicform 11:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Links yes, but any BBC stories about the page? -M^ask? 17:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just about it [22]. Some news articles [23] [24] [25] [26] etc. Not talking about numerous magazines that bought drawings.Elk Salmon 12:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That first one may or may not be a reliable source, it's an opinion page. But for the sake of argument, theres one reference. None of the other ones come close to qualifying, they just use the page as a source, they aren't a source on the page. And if you wanted to source every statement to that first reference, you'd have a rather short article. -M^ask? 22:22, 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 DELETE. -Splash - tk 23:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Riva Tholoor Philip

I looked into this one and found that an article on the same subject was VfD'ed a couple years ago (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rivaji). Though tempted to put on a db-repost tag, I think it would be better to subject this one to a full AfD discussion. Things do change at light speed in the Online Age. Though the prose smacks of self-promotion, there may be a chance that the article's subject has enough notability that he'd rate a Wikipedia article of his own, and thus the article would be worth retooling in a NPOV direction. However, I do not find that the man or the organization he leads are notable enough to satisfy WP:NOTE, based on my quick look for more sources on the Internet. --Dynaflow babble 07:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

delete Deciphering the article, he's a ex-student politician who has formed a special interest chapter of his political party, but hasn't actually done much yet for the outside world to know.DGG 23:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. Would-be politician never elected to a real office. Clarityfiend 00:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have just discovered that an anon IP removed the AfD template from the article two days ago. I have warned the user and watchlisted the article (as I should have in the first place - d'oh!). --Dynaflow babble 16:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
...And the same anon just removed it again. --Dynaflow babble 07:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
...And now it was removed by the original author. --Dynaflow babble 08:16, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Make-out party

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Make-out party

Articles for deletion/Make-out party2

The result of the previous nomination two years ago was "keep"; however, in light of developed deletion standards and the definite lack of development of the article, I think the topic is now obviously not up to our encyclopedic standards. Rmrfstar 04:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, may change if it's made better, doubt it though. --Whs tc hy 04:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete; the fact that no significant changes have been made in so long seems to prove that this is an article of rather low notability. I wouldn't mind being invited to one of these parties, however... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Little improvements made in the important areas - Sourcing and notability. It looks like the first nominator was right: "I doubt it could ever become much better than it is." Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per the nominator's recommendation and the previous discussion, in which it was brought up that this seems to be original research and that there are and have been no citations in the article. Perhaps if there were an article "Dating habits/rituals of teenagers," this would be a potential merge.. but I hope not. bwowen ^T/C 05:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Um, I doubt this article can really be improved based on the writing, although the content is pretty BJAODN hilarious outside of encyclopedic context (esp. the part about bringing tacos and last paragraph). Nate 05:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, although a potential merge target exists in the more generalized article making out (also bereft of sources, but with much more potential than speculation about hors d'oeuvres). Kiss this one goodbye. --Dhartung | Talk 06:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - how on Green Earth was this article's previous AfD closed as "keep" - a simple headcount? --Haemo 08:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Assuming good faith, it seems to be a no consensus defaulting to keep, rather than a consensus to keep. There was less emphasis on policy in those days, generally.--Dhartung | Talk 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I can find no sources that support any of this, which appears to be one editor's prescription for make-out parties rather than a description of make-out parties based upon sources that have researched the subject. Most of the sources that I can find treat make-out parties as but one example of a group date, with that latter being the primary subject that they discuss. Mention of make-out parties belongs in dating (activity), therefore. Looking at what the sources say versus what this article says, I don't see a single item of verifiable content in this entire article. Redirect to dating (activity), where this and other forms of group date can be written about properly. Uncle G 09:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, WP:OR, WP:RS. I do not see any sources citing about such a party. There is unlikely to be any sources to cite this type of information. This is more of group dating and such information do not need individual articles to cover them. Terence 11:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep I added 2 sources whhich discuss "make-out parties." One is tThe Portland Mercury and the other is Mademoiselle. In addition I found "The new sexual revolution Walsh, Jim, Callen, Michael, Sprinkle, Annie. The Utne Reader. Minneapolis: Jul 1993. , Iss. 58; pg. 58" which according to Proquest says it includes a description of someone's humiliation at a teenage makeout party, but I have no access to the full article. The term has clearly been around for years and is discussed in these 3 reliable sources, so satisfies WP:N and WP:A. It would appear to be a type of party, just like a dance party, pot party, or coctail party. Likely games at such a party in even your grandparents' day would have been Post Office (game) and Spin the bottle. See also Seven minutes in heaven. Merriment ensues. Edison 18:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge somewhere (and cf. Rainbow party (sexuality)). JJL 19:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete current content but no objection to either creating a new article based on reliable sources or redirecting this to some more appropriate location. I am not sure where, perhaps "sex games" or something. FrozenPurpleCube 19:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete I think it might be possible to write an article on this, but it would best be done by starting over. DGG 05:02, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Azariah

Seems to be a non-notable biography/obituary. I added a prod tag; it was seconded by another editor and then removed by the article's original author, whose username indicates that he or she might be a relative of the article's subject. I have watched the article for a few days in the hopes that some indication of notability might be added, but the only substantial change has been the removal of the prod tags. --Dynaflow babble 03:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete as a WP:CSD#A7. A google for the name only turns up 90 results, none of which seem to be related to this person. Possible WP:COI at work here too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. While this article seems to fit under WP:CSD#A7, it is better to allow a full AfD to run because there is less chance of the deletion being overturned. There is no assertion of notability and there are no sources provided. EdJohnston 03:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment I gave a second prod on this, because I simply do not know whether or not he's notable. I am obviously not gong to find out from Google. The article talks about him, but it does not give specific accomplishments in a way that anyone who doesn't know the man could tell. His positions are not intrinsically notable: a translator and a secondary school teacher, and apparently a language program administrator. His qualifications for all this are what they ought to be--his training and experience as a translator is the right kind, his preparation as a language teacher is the right kind. But I do not know if they were distinctive--he may have been the very important among Indian conference interpretors, and if there's any evidence for this, I think he'd be notable. He may have been famous as a teacher--high school teachers can certainly be notable, but we need some some evidence of recognition. Many Indian and Southeast Asian teachers at various levels have awards--does he? His writing are mainly unpublished, including I think the two cited specifically. But have any been published, and what success did they have? And there's a trickier point: he is claimed to be notable because of his spiritual gifts. This is a little harder to demonstrate, but not impossible: was he recognized for these gifts? Did he have disciples? Did people write about him? I am sometimes willing to accept weak evidence for an area that can not reasonably provide strong evidence, but there still has to be some evidence. If the ed. of the article was a relative, that alone doesn't bother me--who is in a better position to know about what evidence there might be? DGG 03:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, you might be surprised how much biographical information (for people who do warrant biographical articles) can be found using Google. India is far from being a country without documented history. Uncle G 12:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more of his occupation as much as anything else. I have found information for, and defended, many articles for Indian topics and people. As I couldn't do it here, I wondered if any else could. Most non-English language books from India--and many earlier English books from there-- are imperfectly entered in bibliographic databases accessible to me. DGG 23:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete No verifiable claims of notability. I've read a lot of articles like this. - Richfife 04:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete, no obvious claims to real notability. (Several vague implications of possible notability aren't the same thing.) Are we sure this guy isn't an Arbuthnot? --Dhartung | Talk 06:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- That last question was uncalled-for. Uncle G 12:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment To clarify, "this guy" refers to the subject of the article, not the author. "Several vague implications of possible notability" is precisely the problem with those other articles. It's a dodge.--Dhartung | Talk 19:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 15:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Reply by Author. Apologies for deleting the prods. It was an attempt to buy time, in order to satisfactorily assert George Azariah's notability. He did publish a number of books and pioneered a language learning system based on symbols during his time in Latin America in the 80's -unfortunately, this was in the pre-internet era; and the unstable political situation in Venezuela foregrounded such initiatives. I also intended to detail his spiritual philosophy in more depth, which he has shared with many over the years; but not through an internet medium as yet. It is a process before this makes comes to the required level of prominence online, and this Wikipedia article is perhaps premature, but elements of notability will gradually emerge (as with William Blake, who was mostly an unknown during his life). Posthumous notability takes time. Mainstream history is often skewed. For instance, George Azariah's mother (Elizabeth S Azariah) was India's first woman lawyer to have received the bar in India (registered as such with the International Council of Women), but the version that prevails is that it was Cornelia Sorabji, who received the bar in Britain. It will be some time before this 'hidden history' comes to the fore, and people rediscover it. A chicken and egg situation, perhaps. But grounds for notability exist in the case of George Azariah, if as yet not obviously. Discussions are underway with publishers for the publication of his works Truth and Barabbas, and his litterary translation of the Thirukkural, as well as the re-launch of his unique language learning system. (Azariahmoreno 16:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)).
- In which case an article can be created when genuine evidence of the subject's notability surfaces. Right now, there is none, and whatever notability his mother had is not relevant. Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO, WP:V. RGTraynor 16:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- If the history isn't already documented, Wikipedia isn't the place to document it. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. It is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. From the above, it appears that what you should be doing is looking for is a book publisher to publish the never-before-documented biography of this person, not writing it on Wikipedia. Uncle G 17:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Azariahmoreno, welcome. It is acceptable to remove a {{prod}} tag, as a means of showing that the proposed deletion is opposed, but it's best to follow that up with immediately addressing the subject's notability using reliable sources. You can be sure that in most cases disputing a prod will result in an AFD nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - does not appear to pass WP:N, no third-party coverage being offered. Moreschi ^Talk 20:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 04:07, 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: A7; the article is just an infobox with redlinks, so notability is not actually asserted, nor is there any context. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philips Sperrow Football Team

Hoax. I can find no references for the team nor for the "Flying Dutch League 1" The "Caribe Stadium" does exist but it's in the Dominican Republic not in Italy. The team includes the German defender, Pedro Kallastrom, which is linked to Pedro Gabriel Barroso de Oliveira a Brazilian. The oter players are also given odd links as can be seen here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete A7 (club). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom. I double checked the info in the nomination, and had the same results. CitiCat 04:15, 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 03:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lost (TV series) inventory

The article is listcruft and should be deleted per WP:NOT#IINFO, which states that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." -- Wikipedical 01:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 01:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as listcruft per WP:NOT#IINFO, not even worth merging into Lost (TV series). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Whs tc hy 02:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete this is a badly organized set of information, if it belonged anywhere, it'd be on the Lostpedia, but I'm sure they have better. FrozenPurpleCube 02:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete I've never seen a better example of indiscriminate information than this article. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete echoing the above, this list is a random and non-selective collection of information. —Anas ^talk? 09:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. This is an encyclopedia not a fan website, this information is better off at Lostpedia if they do not have anything about inventory over at the other side. Totally listcruft and fancruft. Terence 11:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete- per WP:NOT, anything of significance is already in the main article Thunderwing 11:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:OR that failed to include Nikki who was sadly buried alive. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it deserves to be LOSTBalloonman 21:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as all above. Elrith 00:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete sorry for making it in the first place; Lostpedia is realy the appropriate place for this content... Alinor 20:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- Mailer Diablo 03:34, 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. -Splash - tk 23:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table of Disney characters

The article is listcruft and should be deleted per WP:NOT#IINFO, which states that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." This type of information belongs in a category. Since it already exists ([[Category:Disney characters]]), this article should be deleted. -- Wikipedical 01:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 01:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Valid as a category, no need for a separate page. At best, maybe a collection of existing lists. FrozenPurpleCube 02:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as redundant list, given that it's a merely a duplicate of [[Category:Disney characters]].Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, as per nominator —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaniac (talk • contribs)
Delete for the reasons above--Whs tc hy 04:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above, this is what categories are for. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 05:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep I can see the value in a list of characters like this.Balloonman 21:55, 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. Haemo, that kind of comment sounds like you meant to edit the article, surely, rather than ask someone else to? -Splash - tk 23:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where's Waldo in popular culture

This is just a list of mentions/spoofs of Where's Waldo. It's simply not encyclopedic. In most cases, these popular culture articles are spinoffs from the original article. Editors think it's alright to just move the cruft into a new article (instead of doing the correct thing, by condensing the section in the first place!). I'm really starting to think, there needs to be better policies in place about these articles. Wikipedia is flooded with them: Category: In popular culture, and it's a big issue. RobJ1981 00:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I can't find Waldo, but I can find a lot of stuff in this article that proves that it's unencyclopaedic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Ozgod 00:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep Waldo himself is pretty popular, and I think it could be cleaned up a bit, but it's not bad enough for deletion. Also, as a counter point to the nom, I'd prefer to have an extra page instead of one long one. I just have a feeling this will turn into "Well x got this, so why doesn't y?" eventually. Whs tchy 00:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom - the content can be merged into Where's Waldo. — Wenli 01:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge or keep. Nomination attempts to influence WP policy via the deletion process, as clearly noted in the nominator's rationale. If the nominator disagrees with having "in popular culture" articles in Wikipedia, there are avenues of policy change that are more positive than the deletion process. In the meantime, other valid and worthy examples are out there (please do not quote "othercrapexists"). Goldberg Variations in popular culture and Modern uses and adaptations of Little Red Riding Hood quickly come to mind. If absolutely necessary, this article can be rewritten to better reflect the format of those articles. I do agree that perhaps some of the more obscure items can be removed, but the page does not warrant deletion. --Roehl Sybing 02:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: After having reviewed WP:TRIVIA, I still believe that this page does not warrant deletion. Integration into the main article, perhaps, but not deletion. --Roehl Sybing 02:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  - And thus the split-AFD-merge-split-AFD-merge cycle, explained at Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles, is repeated yet again. Uncle G 09:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    - As many times as necessary. My opinion's not changing. --Roehl Sybing 12:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge with a heavy reduction on the material. Many, many of our articles have Popular Culture sections, which I think is perfectly valid. I always turn to Wikipedia first when I'm looking for this kind of info. However, I would have turned to the Where's Waldo? article for the information. If it were a topic with really significant representation in pop culture, then it might warrant it's own article. But I don't think Where's Waldo? qualifies, so I say merge. CharacterZero | Speak 04:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Purge eveything, and merge the scraps that remain. --Haemo 08:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. The various listed items have nothing in common beyond someone decided to draw Waldo or have someone dress as Waldo in them. Oppose merger of any of it to the main article. Otto4711 13:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete I do not see the reasoning behind having a "references in pop culture" article for any subject. Why is the branch needed? The list starts out small in the main article. Then more examples are added. As the list grows, it becomes too long. As a result a separate article is created to handle the plethora of new information. Now, there is a brand new article that deals solely with one aspect of the original article. Once that happens, all hell breaks loose. Suddenly even the most obscure of references are being included (i.e. There is an episode of Fairly Oddparents entitled "Where's Wanda)?" that actually have nothing to do with the subject matter. Such is the state of the article in question: obscure and unnecessary. I would not support merging any of this back into the orignal article, thus restarting the vicious cycle all over again. There is no need for this information. I cannot fathom a reason for wanting to know "There is a Friends episode where Ross is in a doctor's waiting room and helps a girl find 'Waldo' in her book" How will that ever be used? --Cyrus Andiron 15:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - lists of references "in popular culture" are not encyclopaedic. Get rid of them all!. - fchd 17:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 19:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Just a glorified trivia section forked into it's own article. Other similar articles have been deleted. Biggspowd 21:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Elrith 00:23, 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 withdrawn by nominator per improvement of article. John254 23:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eyad Ismail

This article is comprised entirely of unreferenced negative information concerning a living person, and qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD G10 and WP:BLP. WP:BLP, particularly, states that

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).

However, an administrator removed the speedy deletion request from this article. John254 00:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete if not referenced - Per nom. If no references can be added to this article, then Delete. --Ozgod 00:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete Weak Keep~~ ~~I agree with it not fitting G10, but lack of references in addition to the insane shortness makes it not really worthy and see below. --Whs tchy 00:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)~~
- Add on comment If it can be shown how he was involved exactly in addition to what I said before, then I may switch. --Whs tchy 00:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment I added a link to Homeland security. It does not fit G10 and it's been around since 2003 unsourced true. 240 years in prison convicted in the WTC bombing seems to confer some notability. It was not a speedy, the community needs to decide. --Dakota 00:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment two things, one, is this discussion done? And two, it's more than likely that an article in regards to a criminal or terrorist despite having a NPOV, will have a "negative overtone" to it, just because of the subject matter involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whstchy (talk • contribs) 01:21, 21 May 2007
- Yes, the discussion's done. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I speeded this as a BLP (negative and unreferenced), but it has now been undeleted by Freakofnurture (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) - (who might have had the courtesy to discuss/inform me - but whatever.) - so I am reopening this afd.--Doc^g 08:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Does that mean you believe it should still be deleted, or is this, in effect, a "procedural re-listing"? Please clarify. —freak(talk) 17:56, May. 21, 2007 (UTC)
Keep I didn't understand why this was previously closed after hardly any discussion in the first instance. This article is now meticulously sourced, it discusses the facts of the case in very neutral language and I don't understand the desire to delete it. The man was convicted of trying to blow up the World Trade Centre in a case which was covered by every major newspaper in the world. How is this not notable? The article has 'negative information' about this person because he was sentenced to 240 years in prison for attempted mass murder. The article should have been improved, as it has been, rather than nominated for deletion then summarily deleted after barely any debate. Nick mallory 10:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Then I suggest that you familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Notability was not a factor in the speedy deletion decision, as has already been explained twice: once above and once in the deletion summary. The article is sourced now, but at the time of nomination it looked like this, and had barely improved since 2003. Whilst "keep a biographical article with no cited sources saying that someone is a convicted criminal, and allow for organic growth" may have passed muster for a few editors in 2003, experience (not least experience of the false accusations of crimes that people have tried to slip into Wikipedia) has, or at least should have, taught even those editors that that is a wholly unacceptable approach. User:Freakofnurture has done a good job; but it is quite proper, and indeed is policy, that articles making such claims without such work done on them, without any cited sources, are not acceptable here, and quite proper for such content to be immediately removed until such sources are located and cited. Uncle G 11:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  - So how about looking for sources and seeking to improve the article before nominating it for deletion? Nominators usually look up the subject of an article and, failing to find sources, THEN nominate for deletion. This is not an obscure case and checking the facts of the matter not a difficult task. Even the original article stated that he had been found guilty of this particular crime, these weren't simply hearsay allegations. The article was here for an hour and twenty minutes before being deleted first time around. Nick mallory 12:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    - Wrong. The article had been in existence since 2003-12-16. That's a lot longer than "an hour and twenty minutes". And I once again suggest that you familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. We don't keep wholly unsourced controversial biographical material around pending someone "checking the facts of the matter". We remove it until sources are provided that support it. Please read the policy. Uncle G 12:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
      - Wrong. Please read my post. "The article was here for an hour and twenty minutes before being deleted first time around" - e.g. The original AfD discussion was up for one hour and twenty minutes before it was closed. In a comment below you say "Let the discussion run its full course". That's all I'm saying too. Nick mallory 02:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
        
        That's not the most obvious meaning of "The article was here for an hour and twenty minutes before being deleted first time around.". Uncle G 22:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It appears to be properly sourced now. Stammer 16:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Current version is appropriate. Newyorkbrad 16:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I suppose my "vote" doesn't count here, but I encourage everybody, before commenting, to closely inspect the degree to which I improved the article [27]. I've got more sources in the fridge if the current level of referencing is not adequate. So I accomplished more on this article in four hours than others did in four years. If I can do that, surely a more talented editor could make it a featured article with a couple months of steady effort. As ironic as it sounds to call Doc Glasgow a process wonk, that's exactly what he seems to be doing right now, whether he realizes it or not. —freak(talk) 17:13, May. 21, 2007 (UTC)
- Xe is only insofar as xe is insisting that a full AFD discussion be held, even though the only reason that this article came here in the first place was that it was erroneously rejected from speedy deletion by DakotaKahn (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) without dealing with the policy violation. But don't complain about that. Let the discussion run its full course and enjoy the consequent praise that you receive for fixing the article. Stop being in a rush to close the discussion because it is "process-wonkery". Relax and count how many "Keep after rewrite by Freakofnurture"s you get, instead. ☺ Uncle G 18:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the article Freakofnurture. That's what Wikipedia is all about. Nick mallory 02:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep for sources presented about this person and defer any issues about proper responses to BLP concerns to any sustained discussion on the subject. FrozenPurpleCube 19:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Much better article than before. --Whs tc hy 20:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep vastly improved and I'm prone to supporting articles where an active editor is willing to work on it to meet standards.Balloonman 21:59, 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 03:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Grim's supernatural items

Fails at WP:Cruft. A list of one time used items does not warrant an article. DietLimeCola 00:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - WP:CRUFT, WP:IINFO. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of cartoon trivia. Article has absolutely no merit. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - zero encyclopedic merit. --Haemo 08:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I think it should be deleted but anything that was reccuring should be merged into the Grim article. DBZROCKS 12:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I think the show's great, but these elements of it are.. just sort of thrown in there, and are not notable.. on any scale.. It's like, "what object did Tom hit Jerry with in Tom and Jerry? Who cares, the joke works with almost anything." -- Ned Scott 01:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I think the list should be merged with the grim article Dylan Damien 16:03, 30 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 List of characters in The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. I'll tag it, but not do it myself. Nominator note: only articles you want actually totally deleted need to be brought to Articles for Deletion; anything else is an editorial action you do yourself. -Splash - tk 23:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of minor characters in The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy

Fails at WP:Cruft. Almost every character has appeared in one episode only. However, characters who have appeared in more than one episode should be merged to List of characters in The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. Those characters are Li'l Porkchop, Snake Nerds, Captain Deadwood, The Dinobonoids, Ernest, The Jurassic Creeps, Pinocchio, and Sir Raven. DietLimeCola 00:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge - Into List of characters in The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. Popular children's television show. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge per nom -- only the recurring characters should be merged into List of characters in The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy however; the one-shot-only characters can definitely go. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge the recurring characters into the main list. JJL 19:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge per nom. Minor characters articles are OR, POV, and usually NOT encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 19:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This is dumb. Why should this be deleted? Can't the page be merged instead of being deleted? Come on, this page has probally been here since the series started and now you want it deleted? This is ridiculous. --Naruto134 00:00, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 13:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eye (Eve's Plum Single)

Non notable song, evident in it not making Billboard Top 100 G1 gg y ! 00:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable, trivial song. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep as song was included in a soundtrack, which is a minor case of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Delete as the song is the only single from the soundtrack of a major motion picture. It should not be deleted simply because it failed to chart because the band itself failed to make any chart. However, many bands have failed to make a huge impact and have detailed wikipedia pages for their albums and songs. It's important to the band's history and marks one of the few times they were included into the mainstream/pop culture. --LoveLaced 01:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Undecided leaning toward delete I don't really understand the article, which states that this was a single which "had no physical release"... this was 1995, well before iTunes and digital downloads. So how exactly was this a single, anyway? Was it a radio promo-only single? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's probably to do with the fact that in the USA airplay counts more than physical sales for chart calculation so some songs are simply "released to radio" rather then ever going into the shops, and this is still termed a single release..... ChrisTheDude 10:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Week keep (for now). Article reads like the middle paragraph of an article, but it may be in progress. Might want to give it a little time before deciding. CitiCat 04:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Article about non-notable song from previous band that Vitamin C helmed which had little success from the looks of the article; the movie wasn't even memorable either so it was doubtful people even bought the soundtrack. Nate 06:06, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles H. Baker Jr.

Fails WP:BIO, "Creative Professionals" section, WP:V concerns. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep on the condition that author provides sources. Based on the text, this person could satisfy the first criteria, i.e. "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.", and possibly second to last, "has won significant critical attention." --Darkbane ^talk 01:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep although he looks like a non-notable author at face value. If it is kept, the closer should create a disambiguation page associated with Charles Henri Baker. Yechiel Man 05:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I've searched Google Books, A9, and Google News Archive, and failed to find anything but trivial mentions of Baker, his books, or Derrydale Press (e.g. Popped Culture: A Social History of Popcorn in America mentions him once; The Steak Lovers Companion mentions a Baker-published recipe in passing.) Non-notable author Bartle Bull of the non-notable book China Star praises A Gentleman's Companion as "that 1939 classic of global bartending" in his preface, but this doesn't seem like a reliable source. --Dhartung | Talk 06:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
CommentsYou didn't do a very good job! I ran the same search in Google News Archive and found a full biography in the Miami Herald from 2002, and a review in Time magazine. How did you miss that? You can't just read the first few, and you have to run all variations of a person's name. How you craft the search in Google is paramount. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments Why are you surprised to not find so few references there to books published in 1945? Its best to go that time period and search. He was reviewed many times in the New York Times Book Review but you have to search in the NYT archive online, and its not indexed by Google pre 1980. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
CommentsPlease note that his most famous works are being re-published by the still-extant Derrydale Press. See Amazon.com for http://www.amazon.com/Jigger-Beaker-Glass-Drinking-Around/dp/1586670506/ref=sr_1_1/102-2060220-5614516?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179795388&sr=8-1

Additionally, his life and work merits note on many culinary and cocktail history websites, including epicurious.com and foodandwine.com. A Google search for "Charles H. Baker, Jr." AND "Gentleman's Companion" yielded 80 hits. My desire in wanting to see this entry kept is that there is very little biographical information about the man despite the fact his work is gaining greater recognition from the food and beverage world today than any time in the past 50 years.

Reluctant weak delete - As far as I can tell, all but three of those "sources" are unacceptable. Most are (a) primary sources and (b) public documents such as census returns etc that say nothing other than "he lived in this town" or similar. Of the other sources two or possibly three (it's hard to tell) look to just be laundry-list catalogue entries etc that happen to mention his book as one of a number of others. The two apparently legitimate sources - the Washington Post review and the New York Times Book Review review, maybe just push him over the bar of "a body of work which has been the subject of multiple independent reviews", but very weakly. I do, however, take issue with this nomination; this was AfD'd two minutes after creation whilst a potentially valid article & still being worked on. The nominator has a long history of doing this and I wish they'd stop, as it's starting to push WP:BITE to the limit — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments I think your confusing sources used to verify facts and sources used to denote notability. Not everyone in the census is notable, but notable people's biographies can use the census to verify facts of birth and parentage. There are reviews of him, and his writing in the Washington Post, the Miami Herald, and the New York Times, because those two have archives online. Google news archive also has about a dozen others. The quotations from each are included. Notability is determined by trusted sources like the Washington Post and the New York Times, and which authors they choose to review. Wikipedians don't bestow notability, third parties do by voting with their coverage. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Ample sources are provided to establish notability. The fact that Baker did most of his work before the Internet era limits ready access to those ready-to-click sources we'd all prefer to see. As stated at WP:N#Notability requires objective evidence and does not generally expire, "If a topic once satisfied these guidelines, it continues to satisfy them over time." The multiple, independent, reliable and verifiable sources provided establish notability. Alansohn 19:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Article has improved significantly since it was originally nominated. Also as per User:Alansohn, a 1930s food/drink writer who died 20 years ago should not have their notability defined by Googlehits (or variations thereof). --DeLarge 09:28, 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. Sandstein 07:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Ides of March (song)

Contested ProD with no reason why. My reason for nominating is simple: Nonnotable song. Just because Iron Maiden made the song, does not make the song automatically notable. SuperDT 00:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. A check on All Music indicates that this didn't chart -- so there's strike one. Strike two, WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. Strike three -- shortest song by an artist isn't necessarily notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - it's just an intro. There's nothing here that couldn't be covered on the album's page. Feeeshboy 06:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirect and/or weak merge to the album this song first appeared on. -- saberwyn 23:31, 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. Sandstein 07:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PHP Data Objects

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/PHP Data Objects

Articles for deletion/PHP Data Objects (2nd nomination)

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PHP Data Objects. Misterdiscreet 00:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete I'm sorry, but I just don't see the encyclopedic nature of this. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but this just seems to be a part of PHP, if it's that important, make it a section there. FrozenPurpleCube 00:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete Although it is not a part of PHP, it doesn't seem notable and doesn't cite any references. If it cited some references and completely rewritten, then it could be a decent article. — Wenli 01:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete as non-notable and unreferenced -- per User:Wenli, however, there might be a sentence or two worth merging into PHP itself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep Very notable web programming technology. Reliable sources covering this subject include O'Reilly Networks - ONLamp, IBM DeveloperWorks (twice), IBM Redbooks, php|architect, InfoWorld, Linux Journal, ... there's no shortage of sources for this subject. As to making this a section in the PHP article, this is as much a part of PHP as, for instance, ADO.NET is a part of the Microsoft .NET Framework. Yes, they're technologies that depend on each other and are shipped together, but they deserve separate discussion. JulesH 10:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe ADO.NET should be deleted as well. Or at least, merged with the .Net Framework. FrozenPurpleCube 14:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete, not encyclopedic, practically unmaintainable. Pavel Vozenilek 12:29, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DB DataObject

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DB DataObject FormBuilder Misterdiscreet 00:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Just because this might be important in documenting PHP, or PEAR doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. FrozenPurpleCube 00:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete It is part of PEAR and should go in the PEAR article; it isn't notable enough to have its own article. — Wenli 01:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Week merge to PEAR. Reliable source here, but that's not enough by itself to justify keeping the article, as the system isn't the primary focus of the article like PDO was in some of the articles linked for that AFD. JulesH 10:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 12:28, 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, all sources are self-reference. Aquarius • talk 02:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Party (United States)

non-notable political party that has never had a candidate. Article is target of POV editors due to extreme views of group. Suggest delete as no reliable sources can be found. N 01:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Whs tchy 01:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Ergh, this leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But that's not why my vote - they're an unremarkable group. Speedy Delete A7 (group) as such. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete no assertion of notability Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete POV racist crap. DarkAudit 02:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 -- nn group. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:43, 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. Thanks, all, for your comments. I'm closing this now, but the article still needs cleanup, if anyone wants to dig in. Chick Bowen 17:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Wedding (2000 novel)

This was tagged for proposed deletion with the following rationale: "This article has been completely unreferenced for over a year it fails WP:V If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. This one may be a potential WP:AFD Notability is lightly questioned on the talk page. The author well known. but the article is clearly failing WP:V." My only problem with this is precedent; we have an awful lot of articles on books that cite only the book as a source. On the other hand, this particular book, a perfectly ordinary romance novel from someone who wrote a ridiculous number, might not be worthy of an article anyway. So, no opinion from me, but I wanted to open this up to larger discussion. Chick Bowen 01:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep a book by Danielle Steel is almost certainly notable, she is a major author. If there's not enough sources now, well, I suspect that's a problem of interest, given that fans of Danielle Steel are probably less present on Wikipedia than fans of other books. However, a quick check of Amazon does indeed confirm she wrote the book. FrozenPurpleCube 01:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Just because Danielle Steel wrote the book doesn't mean it's automatically notable. I will agree that she herself is notable, and I'm not swayed in either direction on this article, but I think your reasoning is a bit flawed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, almost certainly notable. If it's not, I'd actually need some demonstration of it besides the lack of people editing the article. FrozenPurpleCube 05:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment was a New York Times

1[28], however, I can't find Newspaper reviews, so it may fail notability. For WP:V, don't you only have to click on the ISBN link?[29] CitiCat 04:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

- That verifies its existence, not its notability or anything significant about it. For a canonical book we generally downplay the plot summary and consider primarily critical reception; see Uncle Tom's Cabin for an ideal example. Obviously that doesn't mean we can't cover non-literary fiction, but I do think an article needs to have something other than merely internal material. But this is generally a problem in our book articles; hence my wishy-washy nomination. I added the info an source you mention, though; thanks. Chick Bowen 04:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment. First off, I'm not sure whether I'd expect much in the way of newspaper reviews for Danielle Steele's work or not. I went to look and see which other novels of hers had pages, and what sorts of content and sources they had. I was thoroughly disappointed. I don't have a real opinion on whether this article should stay or go. I definitely think an argument can be made for her novels that were made into TV movies, but this one wasn't. Anyway, if it gets deleted, I would highly suggest taking a look at the following Danielle Steele novel articles: The Gift (Steel novel) and A Perfect Stranger. (Whoops, forgot to sign) CharacterZero | Speak 04:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, this is a general problem. If notability requires "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and each other," then a lot of our book articles might have to go, or at least be merged into the author articles. There are thousands exactly like the one you link. Chick Bowen 04:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep. I'm giving this one the benefit of the doubt, per concerns raised by User:Chick Bowen. I still don't think that Steel's novels are inherently notable, but if it can be verified that it was a #1 best seller that might be just enough to satisfy WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep, it's normally assumed that any book which has been printed by a major publisher is notable. It seems terribly unfair to set the bar higher for stuff which Wikipedians aren't likely to read, there are bound to be sources offline.--Nydas^(Talk) 06:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep I'd agree with Nydas here. There seems to be an idea expressed here that because Steele is 'only' a romance writer not read by people like us that her works have no place here. 'if it can be verified that it was #1 best seller that might be 'just' enough to satisfy WP:N' seems entirely unfair. That most Wikipedians seem much more interested in cartoons or reality TV, rather than romance novels or whatever, shouldn't decide what's included here. Nick mallory 08:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm not sure where this is coming from. No one in this discussion has voted to delete. I totally agree with you, "if it can be verified that it was #1" then I'm fine with it. I just can't log in to that Times article. So if we get a couple people on here to confirm that, then you have a Keep vote from me. CharacterZero | Speak 08:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment Um, I did put the link to the 'Times archive in my previous comment - [30] CitiCat 00:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    - Yeah, I saw that - I just couldn't log in for some reason. Can now though, and indeed, it was #1. CharacterZero | Speak 00:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You misunderstand my point. I don't think a book has to be a number one bestseller to be considered notable. My point was that the bar shouldn't be set any higher for a book like this than for any other. Nick mallory 10:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Perhaps there's a misunderstanding of the sentence "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." It does not mean "delete articles with no sources." It means, "if no sources can be found what-so-ever, the article should not exist." This is not the case for a nationally recognized book. The sources need to be added. Leebo ^T/C 13:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep: Criteria #5 under WP:BK - "The 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." Steel's resume is overwhelming; she's one of the world's best selling authors, and this book is being sold under her name on Amazon. This is patently obvious a keep. RGTraynor 17:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not that I disagree with you - in fact, I'm going to finally enter a keep vote now - but I just want to clarify about #5 under WP:BK. The footnote to #5 offers the following: "For example, a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study." Now, I agree that Danielle Steele is significant, and this work seems significant too. However, I don't think that you could use this rationale to justify some of the Danielle Steele stubs mentioned before. Is she so inherently notable that any stub about one of her books should survive? I'd be willing to make stubs on the order of A Perfect Stranger for all of them, if we really believe they are all that notable by association. CharacterZero | Speak 17:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Is she so inherently notable that any stub about one of her books should survive? She has over half a billion books in print; I would say that she is. RGTraynor 18:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    - I would have to disagree with the use of WP:BK #5 - to me it implies that the author is significant outside of being an author. For instance, a book written by a major world leader. CitiCat 00:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep - and improve - notable author - not high literature but significant popular culture icon. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:36, 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 Eluchil404 00:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncle Tom's Cabin (disambiguation)

Per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G6, which states to delete disambig pages pointing to a single article. Aside from the link on the page to Uncle Tom's Cabin, the only other valid article link is to Uncle Tom's Cabin (film), which is a subarticle of Uncle Tom's Cabin that was spun off from the main novel article. The link to Uncle Tom's Cabin (album) is actually a redirect to Cherry Pie (album), so it doesn't count as an article link. In addition, there seems no chance of there being any confusion between the album article and the novel article. Alabamaboy 01:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Per above. --Alabamaboy 01:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing to weak keep. While I still think this disambig page has only a weak reason to exist b/c there is little chance for confusion in all of this, I've found more pages to add to that disambig page. This makes it an actual, valid disambig. Because of this, I'll support keeping it. Best,--Alabamaboy 13:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete and edit Per nom and edit the book page so it links to the film page on top, not the disambiguation page.--Whs tc hy 01:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CSD#G6 as per nom. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I'm not just saying that; I examined the issue carefully. Yechiel Man 05:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, clearly unnecessary for two closely-related items. The third is not important enough to merit this complexity. --Dhartung | Talk 06:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The Uncle Tom's Cabin (album) link is because that was (according to the article, at any rate) originally going to be the album's name, and is also the name of one of the songs off the album that was released separately as a single. Readers who are looking for the song and single by that name would be ill-served by removing this disambiguation article, which seems to be quite properly disambiguating amongst three things that have the same title: a novel, a film, and a song. Keep. Uncle G 10:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Both Uncle Tom's Cabin (film) and "Uncle Tom's Cabin", the song from Cherry Pie (album), may be referred to as Uncle Tom's Cabin, therefore the dab is needed. I used the redirect

Uncle Tom's Cabin (album), the proposed title of the Warrant album eventually released as Cherry Pie, and a song from the album

instead of

"Uncle Tom's Cabin", a song by Warrant from Cherry Pie

based on the style guide WP:MOSDAB. It "counts" just fine. As for "meriting" complexity, I have to ask, "What complexity?" -- JHunterJ 10:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: While this AfD isn't about what is posted at the top of Uncle Tom's Cabin, the truth is Neither is appropriate. Please don't get me wrong--I have no problem with disambig pages when they are warranted. However, as it states in the first sentence on Wikipedia:Disambiguation, "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles..." The song is not an article; it's not even that significant a part of the article about Cherry Pie (album). As a result there shouldn't be either a mention of the song at the top of Uncle Tom's Cabin nor a link to a disambig page which truly doesn't qualify as a disambig page. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a song by Warrant called "Uncle Tom's Cabin". Users seeking it should be facilitated. Later in the WP:D: "A user searching for a particular term might not expect the article that appears. Therefore, helpful links to any alternative articles with similar names are needed." Also note the preference for the redirect that you would not count, from WP:MOSDAB: "This guidance to avoid piping means that a link to a redirect term will sometimes be preferred to a direct link, if the redirect term contains the disambiguation title and the redirect target does not. For example, in Delta (disambiguation), a link to the redirect term Delta Quadrant would be preferred over its target, Galactic quadrants (Star Trek)." Finally, the tracks on an album are significant. -- JHunterJ 13:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

See my comment at the top of page. --Alabamaboy 13:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Some are significant, but not all. If the song "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is not significant enough to warrant (pun unintended) its own wiki article, then it certainly doesn't merit a redirect to the album itself. That redirect should be removed entirely, IMO, but based on the other disambig links that have been added recently, I'll have to vote Keep. Tarc 13:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirects for subjects discussed within another broader-scope article are quite normal things. See Wikipedia:Redirect. Uncle G 19:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep based on post AFD editting it is necessary. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep for the sake ease of navigation. It isn't exactly intuitive for people to type "Uncle Tom's Cabin (book)" or "Uncle Tom's Cabin (film)". --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Uncle G has it right, people may type in "Uncle Tom's Cabin" in order to find a different article or part of a different article. The requirement for a link in a dab page to have its own article is bogus. The decision should be made on the basis of helping a reader. Why do so many editors keep forgetting that? Chris the speller 20:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Necessary & useful disambiguation page. Also, shouldn't DAB pages be dealt with by MFD rather than AFD? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Since the page points to several articles, it is useful, and no longer violates Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G6--Doom777 04:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As a sidenote, the page never violated G6. It always dabbed multiple targets; the nominator's assertion that redirects don't count for this purpose is unsupported. -- JHunterJ 10:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As a second sidenote, it's obvious that a number of editors support the view that redirects don't count with regards to disambig pages (especially since the relevant policy and guideline pages deal specifically state "articles," not redirects or terms within articles. Still, this is obviously a contentious issue and, since enough relevant articles have been added to this page, not an issue that will be settled here.--Alabamaboy 15:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Not supported by the guidelines, that is. I believe the editors who you refer to are more familiar with the Uncle Tom's Cabin article than with the disambiguation guidelines. Yes, the disambiguation guidelines deal with articles (in the original case, two additional articles were disambiguated from Uncle Tom's Cabin: Uncle Tom's Cabin (film) and Cherry Pie (album)), and then with how to format the links to those articles (in this case, using the redirect Uncle Tom's Cabin (album) for Cherry Pie (album). I don't know why it's contentious. -- JHunterJ 15:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep per JHunterJ and Uncle G. Even in the version when nominated it didn't qualify under CSD G6. older ≠ wiser 02:08, 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 speedy delete: A7. A lot of genealogical information, but amidst it all, nothing asserting notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hendrick Gulick

Non-notable ancestor of the contributor. User:Jackgulick has also created his vanity page Jack Gulick. —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete, article fails to show why Hendrick is notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I put a speedy tag on the Jack Gulick page; if someone contests the speedy then I'll AfD it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Whoops, guess I should explain my vote (and change "tagk" to "tag" while I'm at it). I voted delete because this page fails WP:BIO quite miserably; also, given the fact that the page's author is evidently related to Hendrick, I would say there might be a conflict of interest at work here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete A7. No claim of notability whatsoever. CitiCat 03:43, 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 03:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American political commentators

Restored from an expired prod deletion, which had the reason given "unannotated list, unnecessary with categories, fails WP:BLP", which is all still true. We shouldn't create lists of people in potentially controversial categories without a single reference. And the article should stand on it's own, so there may be references that can be pulled from the individual's articles. However, as I'm semi-involved I'm abstaining Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 02:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete as an unnecessary list -- we already have plenty of categories to cover this list's content; therefore, the list is redundant. The lack of annotations and failure of WP:BLP are only further reasons to delete the list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Unmaintainable. And separating by liberal or conservative is asking for trouble. - Richfife 04:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, potentially huge, made redundant by categories and also has BLP issues Hut 8.5 08:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unmainatainable, and unclear as to purpose. Political commentators who are American, or commentators on American politics? Emeraude 12:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete subjective and unreferenced --Doc^g 18:12, 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 speedy delete per A7. Sr 13 04:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heinrich Trambauer

Being the Nazi flag carrier is not by itself all that notable. Almost no GHits. Clarityfiend 03:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete Per nom and CSD A7--Whs tc hy 03:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as WP:CSD#A7. All of the GHits I found were trivial mentions -- very little hope for expansion here; therefore, I believe that he's non-notable by far. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Subject is covered in Blutfahne. If his wounding is verifiable, it can be mentioned in that article. CitiCat 03:38, 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, at author's request --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 02:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diagonal method

Restored prod per author's request. Prod was suggested as "No such method is verifiable from a reliable source; just Edwin Westhoff's self-published new research". The article's author obviously has a conflict of interest, but this in itself is not a reason to delete. There are still no verifiable, secondary sources however. Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 03:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete – The only ref is the method creator's original publication in which the method is introduced. There are no verifiable secondary sources, no evidence of notability. The method is brand new, the subject of a single article, in Dutch; not a notable topic. Since there is a verifiable source, it would be OK to mention the method in some other article on photographic composition, but a separate article is not appropriate. Dicklyon 04:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Could be groundbreaking, but this is not where ground should be broken. - Richfife 04:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete until some discussion is generated in third-party sources that justifies the claims made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JulesH (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 May 2007

Delete as original research, and usefully redirect term to Cantor's diagonal argument. -- Karada 13:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete and redirect per Karada. JJL 17:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Cantor's diagonal argument, for the time being. If the photographic method becomes notable in the future, we can recreate it.--Ioannes Pragensis 17:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete and redirect per Karada. Rule of thirds is highly notable, but some nn photographer's attempted refinement of it, without any secondary sources, published only on a web site, isn't. —David Eppstein 06:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 06:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In reply I am the author of the article. Stephen was kind in putting the discussion back up as I had unfortunately not been notified of the deletion proposal (as suggested in WP:PROD). Thank you for that opportunity. I challenged the deletion in User_talk:Stephen as I myself considered it compliant with the WP:OR requirements. Just for clarity, it is not a refinement of the Rule of thirds; it is rather an alternative for post-hoc use. The rule of thirds lacks a foundation, but its popularity and therefore its place on Wikipedia comes forth from its success in preventing beginners from making basic compositional mistakes. Well, thank you all for posting your opinion on this; I can now agree with the deletion of this page. As I pointed out in Stephen's user talk, there have been some mentions at Dutch educational centers of it which in due time may lead to the findings necessary to make this method plausible. The redirect to Cantor's method should indeed be restored. Eddyspeeder 21:53, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of trends in music (2000-present)

Article is totally OR. One editor user:Unschool has been going through and removing dozens of unsourced assertions, but is more than willing to see this huge misshapen blog disappear. Horologium talk - contrib 04:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete, as nominator. Horologium talk - contrib 04:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete A lot of work went into this article and it probably deserves a home somewhere. This isn't it, though. At best, it's edit-war bait. At worst, it's going to be a bloated dumping ground. - Richfife 04:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. This chimera of an article is almost totally original research and has no hope of being rescued. I wouldn't even dare to make a new version with all verifiable claims, as it would likely morph into another big blob like this. Also, I agree with User:Richfife, this is potential battlegrounds for edit wars -- I could easily slip in something about how Martina McBride seemed to usher in a "big pop ballad" trend among women country music artists, but I know better. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Mega delete. Just read it and it'll be obvious. Unschool 05:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete I have never seen so many uses of the ^{[citation needed]} tag before, and reading through it, there's no rescuing this as far as I can see. It reads like every recording company press release and radio station 'next big thing' announcement since 2000 was mashed together into this mess and turned into an article. There are also way too many errors about artists and their genres. Nate 06:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per ^{[citation needed]}. CharacterZero | Speak 06:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, but some is nearly BJAODN-worthy, e.g. The Chinese metal scene is disrupted by the SARS scare in 2003. In other medical news ...--Dhartung | Talk 06:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Maybe -- maybe -- an article could be written on this topic at this point. This is not it, and really is of little value to any other editors' future efforts to do so. I went through the article and copied only the text that tries to cite a reference (then removed the transparently unreliable ones). What is left is now on the talk page for this AFD. I hope the rest of this "Timeline of trends in music (...)" series is better. I think its time they were all given some examination... Serpent's Choice 09:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as useless WP:OR. Noting trends is something that magazines and newspapers do, not encyclopedias. --Cyrus Andiron 13:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as original research. There is potential for an article on this subject, but it should be revisited only after professional research over a period of 10-30 years following the year set when "Present" closes. -- saberwyn 23:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment—Excellent point, Saberwyn, about waiting 10-30 years after. This is true of many other articles, which you will find listed at the bottom of 2000s. Anyone caring to go clean up those similar trash piles when we're done here? Unschool 23:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment--a quote from the talk page for this article notes the same thing: Has anyone else noticed that starting in the mid-80s the information on the timeline isn't as objective? For instance, look at the Mariah Carey articles. While Mariah Carey is a very popular and important artist who deserves to be on the list, the comments about her are a little flattering. This holds true for other bullets as well. I used the articles about music from the 1900s to the 1960s for a term paper and the information was perfect. Purely out of interest I decided to look at what else was written in the next 3 1/2 decades and was severely dissapointed, could future editors please be a little more objective?. That about sums it up. Not to criticize or stereotype editors, but articles that cover a period before the 1980's are from a time before the birth date of many of the editors here, which means that they tend to be more stable and less prone to fanboy/fangirl mash-noting. Horologium talk - contrib 02:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Obviously if we choose to delete this now, we are going to have recreate it in the future because every other decade has an article like this. Might be a better idea to actually improve the article now rather than worry about it years later.UberCryxic 21:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Serpent's Choice has already addressed that. It is so thoroughly trashed that it would take more work to fix the current article than it would to create a new one, preferably one sourced and balanced. Take a look at what is left after the bias and unsourced cruft is deleted: here. There's nothing left, which is why I nominated it. I think the other decades are salvageable, even the 90's, but this is hopeless. Horologium talk - contrib 02:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I understand what UberCryxic is saying, but I think Horologium makes the most salient point: The perspective to write this article is simply not available today. This was one of the reasons why we decimated the article, 2000s. Take a look at it what it had grown into ([31]), and compare it to what it looks like now. It was absolutely amazingly bad, and it was with no hyperbole that I expressed my feeling that it was the worst article in Wikipedia. It had become a place for anyone old enough to type to place their personal graffiti. But then someone trimmed it down to a few things—a very few things—that were clear, and we had ourselves an article. Now why can't we do that here? Look at what had to be pulled out of 2000s: Basically, was everything that was pop culture. Anything pop had to go (after many efforts to salvage it) because we simply can't have any perspective on this stuff at this early date. An article on music of the 1960s written in 1967 would probably barely catch the influence of certain psychedelic influences, and an article on music in the 1970s written in 1977 might think that disco would permanently replace rock as the dominant style of popular music (sometimes prayers do get answered, however). Any article on trends in 2000s music, or fashion, or even technology, probably can't be written until at least 2012, or better yet, in my opinion, until 2020. Writing it now simply invites chaos because of people that have no concept of notability. Okay, have we talked enough? Let's delete this puppy. Unschool 04:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete This article has so many unverified claims and has become an overgrown stream of opnions. At the earliest an article on the music of the 2000s should be written by about 2015, as certain music styles that emerge late in a decade can overlap for a few years into the subsequent one as well.-Rumble74

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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've added a few sentences to the main article; more content is available for merging on request. Sandstein 07:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of cultural references to The Shining

Wikipedia isn't a trivia guide: this article (like so many) was probably made due to relieve stress on the main article on the subject. Myself (and others) have stated in other AFD's: condense the section, instead of just moving it to an article of it's own. Mentions/spoofs isn't a notable article subject. RobJ1981 04:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with the nom's rationale here -- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of pop culture references. Trimming it down to only the non-trivial mentions, and moving those non-trivial mentions to the main article, would be the best way to go. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 05:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Checking the history, this article was actually split out from the main article last November. I'm not sure sending it back is the right approach. Feels edit warry. - Richfife 06:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The notion of whether any fact is "trivial" is at the discretion of each individual editor. Which ones are non-trivial? Hopefully not the ones we think are non-trivial, but the ones that are verifiable against reliable sources. I have never watched the film, but it seems influential enough on popular culture, so I've been adding citations in an invesigation as to whether the amount of verifiable information warrants an article of its own. Not only sources that verify each pop culture reference, but also ones that talk about the film's impact in general. –Pomte 06:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge. I understand the concern about sending it back. However, The Shining has clearly produced a considerable impact on popular culture. Obviously the information was considered valuable enough to save, or they would have just deleted it instead of moving it. So, if you don't want to keep it, it needs to be merged. I agree that the list will need considerable trimming, the cultural references to the work are worthy of mention somewhere. CharacterZero | Speak 06:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep - I'm actually liking this article. It needs to be re-written so it's not a list but it has sources and cites them. Needs some fat trimmed, by I think a good article can be written about his. --Haemo 08:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep, has a lot of sources/references for an article of this nature, but could do with a bit of tidying up. Lugnuts 11:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics and original research is not permitted. The listed things have nothing in common beyond parodying or in some cases simply mentioning the film or book, and we do not need catalogs of every time the words "The Shining" are mentioned in a TV show or movie. Especially problematic is the section focusing on the "Here's Johnny!" line. That line was originally from The Tonight Show used to introduce Johnny Carson and absent a source that each use of the line is inspired by the film and not the TV show it's OR. Oppose merging the information to the article on the book or film. Otto4711 13:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Loosely-associated is a subjective claim. The listed items do not need to have any more connection than the criteria defined by the title of the article. That issue is external to the scope of the article, and the lead-in sets out how The Shining has had a great influence on pop culture, hence significant pop culture references, asserting the notability of the list below. If there's OR, why don't you help remove them, and figure out the context of each "Here's Johnny!" quote? There'd still remain a sizeable article for further development. –Pomte 14:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, being within the scope of an article's title does not guarantee that the article's contents don't fail WP:NOT. List of telephone numbers for Kalamazoo, Michigan, for example, or List of quotes about chimpanzees could have contents completely defined by their titles and would still fail the policy. As for researching and sourcing the here's johnny section, since I don't believe it has encyclopedic value I don't plan to spend any time on that. I agree that "The Shining" is certainly notable, but the notability of "The Shining" does not confer notability onto every reference to it or use of the words "The Shining" in every television script. Otto4711 15:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There are presumably no independent reliable sources on your telephone and chimpanzee examples. Sure the notability of The Shining doesn't confer notability to every single item, which is why we look for sources that assert the notability of the whole, as well as sources that assert the notability of each. It's fine that you have an opinion about the value of the content, but if you're not willing to look, how would you know? Notability becomes a completely arbitrary concept if you do not take sources into consideration. Keep the article as a work in progress, and remove any suspected OR if you like (I am not removing them personally as they are useful placeholders for citations). –Pomte 06:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There are certainly independent reliable sources available for phone numbers and for quotes. The availability of reliable sources is not in question here. Even taking on faith that a reliable source exists for every single item on this list, the list as a whole still fails the provision of WP:NOT that states that as a matter of policy Wikipedia is not for directories of loosely-associated topics. An impeccably sourced directory of loosely-associated topics is still a directory and still in violation of policy. Otto4711 13:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The definition of a directory is quite vague, up to each editor's discretion. WP:NOT#DIR lists quotations, aphorisms, and persons as the examples of lists to avoid. "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic..." At least some of the items contribute to this list's topic, or else no one would talk about The Shining as a pop culture icon. When someone reads this list, they're focused on how they each relate to The Shining, not how they relate to each other. –Pomte 14:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT. Trivia information is unencyclopedic content, and forking it off into its own article to clean up the parent article is never a good solution. Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Overblown trivia fork, per reasoning of other delete arguments. Biggspowd 21:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What's trivia? –Pomte 06:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment can we only delete this if we can hit an admin in the back with an axe 80+ times...?! Lugnuts 10:55, 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. Sandstein 07:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SimpList

A non-notable PHP script. Weregerbil 05:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Everything is all wrong. No sources, no assertion of notability, and no scholarly neutral tone either. Yechiel Man 05:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Gotta be WP:COI. Written in "proud papa" speak. No assertion of notability. - Richfife 06:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable, no assertion of notability, and probably a conflict of interest. Hut 8.5 09:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
No Delete Sources have been stated, "Merely participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by itself, a conflict of interest." according to this it is not a conflict of interest. In no way does it boast about the script, is in netural tone. what is "assertion of notability" supposed to mean, cannot find in wikipedia help—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.212.213 (talk • contribs)
- Reply ~~still delete~~ Notability guidelines are here: WP:NOTABLE. Putting a program on a website that accepts all submissions (IMDB, SourceForge, (Cough)Wikipedia(Cough)) does not count towards notability. - Richfife 03:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Reply So are you saying that everything on SourceForge, IMDB or Wikipedia is a fake? Also a source was the project developer. Two sources, both which are credible. There is a lot of effort put into sourceforge, the monitoring of, the creation of projects and the prevention of theft. mrtechguy
    - Reply I'm not saying everything on those sites is fake. Read it again. I'm saying that getting something onto those sites doesn't prove it's fake or real at all. They don't have reliable review processes and don't pretend to. - Richfife 21:27, 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. Redirect is optional. - Mailer Diablo 03:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bona Sardo Hasoloan Hutahaean

Non-notable TV show contestant Kutabi 05:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - no assertion of notability with respect to the criteria set out WP:MUSIC CIreland 06:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete A7. Horologium talk - contrib 06:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT: Previous Afd's on this subject have resulted in merge with redirect to Indonesian Idol, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adika Priatama. Suggest this solution be applied to this group of articles as well. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Observation - I'm happy to see this gone. But we've actually kept articles on American Idol participants - yet people are content to speedy delete Indonesian ones without even a debate. Geographic bias here?--Doc^g 18:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow American Idol, so I am not familiar with most of its participants. However, a number of contestants have gone on to significant careers (Kelly Clarkson, Ruben Stoddard, and Clay Aiken come to mind); they should have articles. One of the participants was disqualified after their felony record was revealed (don't remember who); that is probably notable. And I can see (maybe) having finalists listed. All the rest should go. Here, these five articles all dealt with people who finished no higher than fifth place on one season of Indonesian Idol, and none have apparently done anything notable since their time on the show. Horologium talk - contrib 19:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

How many people watch Indonesian Idol on a weekly basis? How many watch the number 1 rated show in the largest TV market in the world? Yes, it is a little American-centric, but American Idol is significantly more notable in and of itself than Indonesian Idol. American Idol also has an international element---it is watched in other countries than America. How many people outside of Indonesia even know they have an Idol knockoff? So it's not Geographical bias, it's notability bias.Balloonman 22:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete- fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC Thunderwing 19:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Thunderwing Bigdaddy1981 20:48, 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 03:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Jakarimilena

Non-notable TV show contestant Kutabi 05:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - no assertion of notability with respect to the criteria set out WP:MUSIC CIreland 06:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete" a7. Horologium talk - contrib 06:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete or redirect to Indonesian Idol. There is no clear evidence of notability. — Indon (reply) — 08:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just delete it. Indoidol(reply)

Comment. I'm not sure that being on an Idol show isn't a statement of notability. After all, there is a category of such people, many of whom are no more notable than this guy (i.e. they didn't win or have other major claims to fame). I wouldn't object to deleting them all, but there should be consensus one way or another. Rigadoun (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I see there are idol guidelines on Wikipedia:WikiProject Idol series. Apparently only finalists should have their own articles. I'm not convinced that's what is being done, though. Rigadoun (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Tip to nominator : Patent nonsense and non-notable group/biography articles such as this one can be speedily deleted. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 03:40, 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 03:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karen Theresia Pooroe

Non-notable TV show contestant Kutabi 05:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - no assertion of notability with respect to the criteria set out WP:MUSIC CIreland 06:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete A7. Horologium talk - contrib 06:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete or redirect to Indonesian Idol. No notability presented. — Indon (reply) — 07:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete She finished eighth in a !reality show. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Tip to nominator : Patent nonsense and non-notable group/biography articles such as this one can be speedily deleted. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 03:41, 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 03:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winda Viska Ria

Non-notable TV show contestant Kutabi 05:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - no assertion of notability with respect to the criteria set out WP:MUSIC CIreland 06:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete A7. Horologium talk - contrib 06:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Tip to nominator : Patent nonsense and non-notable group/biography articles such as this one can be speedily deleted. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 03:41, 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 03:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suci Wulandari

Non-notable TV show contestant Kutabi 05:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - no assertion of notability with respect to the criteria set out WP:MUSIC. Couldn't these five articles have had a joint nomination? They're practically identical anyway. CIreland 06:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Actually, this is one of the few times where mass deletions could have been bundled together. Usually, the reverse is true, where 25 articles of varying importance get dumped into AfD as a group. I'd rather see them all as individual deletions. Horologium talk - contrib 06:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete A7. Horologium talk - contrib 06:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Tip to nominator : Patent nonsense and non-notable group/biography articles such as this one can be speedily deleted. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 03:41, 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 Speedy-non-admin restore redirect. User:Indoidol reverted to the article after the first AfD discussion. WODUP 06:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adika Priatama (2nd nomination)

Non-notable TV show contestant Kutabi 05:56, 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 03:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teru-Sama

Delete as nonnotable Pokécruft. Almost everything about this article is fan-made and/or speculation. SuperDT 06:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - "Teru-Sama appears to have no purpose in the game" - Wow, so totally worth an encyclopedia article. Feeeshboy 06:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment Wow. Article creation, two speedies applied and removed (by two different editors), and an AfD in the span of 1 hour and 37 mins. Impressive. I can't make a judgement on the notability of this, but the comment needed to be made. Horologium talk - contrib 06:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It's... an object in a video game which is never encountered in gameplay. Probably not even worth mentioning in the main article. Definitely not worth a separate article. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Dormant, non-accessible game content has a high bar to overcome to become notable. An item with no purpose except enabling OR certainly does not clear that barrier. Serpent's Choice 09:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable, unecyclopedic. Terence 12:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, highly non-notable item in the game. Both the item and the article have no purpose... and the fact that it got nominated for speedy twice and then nominated for AfD within two hours is only further proof of non-notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- Mailer Diablo 03:43, 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 12:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Ballad of Love and War

self-published work, "references" section is entirely works that this novel refers to (somewhat missing the point), no external reviews, 22 ghits including this page Feeeshboy 06:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Title fails WP:BK. I note the original editor, Darthmerrick, claims to be the creator of the cover image and is a single purpose account. Victoriagirl 07:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete no independent sources whatsoever. No attempt to show WP:NOTABILITY. Darkspots 23:20, 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 speedy delete under the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. I first tagged this as a hoax. User:Drjpmentz is clearly creating a self-aggrandizing hoax here. But upon further consideration of the content, particularly the grandiose claims and the assertions of controversial sexual acts (the one mentioned by CharacterZero and another one further on in the article which would have had serious implications for other people, aside from User:Drjpmentz, including the possibility of losses of their livelihoods), none of which had any sourcing at all, let alone good sourcing, decided that complete and immediate removal was warranted. Uncle G 10:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mentz incorporated

Subject corporation is probably fake. Few Ghits that I could find, the given ticker symbol (MTZI) is bogus, and the creator is one Drjpmentz. Hmm...... fuzzy510 06:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Didn't even notice this, but it gets even more bogus once you read Justin Mentz's bio...... -fuzzy510 07:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete with extreme prejudice. G1. This was already nominated for a speedy (G11), which was removed by User:Drjpmentz. Horologium talk - contrib 07:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment--ROFL! (scroll down to the bottom) Horologium talk - contrib 07:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This one is easy - obviously made up. Shenme 07:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. I can't believe all those other tags ever got put on there. Once you hit a line about someone losing their anal virginity, you should start asking some questions. CharacterZero | Speak 07:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Completely bogus. BTLizard 08:39, 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 Speedy delete Aquarius • talk 04:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Righton

This is a player in a youth soccer league team. The team may or may not be notable, but this young gentleman definitely isn't (see WP:BIO). nadav (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete until such time as he becomes a first team squad member at a professional club, which I would imagine is at least 3 or 4 years away..... ChrisTheDude 08:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Dave101→talk 08:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - he is only 15, for crying out loud. No prejudice against restoring if/when he makes it as a professional. Qwghlm 09:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, this player does not meet biography guidelines and he is just a member of a youth club. We shall see how things goes and review his notability in a few years time. Terence 12:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not just a youth player but a youth player in Australia which is hardly a footballing hotbed — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete not-notable athlete.Balloonman 22:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete per all comments above --Angelo 23:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Google News and Google News Archives has nothing on him. No indication that he is especially notable even at a youth level. Doesn't appear to have made a NSW or Australian youth squad for example. Capitalistroadster 03:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Can I get you folks's opinion on the team he plays for (Ryde City Gunners Football Club)? Is it notable? Both pages were created by the same user Rydecitygunners, and I find it odd that this player and the team's chairman both have the same surname. So there may be some COI issues here too. nadav (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete and tagged as such per CSD A7. The boy is fifteen and the article makes no claim of notability. As far as the team is concerned, its notability is marginal but I personally would keep it. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 03:52, 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 Speedied: A7, G11. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Travis Gates

Advertisement NorthernThunder 08:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete advertising and not notable. Given that the creator of this article was Reviveusa (talk · contribs) and the URL of the subject's myspace page is http://www.myspace.com/reviveusacom also a conflict of interest. Hut 8.5 09:07, 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 03:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FireRaid: Old Kingdom

Delete - No assertion of notability, no reliable sources to verify those claims. Game still in development. Prod removed without comment. DarkSaber2k 08:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. DarkSaber2k 08:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - web search reveals exactly 1 non-wikipedia hit. Marasmusine 09:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as of 2007, this article fails on notability. Carlosguitar 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Lacking sources; impressively little information found on Google (not even blog/forum hits) when searching for +fireraid +old +kingdom. Wickethewok 03:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- Mailer Diablo 03:43, 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 both. Sandstein 07:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russification (computers)

Little more than a dictionary definition, and has no hope of growing beyond that. --Fibonacci 09:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I am also nominating Ukrainization (computers) for the same reason. --Fibonacci 09:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete both. Special prize for stating the bleeding obvious. BTLizard 10:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect both to Software localization. JulesH 11:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect both per above. Terence 13:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, the term isn't linked anywhere but each other and Cyrillization. I don't see the point in redirecting an unnotable neologism. --Dhartung | Talk 20:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: even in those articles, the links to the two being discussed appear only as disambiguation links or see also links. --Fibonacci 21:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete both. Both pages are more like dictionary of neologism with a handful of external links. -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 18:27, 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 03:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idi Amin in popular culture

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Idi Amin in popular culture

Articles for deletion/Idi Amin in popular culture (2nd nomination)

This article is actually quite good. It is quite good as a dumping ground for crap that has been refused at Idi Amin. It is very good for listing indiscriminate nonsense, regardless of how trivial, about Idi Amin. It is good, but it does not belong in Wikipedia. Please lets delete this indiscriminate collection of information. Ezeu 10:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The worthwhile stuff - eg The Last King of Scotland - appears elsewhere; the rest shouldn't be anywhere. BTLizard 10:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I disagree that this article is good in any way. It consists mostly of comedians mentioning, pretending to be, or talking about him; trivial mentions in songs, films, books, TV shows, or radio programs. It's also totally unsourced, and in many cases original research. What IS worthwhile should be merged back - but there ain't much. --Haemo 10:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete it before I stop resisting the temptation to add information about Charles Stross's Iron Sunrise which appears to be missing... JulesH 11:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete for all the same reasons I nominated it the first time. The only information that should be in the main Idi Amin article is a section noting the people who played him. References to old Robin Williams comedy routines and the like are trivial garbage and should be deleted. Otto4711 13:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. What does this article have to tell us about the subject of Idi Amin's influence on popular culture? Nothing. Unencyclopedic content, yet again. Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete And Ted Baxter once talked about plans to interview him. Absolutely the definition of indiscriminate information. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:10, 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 03:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of trends in Cuban music

Wholly original research, focusing on an entirely unsupported graphic. Serpent's Choice 10:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete as OR. Maybe one day I'll see a timeline worth saving. Nope, probably not. --Cyrus Andiron 15:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Pure OR and I don't see how it can be anything else. Mind you, we kept Harry Potter timeline so I obviously don't understand this whole timeline thing - at least Cuba exists. (Actually, that graphic has more than a passing resemblance to Harry Potter's family tree) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete Certainly an interesting topic and worthy of an own article besides Music of Cuba, but needs to be completely re-written anyway (unless anybody can prove it's not OR). Malc82 21:28, 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. Sandstein 07:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pawky

For this video portal, WP:WEB should apply. The article does not cite secondary sources, and I have not found extensive third-party coverage. The notability warning tag has been on since September 06; no major changes to the article since then. I propose to delete the article as non-notable. However, if somebody does know secondary sources, please add them. Sent here as part of the Notability Wikiproject --B. Wolterding 10:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete, clearly fails to meet WP:WEB. --Futurano 10:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete no assertion of encyclopedic notability. Eluchil404 00:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 23:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sisi syndrome

A weird one, this. Lots of ghits on this story, but all seem to trace back to abstracts from/reviews of a single German-language book, Die Krankheitserfinder: Wie wir zu Patienten gemacht werden ("Diseasemakers: How we have all become patients") by Jörg Blech, and a single subscription-only German-language paper referenced in the article. As this article in its current form is an accusation of criminal conspiracy levelled against a major international corporation, I'm not certain we should have this page unless it can be considerably better sourced. However, since my German is roughly at the "three beers please" level there may well be some more legitimate sources for this that I've missed — iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete[32], [33], [34], [35]. This is everything that I could find about this topic. The first source from BMJ discusses the Sisi syndrome for ~~only a couple of sentences~~ a couple of paragraphs. The last three sources are all abstracts or translations of abstracts. From what I gather, a pharmaceutical company created this syndrome out of thin air and then tried to sell the medicine to treat it. It was all a hoax in the end. Perhaps this garnered more attention internationally. I would have expected more substantial coverage of such an unethical event. My conclusion is that the company and the product never gained much recognition which probably diminished the backlash. Due to the lack of coverage in reliable sources, I think this article should be deleted as a non notable event / disease / hoax. --Cyrus Andiron 12:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep The BMJ article explains the matter. It discusses it for more than a couple of sentences--its a long paragraph making up about half of the review for the German language book. Solid RSs are present: BMJ + New Scientist. I will add the refs and quotes that Andiron found. He reaches a different conclusion, but I think it's clearly notable. As for some objections, BLP applies only to individuals, the source is very sound and supported by others, subscription-only sites are not discriminated against, a German book is as good as an English one if we know its contents, and the review provides it in some detail. I urge iridescenti to look at the additional references. DGG 01:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm going to stick with delete at this stage - of Cyrus's sources, the BMJ & New Scientist ones are reviews of the book, and make it clear when talking about this syndrome that they're talking about an allegation in the book rather than their own belief, while the second two appear both to be abstracts of the same paper (on which the book was based), hosted on two different sites, making all five sources currently cited de facto citations to a single paper albeit by five different routes. Yes, WP:BLP doesn't apply to a company, but WP:LIBEL does; unless someone can find a reliable source that this happened, than this article if kept needs to be heavily laced with "allegedly". If it did happen I've no problem with it being kept - either as a description of the illness, if we believe the company's line, or about the fabricated results if we believe Blech. As Cyrus & I both don't quite say above, if a major multinational like GSK were actually to have engaged in this kind of fraud, or even to have had credible allegations made against it, I'd expect there to be a lot more coverage than there actually is - where's the coverage in the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Pharmaceutical Business Review etc, the lawsuits from people mis-diagnosed, the action by the German health service over misprescribed drugs etc? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment I'll grant you the couple of paragraphs that discuss "Sisi syndrome" in the BMJ paper. That constitutes the only concrete evidence that this hoax ever happened, apart from simple abstracts that apparently all source the same article. As pointed out above, surely there would have been more scholarly articles condemning GSK. After all, they are the second largest pharmaceutical company in the world (after Pfizer). I cannot imagine how the second largest pharmaceutical company in the world could simply avoid the fallout from something like this. Their competitors should have been chomping at the bit to exploit the fact that GSK made up a syndrome and then sold the prescription to treat it. Finally, I'm curious as to why this is not mentioned in the main article about GSK. Sure, Wikipedia isn't as reliable as we'd like it to be, but one would hope that an event like this would merit inclusion into the company article. I'll also stick with delete pending verification from some other sources. --Cyrus Andiron 12:20, 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:Deleted - no claim of notability, self-promotion. - Mike Rosoft 08:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The carbon count

Fails to establish notability. Possibly a private project; according to the article it was started by David Battersby - and by chance the article was started by Dbattersby (talk · contribs). Delete. - Mike Rosoft 11:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. It's an advert, isn't it? BTLizard 11:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a non notable web site only seeking promotion. It's also not a good sign when a search for The Carbon Count turns up more results about Carbon County, Pennsylvania than it does the organization in question. --Cyrus Andiron 12:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as advertisement for website with no assertion of notability. -- Karada 14:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as advert. Even if kept would be a stubby & pointless content fork from Carbon footprint — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Advertisement for a nonnotable website. Maxa megalon 2000 05:31, 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. Herostratus 13:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The King Street Run

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The King Street Run

Articles for deletion/The King Street Run (2nd nomination)

Previously nominated Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The King Street Run in September 2005 when it was closed as No Consensus with 10 deletes, 2 moves and 3 keeps (that's 3 - 1 against keeping). There is no supporting evidence that this pub crawl is notable. The only evidence available is from this pub crawl being advertised on Wiki for nearly two years. An internet search reveals mentions of the pub, but little on the pub crawl itself. The current "evidence" points to a local CAMRA page suggesting several pub crawls, one of which contains a couple of pubs mentioned for this pub crawl, but not the pub crawl itself. The Hash House Harriers who apparantly organise this pub crawl do not mention it on their website. I did attempt to edit the article into information on the pub itself, but even the pub is not notable. A section on the main Cambridge article itself might be given over to the most notable pubs in Cambridge, supported by references; but stand alone articles on local pubs are questionable. SilkTork 11:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable pub crawl. I don't understand why it survived the previous AfD. BTLizard 12:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I'm possibly biased as I grew up in Cambridge so am more familiar with this than I would be with something similar elsewhere, but the KSR is more notable than your typical pub crawl. It dates back a lot longer (to at least the 1950s and probably the 1900s, depending on who you believe); it's notable enough in the local area that it's immediately recognisable even by non-university-related residents (there's even a pub named after the tradition); it's recognised as a local tradition by Cambridge council [36], it's been covered in genuine news sources [37], [38] — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment It looks like the information cited comes from the Wiki article rather than the Wiki article comes from those sources. This Wiki article has been around for nearly two years. SilkTork 13:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the second source looks quite interesting. Gives more information than has been available so far. However, even though there is some evidence that the pub crawl has taken place and still exists in some form, that in itself doesn't make it notable. SilkTork 16:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Public Houses in Cambridge. For whatever reason, articles are frequently created on Cambridge pubs, none of which are ever likely to make it past stub status. I feel that this page could make a decent core for such a page, especially since some of the historical versions of the page contain more information on the individual pubs. Bluap 14:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep- Per Iridescenti, this seems to be one of the major of the pup crawls and it has recieved third party coverage. There's too much subject-specific information in this article to merge. --Oakshade 18:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Biased Keep- I have to declare a conflict of interest here - I run with the Cantabrigensis HHH, however I haven't been involved with the king st run. I would have thought however that having a pub named after it would be enough to make it more notable than most pub crawls. Also I found another reference - The current edition of ALE newsletter, which is available in most Cambridge pubs, contains a review of the St Radegund, with mention of the King St Run (here). --Ozhiker 23:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Iridescenti, the subject is notable as one of the major pub crawls and has received satisfactory third party coverage. Yamaguchi先生 07:30, 28 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 13:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Day (comedian)

Internet "celebrity". Was prodded, as there was no assertion of notability, and the only source was his myspace page. The prod was removed at the last minute because he apparently has some fame on Youtube. I fail to see how this person can be notable, with no reliable third-party sources. Plus, temporary fame doesn't amount to much. Drat (Talk) 11:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete In my admittedly short search for sources, I could not find anything reliable that could confirm his notability. He's definitely on You Tube, has a MySpace page, and has his own website. Apart from that, no one else has taken notice of him, save a few trivial mentions in blogs. Being the 37th most subscribed video on YouTube is not an assertion of notability. Anyone can uplaod videos. This article should be deleted until he garners more recognition. Realistically, that probably won't happen. --Cyrus Andiron 12:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete, per above.Yeanold Viskersenn 12:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, being famous on YouTube can actually get you noted in reliable sources, so the bar is slightly higher than this. --Dhartung | Talk 20:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep He's referenced 20,000 times in a Google search for Mark Day YouTube. He's mentioned in an article on PBS.org and computerworld.com, where he won an award for "most interesting tech video." He's one of only 40 people (known as "partners" on the site) to have a revenue-sharing agreement with YouTube. Other YouTube mini-celebrities have Wikipedia articles. ----Bluerondo | Talk

Comment. Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Reliable sources are paramount.--Drat (Talk) 09:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

KEEP

Wikipedia is full of actors and performers and even internet celebreties who have produced less and reaced fewer people than Mark Day. At least one of his videos has - acording to the youtube counter - been watched over 1 million times. This aricle could be cleaned up, but I don't think it should be deleted. I will try to write to him - maybe he would like to comment this, or even edit / contribute a litte. Please keep the article.

Comment Having the subject of the article contribute to and edit the article will make it more likely to be deleted as vanity.Yeanold Viskersenn 23:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. "That article exists, why can't this one?" Is not a valid argument that a topic meets notability requirements. The mere existence of an article in no way validates that the article and the topic of said article meet any guidelines or policies, given the possibility that simply no one interested in flagging articles for running afowl of policy has noticed it yet. Someguy1221 08:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete not notable currently, unless reliable sources are available. --SunStar Net ^talk 14:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. I'll maintain that "Something you saw on Youtube" should be added to WP:BAI or WP:DUMB. Although in this case, it's more "Something you put on youtube." Someguy1221 08:19, 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 Merge to Martin H. Glynn. JLaTondre 14:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop!

Contested prod. This article claims that the paper is "famous", but has no references to back up the claim. The title has only 69 ghits, most of which are from message boards and not a single one of which is from a news organisation or academic source. While I recognise that in the case of an old paper like this, not all the sources will necessarily be online, I feel the onus is on the creator and other editors who want to keep it to provide sources indicating that it's notable, rather than just saying "it's famous".

The creator's made assorted arguments in favour of keeping it on the talk page, none of which appear to stack up: "It's the first time the word holocaust was used in this context (definitely untrue); "It gets 300,000 Ghits" (untrue - the 300k hits are on ""crucifixion, jews, stop" in any order, not on the title itself); two "sources", both of which appear to be laundry-lists of holocaust denial resources rather than discussion of this particular paper's significance (one of the references is in German, so I may be incorrect on this as my German is fairly rusty); and "It's a pretty discussed paper", again with no evidence of this discussion and as I say, the only mention I can find of it are on a few holocaust-denial sites and (bizarrely) Playstation 3 Forum.

I recognise that I'm AfDing this earlier than I usually would, but I really can't see anything that can be added to this to salvage it. Obviously, if someone can add genuine sources, consider this nomination withdrawn. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Only 67 unique Google hits for the exact title -- Google reports "about 786" on the first search page, but drilling down into the query pages shows that this is an overestimate. Most of the hits appear to be from holocaust-denial sites. Delete, unless notability can be demonstrated from verifiable, independent published sources. -- Karada 13:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable, trivial publication. Tarc 14:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep - As far as I'm informed Martin H. Glynn was the first one to use the noun holocaust with reference to massmurder/starvation of jews (1919). Please have a look here or here. And note: www.h-ref.de is of course not holocaust-denial site. Aborvegyro 14:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - If the only notable fact is use of the word holocaust, then couldn't that fact just be included on Martin H. Glynn? Feeeshboy 14:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

it can, of course. If you like merge the content and make the lemma a redirect. Aborvegyro

Comment on actually following the (single) reference all the way through, the only "source" for this document ever even existing is "JR Books, A White Nationalist Literary Resource", which I would venture to suggest isn't exactly a reliable source. Can anyone find any evidence that this paper ever even existed? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The problem is that this only tells in brief what the paper is and links to it - so it doesn't really provide a context. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Just because it's about Jews you hesitate or what?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.52.177.132 (talk • contribs) — 89.52.177.132 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment. We're not hesitating -- it's just that Deletion process usually takes a few days to complete. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to Martin H. Glynn. The number six million is a coincidence and the word "holocaust" has existed for hundreds of years. Unless further reliable sources can be identified, this information best belongs in the article about the author. Alansohn 00:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge Agree with Alansohn, an interesting curiosity, best merged. I reworded up the material into standard English in preparation. This article comes from a real Jewish periodical, and there's a gif of the text to prove it. The holocaust-denial use of it could be mentioned if we had some source. DGG 01:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course a merger is agreeable. Aborvegyro 06:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way: have to apologize for not having found orgiginally the Nizkor link, which could be regarded a reliable source. Aborvegyro

Comment - Since Martin H. Glynn died in 1924, the text is now out of copyright - should we send the whole thing across to Wikisource? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice idea. Would you take the burden? Aborvegyro

Merge/Redirect to Martin H. Glynn as the first use of the term holocaust in the modern sense. Delete would serve no purpose. And somebody might try to recreate the article again. SilkTork 23:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Whatever it is, it's definitely not the first time the term "holocaust" has been used in the modern sense, I'm not sure where this claim is coming from. See Names of the Holocaust — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

that's a little missleading, because it's definitely the first time the term "holocaust" has been used in regard to mass destruction of jewish people. Regards Aborvegyro

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 and G11. Sr 13 07:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Franchise Circle

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Website. Alexa page rank of 1,727,676: furthermore, all Alexa metrics shown with trend indicators (rank, page views per user, reach) are shown as being on a falling three-month trend. See [39]. Google hits seem to be almost entirely based on press releases released by the company itself. Suggest deletion based on lack of notability. The Anome 09:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as NN spam, so tagged --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 09:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete but not speedy as it claims to be the first site of its type. Claim is unsubstantiated and no sources so off it goes. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The above debate was closed when the article was deleted as WP:CSD#A7. It has since been recreated in somewhat larger form. I still find the notability rather dubious. >Radiant< 12:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we open a new AFD? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Spam, no claims of notability. No neutral references. Note that the link to the "New Canaan Advertiser" is, in fact, to a pdf file on the franchisecircle website. Corvus cornix 18:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Goodday. I believe this article is notable for a variety of reasons, most notably the people who are behind this idea. David Neeleman is behind the idea and the founder of Franchise Circle was featured in a book with the likes of Richard Branson, David Neeleman, and Charles Schwab. The company has obtained sponsorship from american Express and JetBlue (verify the company's website to view this). They have obtained a growing amount of support in the franchise industry and are backed by individuals who are more than notable. Please do not delete this article. If the article needs to be re-written, please provide details as to how it can be improved as it is clearly notable69.157.249.3 19:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC). — 69.157.249.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Wikipedia does not operate upon individual editors' notions of what is personally important to them. That way lies chaos. Wikipedia operates upon the presence of multiple non-trivial published works, from sources independent of the subject and its creators/founders/financiers/backers, about the subject. We may not "verify the company's website". We cannot trust purported copies of source material published by the company on its own web site, such as the purported "New Canaan Advertiser" article, noted above, or other articles claiming that the company has been sponsored by someone. What we need are citations of multiple independent sources. You have not supplied any. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G 19:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, perhaps speedily: a non-notable web forum, written in an inappropriate promotional tone: Franchise Circle was created to be a one stop solution for the global franchise industry. Franchisors and advertisers get a 'Group' page where they can post information and build what’s called "Relationship Capital". Misuse of the word "solution" in this manner is a pet peeve of mine, and a sure indicator of ad-speak. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, but I'm waffling on an A7 or G11. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no independent results (one press release) on Google News Archive. This company may be backed by big names but they haven't done it much good in terms of free publicity. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion on the references:

The link to "Anne Ford's Bio" doesn't work. But then, I have to wonder, why would there be a link to a biography of a person who wrote a book featuring this company, unless that person were involved with the company?
The link to the Franchise Times takes you to the current front page of that website. You have to pay for back copies of previously featured content, therefore there is no way of telling what their article had to say about Franchise Circle.
The link to John-Richard Thompson's page is mangled, but when you go there, you find out at http://www.j-rt.com/JTbiopage.html that he is an actor and playwright. He has also written another book with Anne Ford, Laughing Allegra. "This non-fiction work blends memoir with self-help to reach parents of children with learning disabilities and was published by Newmarket Press in May, 2003". Interestingly enough, if you go to the current home page for Newmarket Press at http://www.newmarketpress.com/, they are featuring another book by Anne Ford and John-Richard Thompson. What are his qualifications to be writing a book about Franchise Times, and why is there a link to the biography of the author of that book on this page? Same questions I have for the Anne Ford link, except at least this page exists. Next Steps does not show up at amazon, and a google search comes up with nothing concrete for any such book. http://www.j-rt.com/home.html indicates that a book which has not yet been released, called The Next Step is coming out, but doesn't explain what it's about. Since Anne Ford seems to write about developmentally disabled adults, I have to wonder what her books have to do with Franchise Circle.
The link to Interantional Franchise Expo Debut is nothing more than a list of exhibitors, and I do not find Franchise Circle there, anyway. Corvus cornix 22:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Ad-spam. Not notable. Poorly referenced. Bad hygiene. Doesn't play nice with other children. Groupthink 23:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete does not meet WP:WEB, only one quasi-WP:RS. Leuko 01:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the response but Franchise Circle is listed among the other exhibitors. Can we rewrite the article to provide more notability, etc.??Cartermalloy 01:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC) — Cartermalloy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: Yes, you may edit/improve the article during the 5-day long WP:AFD discussion, and based on the re-write people may change their mind. Leuko 01:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Franchise Circle is not listed among the other exhibitors. Corvus cornix 19:34, 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 03:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Male homosexuality and the negative oedipus complex

Original Research, wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. Wingsandsword 12:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- WjBscribe 13:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Completely agree, looks like original research to me as well. References appears to be other peoples interpretations of the words of the supposed founder of the theory. The article should be referenced to the source not to others referencing the source as it get's terribly confusing to follow up on. Or am I completely out in the blue here? Sweboi 13:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom and Sweboi. This article is un-encyclopedic from the first sentence. It treats Freudian theory like established fact. — scribbling woman 14:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete looks like original research Hut 8.5 14:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. Not only is it WP:OR, this looks like a midterm essay or something. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It's not even very good original research. Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, not written in the proper tone, certainly all original research. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 18:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Very obvious that this is a personal essay, and that it treats Freud's theories like fact. As User:Arkyan said, it's not even very good original research. Therefore, it has no reason to stay here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete An original essay, not an encyclopedia article. Maxa megalon 2000 05:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete OR. Elrith 04:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- Mailer Diablo 03:46, 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 Traditions & Encounters and Herbert F. Ziegler. No consensus as to Jerry H. Bentley. WjBscribe 03:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Traditions & Encounters

Little context and fails WP:BK.--Elfin341 21:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles are similarly short and have no notability whatsoever not related to the book:

Weak keep on Bentley (who is apparently a professor at a major university and edits a journal). Weak delete on the other two (Ziegler being only an associate professor at said university and the book not being overly notable although I've heard of it on the other side of the Pacific). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete all The textbook is surely not notable; they are a dime a dozen. The professors might be, but I'd want more proof. Placeholder account 04:05, 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, WjBscribe 13:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete the textbook--I can't figure out how it escaped speedy. Bentley has a number of other publications. Ziegler is apparently an associate professor with one book besides this one, but I need time to check thisDGG 01:39, 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 move to Shiqi dialect. Real dialect, however the term "Sheckinese" is definitely nonsense. Aquarius • talk 01:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sheckinese

Hoax, Google returns no hits for "sheckinese", unsourced, term does not appear in any article or reference on Chinese dialects Wingsandsword 13:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per 0 Google hits. Possibly a foul translation. Punkmorten 20:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep and move to Shiqi dialect. Real dialect, try searching in Chinese.[40] Discussed nontrivially in 林柏松 (1997). "石岐方音". 漢語方言論集, 北京語言文化大學出版社. ISBN 7-5619-0486-X. Reliable newspaper claims it's the mother dialect of Sun Yat-sen. [41] cab 23:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. cab 00:48, 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. Sr 13 07:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roc La Familia II

Crystal-ball gazing; non-existent album about which nothing seems to be known, the article being made up of unsourced rumours. Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Duplicated at Roc La Familia Pt.2. Uncle G 13:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not a single unqualified assertion, just rumour and speculation. BTLizard 13:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete both this article and Roc La Familia Pt.2. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a rumor mill. Article has no merit as is, given that nothing besides the title is currently known. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete both per WP:CRYSTAL. ShadowHalo 04:01, 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 speedy delete, article already exists and a redirect does not seem useful. Tizio 14:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SENTANA Sports

SENTANA Sports should be deleted because it is incorrectly named, and there is already an article called Setanta Sports.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy259 (talk • contribs) 2007/05/19 15:28:51

Delete There's already an existing article with a different name. Tizio 14:06, 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 03:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vidmem

appears to be a neologism; no sources are given to suggest usage or notability JodyB _talk 00:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete : Not notable bdud e Talk 00:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as neo. Unfortunately, neologisms cannot be speedied. It found it used in this fashion on google, but didn't spot any reliable sources. The only reliable sources I did find were actually discussing a dll file called VidMem. Someguy1221 08:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete non-notable neologism, no sources cited and I can't find any. Hut 8.5 15:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Hut 8.5. Possibly spam (see article name + dot com). --Dhartung | Talk 20:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, neologism. Pavel Vozenilek 12:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- Mailer Diablo 03:46, 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 03:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BCMath

python's arbitrary precision long data type doesn't have it's own pages. java's arbitrary precision BigInteger and BigDecimal don't have there own pages. why does BCMath? because it has a fancier name then python's or java's stuff? sorry, but having a fancy name isn't sufficient to warrant a wikipedia page. Misterdiscreet 14:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete this is something I'd expect to see in a book on PHP, not an encyclopedia article. It seems to me that there's a glut of such pages on Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 17:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Mention it at PHP is it merits mention at all. JJL 18:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOT a list of programming libraries. --Salix alba (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Keeping article on every minor feature of PHP is not possible on WP. Pavel Vozenilek 12:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- Mailer Diablo 03:47, 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 03:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hanfic

Prod removed by author. I'm not sure if this is a speedy, as it's not nonsense, but a specific term for Hanson fanfiction? I know this is a neologism at best, and definitely doesn't need it's own article. Wildthing61476 18:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I added the redirect page Hanson Fanfiction to this AfD. Wildthing61476 19:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Nonnotable neologism. NawlinWiki 18:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non notable neologism. The article itself states that the term is derived from fan fiction. I found that anything relating to this term is centered around forums or blogs, certainly not reliable sources. --Cyrus Andiron 18:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as uncited, nn neologism. Ford MF 19:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as above. It could be worse. They could be putting up "Hanslash." RGTraynor 20:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete non-notable neologism. Carlosguitar 21:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as neologism per above users. I, too, found only blogs and forums using this term -- definitely not a notable term by any means. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. nonnotable neologism. —dima /talk/ 00:20, 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. AKRadecki 22:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gaurav Raja

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gaurav Raja

Articles for deletion/Gaurav Raja (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Gaurav Raja 2

"This article is worthless. The kid held the record for only 6 months and then lost it. He received moderate press coverage at the time, but no longer seems to be of any importance whatsoever. There's simply no reason to have an article on every single person who was the subject of two or three newspaper articles. I've been featured in dozens of articles in my local paper over the years, but no one would consider me notable. The appearance on the Today Show might make him notable but it only lasted a few seconds and the Today Show will recognize people for a similar amount of time on their one-hundredth birthday. Similarly, most people probably get an article in their local paper when they turn 100. So unless we want an article on every person to turn 100, we shouldn't have an article on this kid." Please note that the preceding reasoning is not mine. It comes from an anon who attempted to prod the article. Anons can not create pages, therefore, I have taken the liberty of filling out this deletion nomination. I fully concur with the above reasoning and I would like to add that I have made the only edit to the page other than disambiguation fixes since September 2006. It's simply not notable Cool3 20:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete North American record is nothing notable. World record maybe. Still something interesting to learn about however. --Whs tc hy 21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep. I would think that North American record would be of minor notability -- and like many others I generally believe notability is permanent. Several reliable sources can be found; however, I'm not too confident that this article could easily be expanded beyond what it is now. I could be wrong about that though, so I'm going with a weak keep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Moderate delete I'm not sure there's much notability for memorizing pi to any number of digits, and while it may get some minor fluff coverage, I doubt it's ever substantial. Should he ever be notable for something else, this can be covered then. Or is the coverage more substantial than it seems? I dunno. Maybe we should have an article on pi memorization? FrozenPurpleCube 22:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think the article just suggested above is a good idea, because there is some literature on other people also.DGG 01:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There's already an article on Piphilology which is essentially the same thing. Reading that article, I don't even see anywhere that a mention of Gaurav Raja would fit. It seems that only the very top memorizers need to be included. Honestly, the fact that Raja doesn't merit mention in the article on his own discipline (if you will) says to me that he isn't notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool3 (talk • contribs)

Redirect into Piphilology. Perhaps a section to list record holders would be appropriate. KrakatoaKatie 10:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect as per KrakatoaKatie.Mmoneypenny 20:29, 27 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. AKRadecki 22:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick De Meyer

Delete nomination: recreation of material previously deleted (31st March 2007) Fails WP:MUSIC) Pete.Hurd 22:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete since it's a re-creation of previously deleted material. If nothing else, WP:CSD#A7 applies. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Speedy don't apply. Not AFD. The Evil Spartan 23:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  - How does Speedy not apply if this is a recreation of previously deleted material? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    - The original deletion seems to have been via a WP:PROD (I'm not sure, I prod'ed the redirect page Patrick de Meyer back in April after the article in question was deleted, see record of some discussion here). As far as I understand, since the original deletion was not via AfD, it does not necessarily have the force of the community consensus, and therefore CSD-G4 doesn't apply (as is explained at WP:CSD#G4). Pete.Hurd 03:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, trivial credits, no bio at Allmusic. Fails WP:MUSIC. Pete Hurd is correct, an article must be deleted via an XfD process to be eligible for speedy G4. --Dhartung | Talk 05:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I would like to contest the deletion of this page. I feel that the page ought to be left based upon WP:Notability (music). It fulfils rule 6 for musicians as he has:

   Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.

- These bands were T99 - which as you can see charted in several countries and Technotronic - for whom he played synthesiser on their eponymous album Pump Up the Jam: The Album - which also charted around the world. In this manner he also fulfils rule 5 which states

   Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

In T99 and technotronic as a composer he fulfils rule 1 for the criteria for composers which states

   Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above, a notable theatre, or has been taken up by a musician or ensemble that qualifies above.

Finally I would like to point you towards all music guide - [42] where we can see the songs he has composed. If you browse them you see that he has composed many songs that have appeared on later compilations. This is why I feel he should not be deleted. I could not defend it before being fairly new to wikipedia, hence it was deleted, now that I have been on a while I feel better able to defend the pages I create. - - Curious Gregor^TALK 11:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

- In terms of composing All Music Guide [43] lists him as composer of Anasthasia by T99 - thus improving his ranking as composer notability. - - Curious Gregor^TALK 11:45, 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 merge. W.marsh 13:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bellmore Fire Department

Not notable fire department for a small town. Was originally in The Bellmores, New York, until moved in these diffs. Small enough to be in towns article, and not notable enought to have it's own. --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 23:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-merge back into the locality article. -- saberwyn 01:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Re-merge back into the article on the locality. If there is too much detail, then leave some out. Not everything in the world needs a detailed exhaustive history in Wikipedia. Fails to satisfy WP:N because the only refs are their own website and a directory listing in Newsday. Edison 14:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Re-Merge. Per pretty much all above. The Hooded One ♠ 15:27, 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 TO DELETE. I don't much like this article and I think it should be re-merged into its parent. However, the comments are 3-3 tied. The Delete (or rather re-Merge) arguments are stronger, and the Keep arguments are kind of scattershot and weak. Not weak enough to turn a 3-3 tie into a consensus, though, in my view. Herostratus 03:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North Bellmore Fire Department

Not notable fire department for a small town. Was originally in The Bellmores, New York, until moved in these diffs. Small enough to be in towns article, and not notable enought to have it's own. --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 23:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-merge back into the locality article. -- saberwyn 01:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Leave it alone, there is too much information for it to be in the The Bellmores. The large history section of the North Bellmore Fire Department has no reason to be in local hamlet article. -- Sullynyflhi 12:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not extremely long. And it's quality, not quantity. Just because it's big doesn't make it notable. --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Red Sux!) 22:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-merge back into the article on the locality. If there is too much detail, then leave some out. The long chatty history belongs in their website, not in Wikipedia. Not everything in the world needs a detailed exhaustive history in Wikipedia. Fails to satisfy WP:N because the only refs are their own website and a directory listing in Newsday. Edison 14:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree that this article should be deleted. I believe the North Bellmore Fire Department deserves their own article and doesn't need to be added back into the The Bellmores. They have a very important job and it needs to be recognized. I know many of the firefighters in all towns and I think they would be upset with what some of you have to say. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, its sole purpose is to continue to grow and expand with new edits. Norkey9 14:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ummm...by that logic, you're saying that we can't delete any article because every other person who has an article would upset if we deleted it. Yes, their job is important, which is why we have this article. However, is the fire department of a small town notable?. --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Red Sux!) 21:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have looked into articles you have created and the all seem pointless so I guess we should put them up for deletion as well, so you are saying survivor is more important then learning about a local fire department? There are other articles that are smaller and show no purpose. I think you are a little upset because someone changed The Bellmores article that you made. Wikipedia was made for useful information not pointless, such as survivor! Norkey9 21:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Pointless is an opinion. Survivor, is a very popular television show that has ran for 14 seasons, and has ranked high in the Nielson ratings. That's very notable, and broadcast internationally. Survivor meets WP:N. A fire department for a small town, that has nothing special about is, is not notable. --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Red Sux!) 22:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets clear this up right now......

First off Bellmore/ North Bellmore or The Bellmores whatever you want to call it is NOT a SMALL TOWN or any size town for that matter. Bellmore is a hamlet which is part of the Town of Hempstead , population 763,822 in 2006. Last time i checked that makes it bigger than most cities in the United States. North Bellmore Fire Department protects parts of the hamlets of N Bellmore, Bellmore, N Merrick, East Meadow, and just recently found out some of Levittown/ Wantagh. These are all sections of the Town of Hempstead (Notability: Largest town in America, or would be the 14th largest city in America). NBFD District also covers parts of the Southern State Parkway (190,000 vehicles per day) and Jerusalem ave (major thoroughfare for the area). All of you are making the NBFD sound like some insignificant and unimportant organization when cleary they are not. Lets not forget that the department is 100 years old, with much history that should be added to the article. Yes this article is small, thats why i made it a stub but, its also very NEW thus needing to grow with time and new edits from users (ex-members and history buffs).

Oh yeah, one more thing bellmore is not suburb, it's an Edge city or classified as an urban fringe by the USPS. In Recent years Long Island has be put under its own Metropolitan Area (Nassau-Suffolk, NY PMSA), you see this more and more often in goverment and media reports. Sullynyflhi 23:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Most fire services are notable. There is nothing wrong with the article that a few more references could not fix. Vegaswikian 02:29, 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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Lists of Libertarians by occupation:

[edit] Heart of the Beholder

[edit] Innocence (Song)

[edit] Montana Skies (Novel)

[edit] Life Mein Kabhie Kabhiee

[edit] Fife fire (american football team)

[edit] Venomous Duck

[edit] Ümit Alkuş

[edit] List of songs by Tears for Fears

[edit] List of defunct music venues in Atlanta

[edit] Chongalicious

[edit] Christian philosophy

[edit] Adrian Iandorio

[edit] Elaine Hartley

[edit] Miss Martindale

[edit] Marueta

[edit] List of international football stadiums

[edit] Shirle Klein-Carsh

[edit] DJ 5Fingerz

[edit] Dandelion Radio

[edit] FreeOnes

[edit] Civicist

[edit] Popov (vodka)

[edit] List of Insurgents killed in Iraq

[edit] Sea Slumber Song

[edit] Flight Line Aviation

[edit] Boeing B-29 Superfortress Survivors

[edit] Bedhampton Social Hall

[edit] Timothy Casey

[edit] Jon & Kate Plus 8 (video game)

[edit] Lee Groombridge

[edit] Forgotten Kingdoms

[edit] Joe A. Kelly

[edit] Ansett Regional Airlines

[edit] Swami Shankarananda Saraswati

[edit] Sudan at the 1968 Summer Olympics

[edit] Vertex4

[edit] Antilapsarianism

[edit] Wicked Lasers

[edit] Dysart High School

[edit] IPython

[edit] Cassandra Franklin

[edit] Porygon evolutionary line

[edit] List of Pokémon (1-20)

[edit] List of Pokémon (21-40)

[edit] Naruto Headbands

[edit] Igor Tkachenko

[edit] SkyscraperPage

[edit] Riva Tholoor Philip

[edit] Make-out party

[edit] George Azariah

[edit] Philips Sperrow Football Team

[edit] Lost (TV series) inventory

[edit] Table of Disney characters

[edit] Where's Waldo in popular culture

[edit] Eyad Ismail

[edit] List of Grim's supernatural items

[edit] List of minor characters in The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy

[edit] Eye (Eve's Plum Single)

[edit] Charles H. Baker Jr.

[edit] The Ides of March (song)

[edit] PHP Data Objects

[edit] DB DataObject

[edit] Christian Party (United States)

[edit] The Wedding (2000 novel)

[edit] Uncle Tom's Cabin (disambiguation)

[edit] Hendrick Gulick

[edit] American political commentators

[edit] Heinrich Trambauer

[edit] Diagonal method

[edit] Timeline of trends in music (2000-present)

[edit] List of cultural references to The Shining

[edit] SimpList

[edit] Bona Sardo Hasoloan Hutahaean

[edit] Michael Jakarimilena

[edit] Karen Theresia Pooroe

[edit] Winda Viska Ria