Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 29

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J. C. Ismael

J. C. Ismael (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non Notable Stellatomailing 00:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - This person is a journalist and made several small contributions to newspapers in Brazil. Mostly of it were literary columns; they did not have major impact or followers. None of his books got awards or reviews by prominent media vehicles nor exceptional sales figures. Unsourced affirmations in the article (although understandable because of the age of contributions). 666 ghits brought 99% articles in small sites and blogs and links from bookstores. The article in the Portuguese Wikipedia was written by the subject and meaningful edits in the English version were done by IPs. I recommend deletion because he is not notable enough to get an article in Wikipedia.Stellatomailing 00:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless sourced. There isn't an article on the Portuguese Wikipedia, but he does have a user page. I found a mention of his book on the (mostly English language!) Google News Archive, but nothing in English, so I really couldn't evaluate the quality of the general Google results (restricted to site:br). --Dhartung | Talk 08:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You are correct. I mistook his userpage for an article.Stellatomailing 15:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:35, 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 delete. --Coredesat 04:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montgomery's on the Square

Montgomery's on the Square (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article has been speedied once already, but contested. I don't see anything that makes this restaurant notable. Clarityfiend 23:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ~EdBoy^[c] 00:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I asked for the person to type up what makes it notable, never was done.--Kranar drogin 00:25, 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 delete. --Coredesat 04:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elio Di Iorio

Elio Di Iorio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Apparently self-authored bio of local, minor-party Canadian politician. Stuffed full of peacock terms, name-dropping, and fame-by-association. PROD tag added, but removed by User:GrantNeufeld. Calton | Talk 23:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ~EdBoy^[c] 00:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. UNremarkable former councillor of a small town using wikipedia for self promotion. Stellatomailing 00:14, 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 keep. W.marsh 14:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arifana

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

seems very interesting but it has been orphaned for a long time and has one source... What do others think? Postcard Cathy 23:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete unless it gets sourced a bit more. ~EdBoy^[c] 00:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - A stub with one source like that is already above the curve. Articles on Turkish culture being orphaned is something we should be fixing by creating more articles, not deleting the ones we have. Neier 01:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your reasoning. If I find a Turkish town of 50 people whose sole claim to fame is that one of their residents can have people request various Turkish folk songs and he can either fart them in tune or burp them in tune and there was a story about it in Istanbul's major newspaper, does that mean it should stay based on the fact it is a stub wiht one source and is already above the curve?Postcard Cathy 13:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad analogy. Towns are notable, with or without folk-song farting citizens. If it received multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, then the person's article would probably not get deleted at AFD either. If you want to go after the veracity and/or the importance of the cited book, then, that's another matter. As it stands, "orphaned for a long time" is not a deletion criteria. Neier 11:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't intend to imply orphan status is the sole criteria for deletion because I have seen orphaned articles that do indeed show wiki worthiness. But I disagree with you on your implication that a town of 50 who is most notable for a folk song farting contest is not notable.Postcard Cathy 14:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Right now this stub barely rises above the level of a dictionary definition, but it is sourced, and it looks like it has potential for expansion. It even has a Wikipedia Project that has an eye on it, and I expect will eventually get around to helping expand it. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 03:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Cal, it hasn't ben expanded in almost two years of being on wiki. Why should we expect it to be expanded in the near future? Postcard Cathy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.145.243.196 (talk • contribs) 2007-05-30 16:16:24)
  • Because that is how articles develop here. Please read our Wikipedia:Editing policy, the Wikipedia:Guide to improving articles, and our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. We don't delete stubs with potential for expansion. We expand them. Uncle G 11:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And you wait a reasonable time for it to be expanded. I agree with waiting. But at some point you have to say we have waited long enough, it hasn't been expanded in x length of time and based on that, we have to wonder if it will be expanded. Postcard Cathy 14:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, stubs dont have to be expanded to be useful. John Vandenberg 13:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 14:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aqualand

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

Prodded last July but deprodded and left in stub condition; no changes since then. Prodded by another editor today, but not eligible for a second prod, so nominating here. Page is a one-paragraph intro with a list of parks. No reliable sources are provided about the parks nor any information to identify the nature of the parks. Accordingly, article fails verifiability and notability criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

OOPS I was the one that prod'd it. Sorry, I didn't notice the first prod. I agree with C. Fred and would like to add that it also has very few valid internal links. Postcard Cathy 23:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I've just added a couple of sources, one a link to the web site of the group that operates these parks and one a link to a newspaper with a review of them. This is the largest chain of water parks in Europe, which I think makes it notable. JulesH 10:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to improve the article Jules. But I think the article has a long way to go to show notability. I am going with the idea you are telling the truth that it really is the largest chain but it doesn't say that in the article. Perhaps saying that in the article and not here would help and also indicate it's gross revenue and other indicators of how large a business it is? Postcard Cathy 13:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added this to the article. The reliable source confirming this is [1]: "Aspro es el operador en Europa con mayor número de parques y centros de ocio". JulesH 19:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• COMMENT I am still not seeing any notability here. Just a lot of claims with little or weak sources. I seem to remember all info must be verifiable. After all this time and no verification provided. Postcard Cathy 172.132.19.76 18:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete IMHO, this article (if you can call it that) is seriously lacking in any substance whatsoever. Give us something about the company. Even a simple paragraph of 3-5 sentences would be acceptable. I believe that the discussion here is actually longer than the article. I also think all the waterparks in the system could just be combined into one article. For a related American example (admittedly poorly referenced), see Schlitterbahn. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, deleting stubs is not how we make progress. 47,000 hits indicates this will be expanded over time. John Vandenberg 13:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep; this nomination is the result of a content dispute (whether the article should be centered on the IETF standard or the or the MagicISO format); the talk page is the place for content discussions. Tizio 16:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Universal Image Format

Universal Image Format (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This "standard" is in fact a small part of a draft standard called IPP-Fax, which was abandoned in 2004. In addition, UIF was not in the latest draft (ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/QUALDOCS/wd-ifx10-latest.pdf) of the standard, having been replaced by PDFax and then PDF/is. It appears in only two sets of slides from prceedings of the PWG and does not occur in any of IETFs current proposed or accepted standards and is clearly not notable. Jamesmusik 23:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Rejected standard that has never been used in practice. -- intgr ^#%@! 23:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Referenced disambiguation page. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 23:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Rework: In light of the standard having been superseded, I think that providing enough verifiable information can be found, the article should be reworked (as suggested) to focus more on the disk image format – while being careful to avoid coming too close to advertising, which was an issue previously. —GrimRevenant 04:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is there any evidence of the notability of this format? -- intgr ^#%@! 06:08, 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 delete. --Coredesat 04:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religious and Political Conflicts Between Selim I and Shah Ismail

Religious and Political Conflicts Between Selim I and Shah Ismail (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR concerns. Lists one reliable source, but gives very little information, thus the rest of the article seems to be original research. (Encyclopædias should not be used as sources.) Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. one of the sources is wikipedia. Seems like we have a spree of essays being posted (I just prodded another). --Whsitchy 23:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at that. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I was about to tag it as a speedy when Cool Blue beat me to it with the AfD. Reads like an essay, way too much OR, verifiability is in doubt. Realkyhick 23:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to be original research. Davewild 19:04, 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 delete. --Coredesat 04:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Star Wars Audio Books

List of Star Wars Audio Books (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I really don't see the point to having a list of the audio books. I am not saying that audio books are lesser then standard books, but to a certain degree they are less notable. The fact is that these are just recordings of novels from the expanded universe, if it really needs to be mentioned then it can be done so in the novels corresponding page. The Filmaker 23:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP. It is an asset for collectors, people who like audio books, and people who are disabled and can not read regular books due to poor motor skills. It also has audio DRAMAs that are not in book form in at all. Antmusic 23:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Searching through the list, from what I have checked, it appears that all of these "audio dramas" are available in the some form, either in book or comic book. And as I stated, it can be mentioned in the corresponding article. The Filmaker 23:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete: I think this information could probably be merged into another article. Does it really need its own entry? Bradybd 05:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The question is, why do we need a bulleted list of all of the Star Wars audio books? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The Filmaker 05:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I totally agree! I just thought that the information perhaps should be salvaged. Either noted in the entries for the books or perhaps condensed elsewhere. Bradybd 18:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 17:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a product catalog to me. Too trivial for wikipedia. Pax:Vobiscum 18:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per my own nom. The Filmaker 00:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pistaa Badaam Lassi, PBL

Pistaa Badaam Lassi, PBL (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The summaries said it best--there is nothing that Google has heard of concerning this. Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 22:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 22:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as utter nonsense. tomasz. 23:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per... WP:BALLS *falls over laughing* but yeah, I think it falls under some CSD cat, can't think of what, and WP:NOT. Whsitchy 00:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. We already have an article on Lassi. utcursch | talk 13:29, 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 Delete. Peacent 18:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eurosong Cup

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

No references whatsoever: even a Google search here returns ZERO results. Maybe a hoax? Not sure... never heard of this thing before, might be completely made-up. EuroSong ^talk 22:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - my nomination. EuroSong ^talk 22:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. A competition that may take place in 2009 isn't something we should have an article on. If this takes off there will be ample publicity during selection of competitors, host city, venues, and so forth. --Dhartung | Talk 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Editors should note that "Eurosong" is the name given to several countries' national competitions to select an entrant for Eurovision, including Ireland and Belgium. --Dhartung | Talk 22:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Snow delete WP:CRYSTAL and probably hoax. Somehow, I think Eurosong knows what he's talking about here. Whsitchy 22:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Speculation at best, hoax at worst. Without any sources, it must go. DarkAudit 22:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax, shame really as I'd be interested to see the Vatican City entry for the competition. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as hoax, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see a speedy category here, probably best to run it through AfD so it can be G4'd if it's re-created. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Agree with EliminatorJR. Hoaxes are not a speedy category -- they're best handled with as many eyes as possible, unfortunately, because there may be that one editor who swings through who knows it isn't. --Dhartung | Talk 05:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Dhartung. ~EdBoy^[c] 00:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a hoax. I'm relatively well-up on "countries who want to enter ESC soon" (which is frequently nothing but rumour-mongering anyway), and a great many of these would-be entries are news to me. Western Sahara, Bermuda and Svalbard sound rather like wishful thinking. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No sourced citations in the article whatsoever to establish notability. Smee 08:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
• Delete - not only is notability not established there is no evidence that it will ever exist. TerriersFan 16:30, 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 Speedy Delete. The article is obviously a hoax. Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 04:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The article is a hoax. No Lucas Giba plays for Inter Milan. the article Lucas giba is clearly written by a fan of Inter Milan. He doesn't play for the first team or youth team. No relevant google searches either. [2]. For any further proof, the number eight jersey is currently worn by Zlatan Ibrahimović. Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Snow Delete Definite hoax and such yahoo! turns up nothing too: [3] --Whsitchy 22:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:HOAX. tomasz. 22:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, Per {{db-reason}}. The reason of course being that it is a hoax. Even if it were true, it is not properly referenced. --Random ^{Say it here!} 22:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above, tagged as such. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per all above. Hoax gibberish. ~EdBoy^[c] 00:20, 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 deleted. No, it technically isn't a speedy (certainly not an A7), so, Whstchy, for shame! But, really, chaps and chapettes, let's face it: it could be deleted by someone acidentally believing the speedy tag, or it could be deleted as a hoax, or it could be deleted by AfD saying "no evidence of notability", or ... whatever happens, though, by the end of the week it will not still be here. So why not save some poor fellow the trouble of deleting it in a few days, eh? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Carter Casamayor

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

Zero non-wiki ghits. No evidence of notability (or existence) offered in article. Previously prodded, but prod was contested. Kathy A. 22:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7, will be tagged in a moment. And from the talk page

  There's very little about him on Google (something on about Page 12 or so, lol) but that's my point.

  nuke it. Whsitchy 22:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, send down brimstone and fire on the article. --Random ^{Say it here!} 22:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as utterly unnotable (if ineligible for speedy). Nothing, nada, zilch on Google News Archive for various combinations of david.carter+keyword, so fails WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 22:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as self-admittedly non-notable. tomasz. 23:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, non-notable. ~EdBoy^[c] 00:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- might be a hoax -- his parents don't get any google hits either even though they're supposedly listed as very wealthy in Forbes magazine. He is also not listed on the ABA directory that I can see. Sci girl 01:48, 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 speedy delete. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 00:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mitchell oldschool danger bennett mallory III

Mitchell oldschool danger bennett mallory III (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No googel hits except for a myspace page, several non-working links added to the article by the creator (now on the article's talk page), looks like a hoax, or at least completely non-notable. DES ^(talk) 22:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per my nom, unless valid independant reliable sources are found and added to the article. DES ^(talk) 22:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - total lack of independent sources, and has been speedied at a different location before. [4] Tony Fox (arf!) 22:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as total nn if not hoax (birthdate 1985, sole source: MySpace). tomasz. 22:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Not exactly what you generally think of as being notable. --Random ^{Say it here!} 22:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a possible hoax. Tagged with {{db-bio}}. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "hoax" is not a speedy reason, please remember, and ther is good reason why not. DES ^(talk) 23:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • {{db-bio}} is, though. tomasz. 23:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, but I don't think this constitutes a speedy. WP:V, WP:RS concerns, though. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Super Speedy Delete per Ten Pound Hammer. ~EdBoy^[c] 00:24, 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/redirect. W.marsh 16:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dosco Educationalists

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

This article seems pointless. Katharineamy 21:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Appears to be a fork of The Doon School though there is no particular indication a fork is needed as there is nothing to assert the importance of this small group of teachers independently of the school. Not even any point merging into the article. tomasz. 22:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, it is one of many in Category:Dosco. Merges may be appropriate but deletion is not. John Vandenberg 13:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Doon School alumni (Doscos). Doon school alumni appears to be almost a who's who of notable Indians. The "educationalists" list appears to make a sufficient claim to notability for those listed (headmasters of Doon school etc), though it's difficult to research with only English language sources. Thus, merging to the main alumni article seems the better course. The alumni list article is getting a bit long, but I note that many of the politicians listed are redundant to the Dosco politicians list, so there is room for cleanup. Bottom line is that I agree with John that merging and cleanup, rather than deletion, appears to be called for.--Kubigula (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Doon School alumni (Doscos) per Kubigula G1ggy! _{Review me!} 23:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirects don't need to be put under scrutiny at AfD. Sr13 05:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xandros File Manager

Xandros File Manager (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The topic is not notable and the article intentionally advertises Xandros. Xandros links to this article, but could contain relevant information about XFM, if there is some. This should not be actually deleted, but redirected to Xandros. Chealer 21:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect Well, in that case, redirect it yourself. Unless there's some objection to that move, AFD isn't really that appropriate a choice. As far as it goes though, I do agree with you. FrozenPurpleCube 22:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect, I agree if it is obviously not notable, then just redirect it. --Random ^{Say it here!} 22:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect after merging relevant information. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:11, 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 piledrive. Krimpet (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet wrestling community

Internet wrestling community (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced for over half a year, fails notability, and is a combination of WP:OR and self-referential pats on the back SirFozzie 21:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per what the nom said. tomasz. 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Is complete WP:OR and has multiple other problems.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Theophilus75 (talk • contribs) at 22:08, May 29, 2007
• Delete, Per Theophilus75. Complete original research. --Random ^{Say it here!} 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete While the Internet did certainly have an effect on pro wrestling and there's the possibility that an encyclopedic article could be written about it, this article isn't it and is also full of WP:OR. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing but original research with a low probability of verifiable sources. Nikki311 22:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above reasons. ~EdBoy^[c] 00:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep or Merge to List of professional wrestling slang. It was my first attempt at an article in wikiland so I'll try one last fleeting attempt to keep it but do understand the arguments for delete. I'll start with OR since that's the major case. On WP:NOR it gives 7 themes of OR so I'll take them one by one.
  • 1. It introduces a theory or method of solution: Article does not introduce any theory or try to solve something.
  • 2. It introduces original ideas: No ideas being proposed by article.
  • 3. It defines new terms: The only example is the mention of "armchair booking" which probably should be removed.
  • 4. It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms: Does not redefine any terms used in article to something else.
  • 5. It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position: Article does not introduce any new argument.
  • 6. It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source: This is probably where the case of where OR applies to this article. OR generally means one person's opinion of something. People who follow wrestling on the internet would generally agree with what the article states. If there was disagreement the article may be subjected to edit wars.
  • 7. It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source: You could argue that "Internet wrestling community" is a neologism but the term has been used for quite a while as the label of a collective group.

That leads to if the term is notable or not. I contend it is a notable term among internet wrestling fans and the term is commonly used. One argument by the nom considers this a "self-referential pat on the back." Since I don't consider myself a member of this group I don't know how that can be the case. However, it may refer to not having sources outside it's genre. Well, the scientific community has many articles that do not get coverage outside of the science realm like Terraforming of Venus for instance. Well, there's my case. If still recommended for delete, I vouch for Merge. MrMurph101 05:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, I'm not trying to be mean or nasty here, but the article should be deleted. Even if you merge the article, that doesn't fix the problem of referencing. The article can't be referenced (with the exception of self-referential sources)...it just transfers the problem to a new article. I'd love for you to prove me wrong, though. Nikki311 23:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not saying move all the content over there, just to redirect it. If the consensus is delete, which looks like the case. IWC is already in the list there, unless that article should be afd's also. Btw, no worries. :) I know all you guys are applying good faith. MrMurph101 01:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete When you decide what is suitable material for an encyclopaedia you must consider all the terms of what encyclopaedia is all about. It asks you for solid evidence of the subject in question. Now when it comes down to it, Internet wrestling community is just a generic term. It isn't an organisation, I would also go as far as saying it isn't even a club. It's just a name given to the group that discuss wrestling on the internet. The article starts to describe what the IWC is with no citation and when you consider that citation is how we give evidence it becomes clear that there is no clear evidence other than this article. You go on to explain the evolution of IWC in fact the only impact I see is how you explained how news letters became wrestling online websites which provided the information. Those websites are more valid as the sources for the information than this IWC. I am sorry to say, I find this article extremely weak with no real back up citation (evidence) That's why I feel it should be deleted. Govvy 13:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merge or Delete - Not really that notable, the Original Research issues all over it put the final nail in the coffin. -凶 13:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per MrMurph and Eliminator comments. No improvement on article since last afd so redirect it and maybe start over some day. Arthur Fonzarelli 21:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Completely OR with horrible "sources" and not notable at all --Maestro25 01:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I don't think the IWC has any notability and is only a slang term anyway. The likes of Meltzer, Scherer and Keller are professional journalists and the remainder of the IWC is a motley bunch of fansite and discussion forum contributors, many of whom possess extremely inflated opinions of their own self worth (see notorious Wikipedia vandal and sock-puppeteer JB196 for a prime example). So the subject isn't worthy of an article and the article in existance is primarily WP:OR. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and salt. Sarah 12:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua O'Brien

Joshua O'Brien (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A non-notable bit part television actor. The article is autobiographical and unsourced. While those problems can be fixed, I don't think he is notable enough for inclusion. Mattinbgn/ ^talk 21:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 21:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep content could use improvement, but I see at least one major network television program and a movie on a significant cable network. FrozenPurpleCube 22:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Oh, it's a hoax? In that case it can be deleted. FrozenPurpleCube 23:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - Nothing on IMDb and Zac Efron played Cameron Bale on Summerland, from which large chunks of this article has been lifted. The article is a hoax. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 22:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article has been speedy deleted twice before. May need salting. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 22:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and salt. Created and almost solely edited by User:Joshuaobrien. tomasz. 22:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete and salt per G4.--Dhartung | Talk 23:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and Salt Per nom and ors. It's bad enough the article is WP:VSCA, but having already been deleted twice before... it needs to be dealt with. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, as per others. Lankiveil 08:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --ais523 09:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anoka Abeyrathne

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

Despite winning contest, the contest is not on Wiki. Article is orphaned. Between the two, I suspect lack of wiki worthiness. Postcard Cathy 21:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• weak delete The contest is asserted to be national (Sri Lanka), and it is also asserted that she was participant in an international event. Neither are in WP but we can't demonstrate lack of notability from that--I doubt the notable contests from that country have been entered. But there are no actual sources for any of this. If there were, perhaps we could tell. DGG 23:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • True DGG but the key here is asserted. If it was sourced and/or linked to an article on the subject, I would not have nominated the article. But how notable can the festival be if it doesn't have an article of it's own and as Carol says, nothing can be found on wiki? Postcard Cathy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.145.243.196 (talk • contribs) 2007-05-30 16:21:16
    • It could be very notable. The non-existence of other articles is no guide. Wikipedia isn't complete. You are supposed to look for sources, outside of Wikipedia, to see how notable something is. Please read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Uncle G 11:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • • True Uncle G but as Carolfrog said, it is not easy to find these outside sources. And why should we have to look for them? The author should have provided them at the time or soon after. Writing 101 - would you submit a term paper even in jr high school if you didn't have adequate footnotes? Postcard Cathy
          • Postcard Cathy, not everyone who contributes to Wikipedia has submitted a term paper; some are not old enough, and others live in third world countries where they will probably never have that option. Their contributions are still valuable. John Vandenberg 14:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I also checked Google News Archives. Still nothing on the British Festival of Music. I'd be willing to consider that its notability could be established by offline sources, but I don't know where to look. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 20:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't find her (apart from WP mirrors) on Google or Google News. Same for the British Festival of Music. Not that Google is the be-all and end-all of sources, but I'd think if sources existed in the mainstream media (i.e. were reliable sources such as should exist for an international event) there might be at least an indication of their existence on Google. So there's just nothing to confirm that she's notable enough for a Wikipedia article. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Despite searching offwiki, I have found little that could be used to verify this article. John Vandenberg 14:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't seem notable to me. Tim^V.B._{{critic & speak}} 19:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Band shown to be notable, and a lack of references is no reason to delete anything. --Stephanie ^talk 14:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deichkind

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

This article seems to fail WP:MUSIC. It certainly offers no WP:RS so there is no way to verify notability JodyB _talk 21:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no claim to notability and fails teh WP:BAND. tomasz. 21:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Per WP:BAND. --Random ^{Say it here!} 22:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Deichkind is, or at least was at the time of their best-known singles, a very famous band in Germany. Their songs were in the rotation of every major radio station as well as MTV Germany and VIVA. Komm schon, Limit and, most of all, Bon Voyage were hits in Germany. I can't find the charts positions (#34 in Switzerland, I'm sure it was higher in Germany), but ghits include reliable notability indicators like laut.de. Malc82 23:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If that's the case, then perhaps you will add the required reliable sources before this AfD completes. The article itself must be sourced; it's not sufficient for you to think it's notable. It must be sourced. That's an absolute. JodyB _talk 16:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply Please note that I didn't contribute anything to this article, maybe you should ask the editor for RS (especially English-language ones). I don't know why you didn't contact him/her in the first place. It is not mandatory to reference every argument in an AfD, as you should know. NB: A quick check of WP:EQ might be good, too. Malc82 17:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment All I am saying is that there must be some way to verify that this article is noteworthy. Our policy is at WP:V and says in part The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. I simply challenged the article as being notable and thought that if you were familiar with the subject you could source it. I'm not asking you to do anything I haven't done myself. Please be assured, I have no interest in this article one way or another. If it can be sourced and verified, then let's keep it. I'm not sure what you mean about referencing every argument in an AfD. I never asked for such and certainly don't expect it. Why don't we get on with editing the Wikipedia. If you can improve the article, please do. I cannot. Thanks JodyB _talk 22:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. There are no WP:EQ issues here. tomasz. 22:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment I found a source stating that Bon Voyage topped at #11 in Germany and their best album (Noch Fünf Minuten Mutti) was #17 [5] but it's not a RS by WP guidelines. The problem is that older German chart results aren't available for free. The (German) laut.de source already included is actually a pretty good one, but I couldn't find anything in English (which isn't that surprising, since the band is known for their satirical lyrics and thus all the good chart results were in German-speaking countries). On the other hand I'm not a hip hop fan and maybe just don't know where to search for the sources. Malc82 22:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, has an article in two other Wikipedia's, and there are plenty of google hits. John Vandenberg 14:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per John. It seems notable, google results are fine. Needs some verification though, not deletion G1ggy! _{Review me!} 23:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DES ^(talk) 17:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aussie Salute

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

I propose this article for deletion on behalf of User:Postcard Cathy more details to follow Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 21:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Dep. I was referred here after proding the article for the second time and the editor suggested if I feel the same, I nominate it a second time. OOOPS Forgot to check the history. Anywho, the article hasn't been improved to the point that shows me why it is wiki worthy. I don't know if it can be. There are no sources whatsoever and it is still a stub. Postcard Cathy 21:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 21:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the Aussia salute? Aussie. Salute? what is the world coming too - argh Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 21:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be claiming that waving one's hand in front of one's face is a manœuvre that has a name. This will not stand. tomasz. 21:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Hold off pending rewrite. Seems possible. tomasz. 21:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Culture of Australia if it can be proven. Otherwise, delete it. T_{Talk to me} 21:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Or possibly into Australian English vocabulary? EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep This is not a neologism, but a longstanding term in Australia and could definitely be expanded past a stub. It can be sourced, with a bit of research, the question is, will it? -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 22:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, definitely falls under WP:NEO, but there are sources available should anyone care to improve it. See also Google Books results. --Dhartung | Talk 23:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment How does this fall under WP:NEO? The term has not been recently coined; the Google News search shows usage (in the US press) from 1988 and I know, but can't source at this stage, that it has been in use for well over 50 years. It may or may not be notable, but it is not a neologism. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 23:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep needs improvement ;). Term dates to boer war, is hardly a neologism. What it needs is references. I will come up with some.Garrie 00:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It helps if you search for Australian salute + fly. Maybe Aussie Salute should be a redirect but that's for talk-page discussion not AfD.
  • convict creation website
  • Ausimports - Flies (includes cartoon of guy in slouch hat)
  • Fly times when the dry comes There was even a world-famous gesture called "the Australian salute", now largely absen from the national repertoire.Garrie 00:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Definitely a widely used term both in Australia and outside it and certainly not a neologism. Transwikiing to wiktionary might be a better option, though, if it's not already there. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• It's also variously called the "Barcoo salute" and the "Bush salute". Uncle G 02:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised to discover that we lack an article on the bush fly (Musca vetustissima), incidentally. Uncle G 02:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Common, wellknown phrase which is even included in phrasebooks. [6] Look forward to Garrie's improvements. Capitalistroadster 02:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • D'oh! - I guess I dobbed myself in for that one! will be after the AfD closes.Garrie 20:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep A widely used term in Australia ExtraDry 09:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Then why is it orphaned and unsourced?172.145.243.196 16:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Since the article in fact is sourced, that question is unanswerable, being based as it is upon a false premise. Uncle G 17:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a false permise Uncle G. I asked before looking at the new version of the article. Postcard Cathy 20:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Abstain I have no insight whatsoever to add to this discussion. 151.197.191.191 17:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, sources provided, although not in wide use up here in Brisbane. What's with the Abstain vote above me? Lankiveil 08:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC).

Beats me. Struth. Orderinchaos 14:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, although article needs to be renamed to "Aussie salute" to meet WP:MOS. Orderinchaos 14:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• keep please it is notable not neologism but rename for style yuckfoo 01:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, it is not a neo, and there is plenty of reliable sources. John Vandenberg 08:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Benesz

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

prod was reverted; Article still does not show notablity. Stating one's occupation and where they worked does not show notability. Unless an editor is willing to SHOW why Mr. Benesz is notable, and so far that hasn't happened even with the prod, then this article should go. Postcard Cathy 20:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

PS The person who reverted the prod conveniently also deleted the orphan tag, the notability tag and the unreferenced tag. Postcard Cathy 20:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the articles on the football clubs show that they are 3rd division, which generally doesn't confer notability to the players. Carlossuarez46 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Not notable on evidence provided. DES ^(talk) 22:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Sr13 05:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1981 Meenakshipuram conversion

1981 Meenakshipuram conversion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

prod'd article but author removed prod without addressing my concerns. I have no idea what a dalit is and I have no idea why this is notable. I think this article needs serious work before it can be considered wiki worthy. To someone like me who is ignorant on this subject, author has not shown why this is important. Writing 101 guys - assume your readers are as ignorant on the subject as I am and tell us everything. Postcard Cathy 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep:It was an important event in history of the republic of India. There are over 1000 google hits for the event.[7].The inernel link to dalits now provided.It is a stub and I agree with the nominator that further work needs to be done to enhance it. I propose to improve and enhance it in near future.I request that the article may not be deleted.Shyamsunder 9:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I have found some articles about it and a book by a notable author mentioning it, although the article needs expansion and context. I believe it's covered in A.M. Mujahid's well-known book. I think newspaper articles would be a more relevant source than the journal mentions I've found but I'm not terribly familiar with the area papers.Sci girl 21:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as the sources provided indicate it was important in modern Indian history. I gave it a rewrite to provide a little more context, but I would rather that someone more familiar with India add a line or two about its overall significance -- e.g. why the dalits were forced to convert, who did it, and so forth. --Dhartung | Talk 23:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: Notable historical event. Bradybd 05:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:41, 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 keep. Please defer merge-related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No-hearing hearings

No-hearing hearings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The report is non notable in and of itself, as it only garners 863 hits on Google, many of which are Wiki mirrors and therefore does not meet Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. Several fo the supporting links in the article have nothing to do with the subject of the article, only things covered in the article, making it WP:SYNT and WP:NOR. Information in the article also exist nearly verbatim in several other articles. Suggest a Merge with the Mark P. Denbeaux article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- This is an important article, widely cited. Geo Swan 22:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment — Several of the nominator's crticisms are issues that properly belong on Talk:No-hearing hearings, not in an {{afd}}.
  • Comment — This is, IMO, a malformed nomination, and, as such, it should be withdrawn.
  • Comment — The last time I looked this article fully complied with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER. I think it is a mistake to argue that material that complies with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER should be removed because it does not comply with some individuals perception of what is and isn't notable. Notability, in my experience, is a highly subjective and unreliable yardstick.

widely cited? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. -- Geo Swan 22:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to a broader article, most of this is just a restatement of context and the report's findings, which belong in an article about what the report studied, rather than just the report itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect as this seems to essentially be a POV fork of Combat Status Review Tribunals or a related article. I am unconvinced that this report -- and the article is about the report, not any hearings -- is itself notable. It is a critique of the process that should properly be treated as a source for an article, not as a notable topic in itself. --Dhartung | Talk 23:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Please explain how this article is a POV-fork. What POV are you asserting is being forked here? Geo Swan 00:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Have you looked at Combatant Status Review Tribunal recently? It is already quite long. Long enough that it is time to consider splitting it, not merging in further, related articles. Geo Swan 00:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- The Denbeauxs are charlatans but they're notable in the "anti-war" camp. It doesn't belong in the CSRT article because their reports require too much clarification that would clutter up that article. I could see there being one big Denbeaux studies article but I think it's better to have several short ones. -- Randy2063 01:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I have great trouble accepting this as a neutral nomination. It is sourced, absolutely notable (the NYT, WaPo, FT, Village Voice, MSNBC, et cetera have an article on it!!) and as such there is no reason to delete. However, certain editors consider any article that is vaguely critical of the Bush administration by defrinition POV. Maybe nominator has other thoughts than simply keeping up the encyclopeadic nature of WP. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment Well, a quick recap of the notability of the No Hearings Hearings, and the sources used to validate this statement.

NYT, footnote 7: The source article mentions neither the report nor Denbeaux, and as such violates SP:SYNT and WP:NOR as it is being used as supporting evidence for the article.

FT, footnote 8: Once again, The source article mentions neither the report nor Denbeaux, and as such violates SP:SYNT and WP:NOR as it is being used as supporting evidence for the article.

That leaves us with two sources directly mentioning, that coupled with the scarcity of hits on Google, and the fact that this report is not found in Google Scholarly Article search, means that this aint notable enough for its own article, and should be merged elsewhere. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• As I said, your concerns about the footnotes is one you should have raised on Talk:No-hearing hearings, not in an {{afd}}. You are misusing the {{afd}} fora.
• A note to other readers, the two footnotes that Mr or Ms Tortuous Devastating Cudgel is objecting to are footnotes to the caption of the image of the trailer where the Tribunals were held.
• I dispute that adding a picture of the trailer where the hearings were held violates WP:SYN or WP:NOR. Agreed? If so, then this objection really boils down to a concern over that caption.
  • I didn't add the picture, or caption, to this particular article. But I added this picture, with a different caption, to another article, prior to the publication of the study. I was challenged to cite references that backed up that the captive spent the hearing bound hand and foot. I found some. I suspect that someone cut and pasted the image and caption I used, edited the caption, but kept the references.
  • I am going to repeat that your objection to this article, based on these two references, seems to me to be a serious misuse of wikipolicies. And I strongly recommend you review them.
  • FWIW, the study itself documents that shackling, hand and foot:

    "Each CSRT took place in a small room. Armed guards brought the detainee, shackled hand and foot, to the room, seated him in a chair against the wall and chained his shackled legs to the floor."

• Cheers Geo Swan 14:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And of course we have had no response to the fact WaPo and Village Voice documented the report. One would think it is difficult to be not notable when discussed in main stream publications. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you a response to that. It wasn't an actual WaPo reporter, and the Village Voice columnist can't be taken seriously. There are only a few liberal commentators parroting spin. They clearly bought the misleading "92%" number as well as the bogus bounty hunters line without giving it a close look. There is no serious nonpartisan analysis for these reports.

-- Randy2063 02:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Very weak Delete on the basis of the evidence so far. There is no question whatsoever that the hearings are notable. This article, however, is about the book. Let's look at the refs: Some are about the topic, some are written by the same group, but it looks the the 3rd and 5th are mainly about the book. The NYT article is not. The second VV one mentions the book down at the bottom. where are some books reviews? The tendency to get as many articles as possible for one very notable topic does not make sense. DGG 01:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment How many articles are there? What topic do you mean? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I see no provisions in Wikpedia's notability guidelines that require a certain number of G-hits. What it does say is "The number [of secondary sources] needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." MoodyGroove 21:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

• Response Maybe the logic behind this nomination may be more apparent when you realise nominator has gone to several articles I edit (why has he forgotten this article?) and is massively deleting adequately sourced information there also. For some reason it always results in removing uncomfortable, yet sourced, information about the Bush administration. Coincidence is really an interesting topic. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The book itself is POV, so there will always be some difficulty in keeping the article about it NPOV, but that's a matter of how the article is written, not whether it should exist. JamesMLane t c 00:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Other WP:RS that mentioned or make available this NN report: US Senate Commitee on Armed Services(report!!), HRW, CCR. To insist on lack of notability is proof of inadequate knowledge of who cites it, insufficient grasp of policy or more sinister motives. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep Per all arguments above, and by subject matter of book. I hardly see how it isn't notable G1ggy! _{Review me!} 23:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Hi Ho Aston Villa"

"Hi Ho Aston Villa" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I really don't think a football chant is notable enough for an article. (Don't redirect due to only one link.) Reywas92^{TalkReview me} 20:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The potential (numerically anyway) for having article on each football chant would be enormous. They would all be one or two lines. They'd all be completely pointless. They should be nipped in the bud now. tomasz. 21:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If a particular chant is well-known and strongly linked to a club then it can be mentioned in that club's article. This one isn't. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability. If any chant deserved its own article, it'd be "On The Ball, City," but that's a page in need of moving to Wikisource and deletion itself. —C.Fred (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete famous songs such as You'll Never Walk Alone and maybe one or two others probably deserve articles, but we don't need pointless stubs on every song sung at every ground. I know for a fact this song is also sung at Molineux, so would we have a separate page on "Hi Ho Wolverhampton"? I think not..... ChrisTheDude 08:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not a notable article Martin tamb 10:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Govvy 10:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per numerous reasons stated above --BanRay 14:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kynda

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

OK soooo.... no name band? disbanded? poorly sourced? defunct website? about 8 trillion bands are in these guys boat. and they claim an album cut on a label but really what it is is a live record, that they cut themselves, and released it themselves -- and the name of the studio they used is misleadingly called the label... well nice try... Brokethebank 20:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No real claim of notability and fails teh WP:BAND. tomasz. 21:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Closenplay 00:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was still no consensus. --Coredesat 04:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jocelyne Couture-Nowak

Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

ok...hope I'm doin this correct... umm basically this person is one victim of many victims and she's not that notable -- all she did was get shot. then there was press coverage..... but it was only done because she got shot? hello?, I mean obvious violation of WP:NOT..... i think the consensus policy is that pages need to have something beyond for them to stand on their own -- the question is, "Would she have been notable by herself sans bullet." c'mon, the answer is obviously not. Also: 1) yea there are other victims that have their own pages but those guys were famous enough in their own fields so they can stay -- or what, because they get shot they can never be notable? i think not. 2)oh and I see that there's been a few discussions already and I've been watching but as long as they keep endin in "no consensus" I think we can re-post after a few weeks of 'timeout". ok peace Brokethebank 20:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: This is the article's third AfD; please see the first AfD(delete), first DRV(overturned, relisted AfD), second AfD(no consensus), and second DRV(endorse no consensus) for more info.

• No vote touchy issue here, I can see sides for and against. Whsitchy 20:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Virginia Tech massacre.--Vintagekits 20:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The history book on the shelf is always repeating itself... - this was bound to happen and only goes to prove the points raised in the previous AfDs - I hope this will be enough to prove that in the end, this article got here through the loopholes in WP policies/guidelines rather than exists for a logical and legitimate reason... PrinceGloria 20:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh BTW thanx to whoever fixed the crazy delet page I made.Brokethebank 20:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Logic in addition to stringent WP: polices/guidelines would dictate that an article about this person be included. Love ABBA references. --Oakshade 22:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Her family and friends have my sympathies but being a crime victim (particularly for a crime for which we already have an article in which she is mentioned) is simply not notable enough for a biographical encyclopedia. Subject does not pass WP:PROF. --ElKevbo 20:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly meets WP:N and WP:BIO as a "subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." BRMo 21:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Editors may wish to refer to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#The new section people are putting in and Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Newspaper articles - and especially Tabloid Newspaper articles. for additional context of the current discussion surrounding articles such as these. Uncle G 21:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - victims of notable crimes need to be personally notable to justify their own article. Sadly, that is not the case here. It should be borne in mind that Wikipedia is not a memorial. TerriersFan 22:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:MEMORIAL doesn't apply as it refers to non-notable people who don't fall into our WP:N standards - this isn't an article about someone's grandfather that has no published work about them, not to mention multiple major national ones like this person does. --Oakshade 22:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Is the subject of multiple non-trivial published works by reliable sources, the core criterion of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. The topic became notable due to the tragedy. Just because some users don't like the reason she became notable doesn't suddenly make her non-notable. "The world" decides if someone is notable, not Wikipedia editors. And I'm troubled that this nom has made only 1 edit before starting this AfD since September 2006 [8]. In addition to all of this, we just had a DLR on this topic on May 9, 2007. Way too soon for yet another AfD and lengthy debate. --Oakshade 22:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• A speedy closure on those grounds would be okay with me. The number of AfDs and DRVs this article has undergone since its creation is a bit much. --ElKevbo 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Pardon my french, but ce raisonnement est risible. That's essentially saying that there's a limit to how much something should be discussed. And it implies that disagreements should only be settled when one side is obviously wrong. Whatever happened to a reasoned and balanced judge, who hears both sides and then explains fully a full decision? Pablosecca 23:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well, there is a practical limit to how much something should be discussed. It's entirely appropriate in most cases for an article to occasionally nominate an article for deletion but I don't care for this or any other article to be perpetually nominated for deletion until finally enough editors !vote delete. In this particular case, I don't see the harm in there being a period of cool down between AfDs. At a certain point, continually sending an article to AfD becomes disruptive. --ElKevbo 00:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• According to WP:DP, "After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page... It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." As the third AfD within 6 weeks, I don't see any new information or arguments being brought forward. The deletion policy guidance seems applicable to this case. BRMo 03:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Well, well, well. I see we're back at the chicken shack, yet again. Nice to see you all again. First, a point:

  The article should not be speedily closed because the recent decision was "No consensus" -- a finding that pleads for further argument, which this is. Opinions?

• And truthfully -- here's my honest opinion -- these AfD debates should go on into infinity if necessary before we get an admin with enough spine to make a decision of either keep or delete. I would even accept a decision of "keep" (though I'm sure it's wrong), provided it subsequently passed a deletion review. It's these "no consensus" decisions that are just killing this Wikipedia.

  Back to the matter at hand. For all and sundry let me point out what I think is the gist of notability. Coverage of this woman is totally secondary to her involvement in the tragedy. That, in a nutshell, is why she is not notable. Pablosecca 23:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Addendum: Redirect is fine with me too. Pablosecca 23:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The cause of no consensus is you, failing to achieve consensus, not the closing administrator. If you don't like a lack of consensus, then attempt to persuade other editors, by discussing the issue with them, and thereby form a consensus. Uncle G 00:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • My point, as I've argued elsewhere, is that not all disagreements are alike. I firmly believe that there is enough written Wikipedia policy to resolve these debates one way or another. It is mistaken to conflate consensus and agreement. When editors call a debate "no consensus" simply because there isn't vast agreement, we run the real risk of harpooning a rational decision; and it introduces opacity into the dialog of the community -- because, suddenly the inertia of disagreement, sham disagreement, results in a useless default "no decision" decision, which is what "no consensus" is.
      To put it another way: it is, I think, impossible for this particular article to be judged a "keep" because there is simply no basis for a victim to get her own page when she is not notable otherwise. However, that doesn't mean that the article is deleted -- it exists by virtue of the default to preserve articles if they aren't judged "delete." Understand? By virtue of a lack of decision, a decision is made; and that stifles argument, and is a classic tactic of repression of ideas.
      I say emphatically that it is wrong to adjudicate "no consensus" unless we find, by virtue of reasoned arguments, that current and accepted Wikipedia policy disagrees with itself, or is obviously internally inconsistent. Because what we are (supposed to be) doing in these AfDs is presenting detailed arguments based on policy -- or else we might as well just show up and settle things with one-word votes.
      Again: if we have 49 people voting "keep" an article, but their arguments are not based on policy, and we have one dissenter who clearly and logically explains his position based on Wikipedia rules, it is wrong to adjudicate "no consensus" and right to find for the lone editor. Otherwise there really is no difference between this and a sheer vote -- besides some bluster and pretense.
      So in conclusion: I see the role of the deciding admin as being one who, knowing the policy backwards and forwards (many admins fail that), is able to spot policy rationales, enlighten the ignorant, correct the misinformed, and most of all MAKE A LUCID DECISION! Pablosecca 08:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Virginia Tech massacre. She is well covered in that article and is nn otherwise. Clarityfiend 23:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as material already exists in other articles. Wikipedia is not a memorial and there is nothing indicating real notability for this person other than coverage of her murder. --Dhartung | Talk 23:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a memorial doesn't apply to otherwise notable people like this person is. As you state, "coverage of the murder" in addition to the long published works about this person's life indicate real notablity. --Oakshade 00:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Do we mean that two substantial independent RSs establish notability for people, or do we mean that it is not enough without additional factors? It's time we decided, because we are deciding some articles one way and some the other. Oddly, the better known the subject is, the more WPedians are interested in the question, and are likely to come here and explain why it's not notable. Being killed in a tragedy so notable that the individual death results in substantial international media coverage is notable by any rational standard, and the more people protest that it isn't, the more they show that it is. DGG 23:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If the subject was not notable enough to have an article in life, there is no reason to have an article after(and because of the circumstances) her death. Stellatomailing 00:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Unless major media outlets wrote multiple long stories about their lives as a result of the circumstances. --Oakshade 01:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has reliable sources which are enough to establish notability. --Eastmain 03:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The entire article on this woman could very easily be accommodated in substance in a few lines on the page for the Victims of the VTech massacre. The question is does she deserve her own article. Pablosecca 09:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP There is a concept called "abuse of process" where one party in a dispute does not accept the outcome and keeps coming back. PLease accepct that as there is some doubt if this person can be considered NOT notable, that the doubt requires that the article stand, potentaly unused and unloved, but there if it is needed by the users of the encyclopedia. Even if Madame Couture-Nowak is only 1/2 notable as a techer and 1/2 notable as the founder of a french language school, and even if the article was created by someone reading the Obits. That adds up to putting the notability total to more than one. Lets not waste our effort in arguing if that means she is at 98% notable or 105%. Please let's agree that her notability would have incressed over time if not for the VTM, and let's put the effort into writing more aticles (or even filling out this one)cmacd 12:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Any reliable sources on her before her death? Michaelas¹⁰ 16:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Once again, the sources are entirely incidental, so what's the point in keeping around a non-notable biography? See my arguements at the previous deletion debates and DRV. Michaelas¹⁰ 16:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Meets WP:BIO and let's move on. Dustbowldiaspora 17:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Meets WP:BIO and WP:N for her work in establishing the French public school in Nova Scotia, with significant impact to French-speakers in that area. Also -- per cmacd: this third AfD amounts to abuse of process by those who refuse to accept the outcome. --Yksin 19:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect, though I'm beginning to feel like I'm in a bad version of Groundhog Day. Victimhood by itself is not notable per the sitewide precedent to move articles on 9/11 victims off Wikipedia. The only claim to notability is as co-founder of a school. As the school has been found to be not notable, founding it cannot be used to declare notability. (Oakshade, there is no need to reply to me here. We've already had our go around in previous debates.) - BanyanTree 22:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete again. Dying does not confer notability, and there is no real claim preceeding her death. Her mention in the main articles on the VaTech shootings are sufficient. Resolute 23:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep She has to be notable now, not at some time in the past. If there are

RSs devoted specifically to her, it meets the requirements. The reason we have standards for N is to prevent arguments of this sort; News sources write stories that they know people will want to read--because they know people will consider it notable. They are somewhat better at it than we are, overall. So we reasonably accept that if two different major new sources have chosen to write the story, she has become notable, and that really should be the end of it.

Now, I am not 100% sure that the above is the best rule. But we have to work by one rule or another, to stop every article from being a contest of ILIKEIT vs IDONTLIKEIT, or IKNOWINMYHEARTSHESNOTABLE vs the opposite. We could adopt a rule that the actual career has to be enough to qualify her by any one of a number of standards in addition to the sources. But we dont have that rule--and perhaps theres a good reason, because we might never agree: I'll accept one LP if you accept three books? We'll accept someone who kills 3 people, but not 2? (we do have shortcuts, like being an athlete in the Olympics, or being mayor of a large city, because we know there will be stories) We can't judge some articles by one standard and some by another, according to the feeling here that day.--and , even worse, keep doing it again and again to the same articles day after day. I think repeated nomination at this frequency is beginning to interfere with the operation of Wikipedia. DGG 01:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• I see your point, but I fear that your suggestion evidences a wish for security that is ill-placed. I think that this is the true nature of "consensus" -- when reasonable people gather and express an opinion, while respecting the overall policy. To say that anyone who is the subject of a news item whatever is automatically notable is too mechanical and knee-jerk. Official Wikipedia policy even enshrines this in the form of WP:SENSE and WP:IGNORE. There is a balance to be struck, and that is the hope that people place in "consensus". Pablosecca 08:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I am willing to be swayed either way by good insights. There needs to be more of that and less emotion in this discussion. Since the last discussion, there has been one, just one, change of any substance to the article and just two posts (aside from "sham consensus") on the discussion page. If 10% of the people debating deletion (yes both sides) spent 5 minutes cautiously improving the article, we would get somewhere. And improving can mean reducing. If working at a non-notable daycare is non-notable, Deleters should discuss that on the article's discussion page. Yes, I appreciate it's more time-consuming than simply voting Delete for the 13th time (especially if you feel the whole article is non-notable)...but showing respect is an important of progress. Instead, we are back at this pointless, repetitive debate which verges on abuse of process. I'm siding with the view expressed in the Deletion Review: "repeated attempts to delete content are not in the spirit of of an open resource." Canuckle 01:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As the author of the "sham consensus" post, I feel must make a quick point here regarding abuse of process. I am not willing to fight endless battles over articles. There have been a very small number of articles that I have been against; sometimes it's happened that the article gets brought to an AfD and the judgment is "keep". When that happens I respect that decision and do not raise the debate further.
  The reason that this is not abuse of process, in my opinion, is that this article has not been judged "keep" at all, ever, and was initially judged "delete". I for one refuse to agree that an article should exist on the basis of "no consensus". Let this article be judged "keep" (though of course I feel strongly that would be wrong) and pass a deletion review if need be, and let it stay at that. Or, likewise, let it be deleted, and let it stay at that, too. Pablosecca 08:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hi Pablosecca. I hope I have not offended you by noting the title of the "sham consensus" topic on the article's discussion page. I noted it not to cast judgement on the merits of that argument, but to note that it was a discussion about process. It did not discuss the merits of the article. A definitive decision is indeed desirable. One that both sides can agree with would be even better and in the spirit of open collaboration. How do we get there? One way would be to remove the the threat of immindent deletion and discuss the merits of the article on the article's discussion page Canuckle 18:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. Everyking 23:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • May I ask why? Michaelas¹⁰ 00:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Tons of press coverage, far more than the accepted minimum for inclusion as a subject. Everyking 01:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It's incidental, not independent of her biography. As such, leaving this article around is useless and unnecessary. Why not just utilize the notability implied from those sources to merely mention her as a part of the tragedy timeline? Michaelas¹⁰ 15:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
        • The coverage is not incidental. Most of the coverage is about her life and work before the massacre, not just about "incidents". --Oakshade 18:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I meant she became widely covered due to an incident, not her personal notability. Michaelas¹⁰ 18:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
            • According to WP:N and WP:BIO, notability can be demonstrated by coverage by "published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject"; the guidelines do not make an exception for people who are covered by reliable sources primarily because of their death or murder. There are many examples in Wikipedia of articles about people who became notable when they were killed—a couple of especially prominent examples are J.D. Tippit and Ronald Goldman, but there are dozens of others—take a look at the articles in categories like Category:Murder victims by nationality and its subcategories, or Category:Murdered police officers and its subcategory. WP:BIO does say, "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability," but the examples of trivial coverage are things like "a simple directory entry or a mention in passing." Couture-Nowak has been the primary subject of several newspaper articles—this is not trivial coverage. BRMo 03:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Hume

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

Notability of subject not established. Article appears to be an autobiography of a non-notable person.

• Delete, no assertion of notability and fails teh WP:BAND in his capacity as musician. tomasz. 21:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiscandal

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

Dicdef, Neologism, self reference pgk 19:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per all of the above. tomasz. 21:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. FCYTravis 21:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• One protologism in the title of an ABC News article does not a concept define. And that's all that actually exists, as far as I can discover. There are no sources at all. This is original research — the inference, being performed by Wikipedia editors directly in Wikipedia, of a novel concept from the use of a protologism in a news article headline, with zero documentation already existing outside of Wikipedia of any such concept. Delete. Uncle G 21:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Wikidelete as a wikineologism. Adding 'wiki' to a word does not really make another word most of the time, and definitely not in this case. WikiTony WikiFox 22:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Per nom. --Random ^{Say it here!} 22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Ocatecir ^Talk 20:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesty beatz

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

Only album appears to be self-released. Fails WP:BAND. Blueboy96 19:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable band spam. --Evb-wiki 20:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The artist's own myspace page is not exactly a convincing source. --Taejo|대조 20:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete entirely nn. Reywas92^{TalkReview me} 20:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The principal authors of this article have vandalized my user page several times since I started this VfD. Good faith can no longer be assumed.Blueboy96 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The two PRODded actor articles have been deleted early. --Coredesat 04:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Denied

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

Contested prod. Future movie whose only claim to fame is that actor Hugo Speer will act in it. It is a short (less than an hour) movie by a new director, made for his own brand new company, with unknown actors otherwise. The movie has received some grants, apparently, but I'm unable to confirm this. In fact, I can find nothing about this movie apart from the IMDb page[9], which means it completely fails WP:NOTE, and also violates WP:CRYSTAL. Fram 19:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No secondary sources. UnitedStatesian 19:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not sourced. --Whsitchy 19:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as well as the two actor articles currently prodded. Reywas92^{TalkReview me} 20:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 22:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete due to non-notability; zero serious recognition on Google, and the lack of background to the various proponents of the film (director, cast, etc.) do not help highlight the film at all. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earl S. Bell

Earl S. Bell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Allthough the article is asthetically well done, it's little more than flashy self-promotion of a subject of questionable notability. None of the references make any mention of the subject, and most of the article is not about the person but about a proposed building design, an unnotable magazine, and a architectural style that was previously removed from wikipedia. 99DBSIMLR 18:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no *real* links to it. History shows that it is all self-promotion. Reywas92^{TalkReview me} 20:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete a very well done example of advertising, but with no outside sources for reviews the subject is not notable. DGG 00:08, 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 redirect. I'm going to leave it up to the editors of Strength training to merge this if they want to, I'll leave a note on the talk page. Mangojuice^talk 12:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rest pause

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

Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.) Quartet 18:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - well, it HAS some sources, but they're so poorly formatted that there's no way to verify them, or even tell if they exist. The phrase "rest pause" gets zero GHits, outside Wikipedia, so I don't think the topic is notable. --Haemo 21:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 18:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - I found 61, 000 ghits for 'rest-pause training' with some detailed articles. If the books are real -- they should be reformatted -- it ought to be worth a keep. one of the articles I saw: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/mahler27.htm Sci girl 22:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete And merge - this information should be incorporated into the Strength training article (along with other such unsourced/poorly sourced articles like German volume training. These are strength training techniques that can be summarized in a paragraph. Many of the sources that talk about rest pause are weak reliable sources, if that. --Yankees76 20:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Strength training. I've certainly heard of such a thing, but it isn't that major G1ggy! _{Review me!} 23:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Strength training. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 22:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to strength training as recommended above, particularly to the Strength training#Advanced techniques section - it would fit right in with the other variations and styles there. Strangely it would also fit in at Weight training - sutle differences in tactics and hoped-for outcomes. Anyway it is mentioned in cursory fashion at strength training, surprisingly without a "see also" link. Note also the parallel 1RM article, may need similar treatment. The current (rest-pause) article is simply too short a stub to be sustained independantly, but there is nothing really to add to improve it, other than some reference citations. The book references list obviously need to be brought up to standards (ISBN, publishers, etc.) and incorporated ("chapter and verse") into the text. The information is almost certainly verifiable with some simple googleyahoo searching, so while the information is probably encyclopedic, the article itself is not. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 23:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crackelacking

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

No relible sources. Fails WP:A. Even if sourced, it fails to assert how the subject meets WP:NOTE, and isn't simply neologism. Goodnightmush^Talk 02:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 18:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete-elack per failure of WP:RS, WP:A and WP:NOTE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as that strange phenomenon, the old neologism (or more accurately, OR by way of synthesis of a kind of narrative around a slang term). tomasz. 22:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Key blades

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

Non-notable trivial part of a game, no sources, doesn't qualify for a page on its own, through WP:NOT if nothing else. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• delete fancruft. Reywas92^{TalkReview me} 21:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as too-small-to-be-notable part of game that has own article. tomasz. 23:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Kingdom Hearts. Jtrainor 07:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Mainly because of WP:NOT#INFO#:4 video game guides Grinder0-0 09:32, 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 delete. --Coredesat 04:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of emerging architects

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

Another pointless list. Unsupported predetermined list of non-notable people. WP:NOT#CBALL + WP:BIO + etc 99DBSIMLR 18:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - not to mention WP:SPAM. The Evil Spartan 18:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above + unmaintainable and original research. Davewild 18:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Half of the names in the list do not exist, as well as a WP:NOT violation, no sources and who decides whether these people are notable or not? The Sunshine Man 18:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per The Sunshine Man. This article makes about as much sense as having an article for a "List of up and coming bands". --Finngall ^talk 20:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete emerging=POV. Carlossuarez46 20:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as crystal ballery & for vanispamwhatsit potential. tomasz. 21:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. How can someone be notable if they're still "emerging"? You don't get to be a notable architect until you've designed a famous building. Henry Hobson Richardson wasn't notable in 1860, when he was on his way to the École des Beaux-Arts, but he became notable in the course of designing buildings such as Trinity Church, Boston, Allegheny County Courthouse, and others. Let's wait until these architects have actually emerged and designed notable buildings. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, but a clever attempt to evade WP:N. DGG 01:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. and all of the above comments. --JayJasper 14:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 17:55, 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 speedy delete. —Ocatecir ^Talk 20:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AlbumTown

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

Delete an advertisement disguised as an article. This has been previously prodded. Mindmatrix 18:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. Seems to be spam. No assertion of the notability of the subject. Fails WP:NOTE. Goodnightmush^Talk 02:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 18:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete both A7 and G11, twofer! Whsitchy 19:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ricky "The Hammer" Sinz

Ricky "The Hammer" Sinz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable per WP:PORNBIO. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete agreed, NN. Whsitchy 20:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nn gay myspace man. tomasz. 22:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment – May meet PORNBIO if he was a "serious contender" for an Adult Erotic Gay Video Award in 2006 or 2007. Otherwise, he is indeed non-notable per that guideline. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 13:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Don't delete, the page is still under contruction. Thegirlfriend 16:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and my comment. For all that is good and holy if you are going to have a page "under construction" at least SHOW why the subject is notbale during the first phases of "construction". Technically EVERY page on Wikipedia is "under construction" since it can be reedited over and over by a variety of authors. Bottom line with ALL the "construction", he still does not meet WP:PORNBIO. Wildthing61476 20:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outlaw Family Band

Outlaw Family Band (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Evidently this page was created by a band member or gropie given that it sounds like an advertisement. It seems that they might have been featured as a minor part on a minor television show, but they only have 900 google hits. There is a section filled with POV acclaim for the band, and it has links to there myspace, yada yada yada. Practically all of the article creator's edits are related to his band. Also see Ravenswood getaway AdamBiswanger1 17:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. Since Slackjaw Records does not seem to qualify as a major label, the two albums with them are not sufficient to establish notability. I also found no hints that other criteria in WP:MUSIC would be fulfilled (national tours with secondary coverage, charted hits, etc.). --B. Wolterding 09:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ravenswood getaway

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

A song by a band which I listed at AFD just now, Outlaw Family Band AdamBiswanger1 17:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. I'm hesitating about the band (production from someone from Wilco, couple of relevant possible non-trivial media mentions i need to look into), but in no way is the song notable, this just reads like an interesting anecdote. not for encyc. tomasz. 18:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per W guice. I'm not totally convinced the band is non-notable, but this song surely is. Closenplay 20:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy Brunette

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

Non-notable singer-songwriter per WP:MUSIC, no relevant Google hits. Gimboid13 17:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete per CSD A7 Salaskan 17:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - auto-biography, non-notable. --† Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page about an unreleased and apparently incomplete album by this artist:

Crazy Brunette: The Album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Gimboid13 17:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete both as blatant myspacery per CSD A7. tomasz. 17:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movie quote

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

Clear neologism; unsourced. Original author removed the recent {{prod}} notice without explanation Gwernol 17:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. No sources --† Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as OR/neologism. tomasz. 21:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, but I don't see how this is a neologism or original research. It's a statement of the obvious, that a movie quote is a quote from a movie. No useful content. --Metropolitan90 04:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as I do not believe that there would be enough substance to warrant its own article from what seems available here. However, I think that this could potentially be a subtopic, as there are famous movie quotes (Star Wars, Terminator, The Godfather) and even a 100 Movie Quotes from the American Film Institute. This should be explored as a section in a broader article, and if there is enough referenced content and attribution for its own article, the content could be forked. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above, but agree with Erik about the future possibilities. --Paul Erik 15:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 17:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch alphabet

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

The Dutch alphabet is exactly the same as the Latin alphabet. The article says that some consider "ij" to be a letter, but "native Dutch speakers" always consider this to be 26. I think native Dutch speakers determine how the Dutch language is. Also, the Taalunie considers ij not to be a letter, and the Taalunie is the only official body for regulating the Dutch language. Nearly the entire article is about the letter ij, as the Dutch alphabet doesn't differ from the Latin alphabet. This is not necessary, as there is one very comprehensive article about this letter: IJ (digraph). If all text about the IJ be removed, then the article would have only a few sentences (which I will list here), and likely be too short for an entire article, so the sentences can get moved to Dutch language.

Would be the only text that remained if the redundant text about the IJ which is included at IJ (letter) would be removed. Salaskan 17:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support, the IJ is the special thing about the Dutch way of writing things but it isn't a letter! C mon 17:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to section in Dutch language. I think everything important can be covered there. FrozenPurpleCube 17:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - we have other alphabet articles on alphabets derived from Latin at Category:Latin-derived alphabets. Articles such as English alphabet and French alphabet provide meaningful context besides just a standard list, and the Dutch alphabet article also provides context. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The Dutch alphabet (with its IJ) is similarly special as many alphabets in the Category:Latin-derived alphabets (e.g. the French, German, Italian, Portugese, Finnish, etc.). Either all of these have to be deleted as well, or the Dutch alphabet deserves an article as well. My suggestion would be to discuss this at a higher level; e.g. by mass-nominating all articles at once. Arnoutf 18:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - What about creating a section for this in Dutch language, and letting Dutch alphabet redirect there? As I pointed out above, when the duplicated information about the IJ is removed, the article consists of only a few sentences. Salaskan 19:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, contains no useful information, the Dutch alphabet is not remarkable compared to the Latin one. Furthermore, much of the information in the article is very questionable: oe, aa, ie, ... are not diphthongs at all (some of the others are), but some more remarkable three-vowel combinations (oei, eeu, ieu) are. Some of the combinations given a non-existing do exist in Dutch (ea = meander, realiteit, ... ia = piano, riant, ...: they form two syllables, but that is not discussed in the article). However, this has nothing to do with the alphabet of course. If kept, the article needs to be almost completely rewritten. Fram 20:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Elkman, the Dutch alphabet is distinct from the Latin alphabet. Carlossuarez46 20:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • How is it? By the IJ? That info is included in the article about IJ, and we can add a sentence to Dutch alphabet saying "The Dutch alphabet is exactly the same as the Latin alphabet, although some think IJ is part of the alphabet as well" (to which Dutch alphabet would redirect). Salaskan 22:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• I see no editors looking at sources in the above. Perhaps that's because the article doesn't cite a single source and editors are performing original research, working out their own theories of human knowledge rather than what the sources actually document. Going and actually looking for sources, I find sources such as the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems (ISBN 063121481X), which document a distinct Dutch alphabet. Interestingly, the 1878 A new practical grammar of the Dutch language by Franz Ahn documents a Dutch alphabet of 24 letters, as does the 1908 Elements of Dutch by Jan Marius Hoogvliet. Clearly, if editors used some sources, there would be a good article here. That's a matter of cleanup, not deletion, however. Keep. Uncle G 22:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)'
• Keep - the Dutch alphabet is almost the same as the standard Latin alphabet - almost being the operative word. Having a 'ij' instead of a 'y' makes all the difference. The fact that we use the 'y' in loanwords doesn't make it part of 'our' alphabet - just like ñ, ø and the like. That 'ij' is often treated as being 'i + j' is mostly because of practical reasons (electronic sorting for instance). Richard 13:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Please note that this is a deletion debate, not a forum about whether the IJ is a letter or not (which is contested — see the article). 75% of the article is about the status of IJ; that info should be merged into IJ (digraph). Salaskan 22:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Are we to have articles on the alphabet in every language that uses a variation of the Latin alphabet? The only useful content in this article concerns the digraph IJ (digraph), which already has an article. The paragraph on ij should be merged with that and the rest deleted or merged with Dutch language. Peterkingiron 14:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Elkman. Murcielago 04:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge, if desired, can be discussed on the relvant talk page, and carried out, if consensus forms, without an afd. DES ^(talk) 17:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free Speech on Evolution

Free Speech on Evolution (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

unnotable Martialis 16:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There's only one reference, which indicates only that the article is ridiculous. Martialis 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Why the hell hasn't this been deleted yet? There are now 2 more references, one is a science blog, and the other is a comment buried in a different science blog. (an unsigned comment from User:Martialis)

Because that's not how AFD works. There's no consensus for deletion. FeloniousMonk 21:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - db-spam, and so marked. In any case, WP:SOAPBOX applies here. The Evil Spartan 16:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete semi-scientific propaganda; disguised by multiple references to publications by a single institute with a clear mission. WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX. Arnoutf 18:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Since when is neutrally and accurately describing a group's PR campaign proscribed? Better to accurately and neutrally cover it here than let them get away with claiming it is something it is not elsewhere. And if sources are missing, then add some.Odd nature 19:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Arnoutf (but not speediable IMO, I removed that tag...there are refs and it seems possibly notable on its face). I agree with Odd nature that a NPOV description of this thing is certainly encyclopediac, but the article here needs more WP:RS than just self-published sources to in order to be more than just an extension of the PR campaign itself. The one non-self-source doesn't appear to mention the campaign directly, so its inclusion borders on WP:OR by synthesis. DMacks 19:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

*Delete - the article's references are all from what WP:ATT defines as partisan & self-published souces. These sources are not reliable or notable. I would respectfully disagree with Odd nature, Wikipedia does not cover the PR campaigns of organizations unless those campaigns are notable in & of themselves (i.e mentioned in secondary sources)--Cailil ^talk 20:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Additional sources have since been added. Also, according to W:V and WP:RS, which are actual policy unlike WP:ATT, the sources you object to as partisan are being used exactly as policy dictates, as primary sources for what the partisan group (the Discovery Institute) says. Odd nature 20:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The three I just read are all a single quote of a Discovery Institute person stating that he feels that what Bush said is in keeping with their PR campaign. Actually no, they are just using the topic-title, not even explicit that this is related to the actual PR campaign. They are three cites of exactly the same quote in the same context, all with no further commentary on the quote or the campaign. That doesn't sounds like third-party support for notability of the campaign. DMacks 21:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm changing my vote to merge (see below)--Cailil ^talk 20:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This article describes an attempt by the Discovery Institute to place religious dogma into public school curriculum. It's the same as Intelligent Design, Teach the controversy, the Wedge document and numerous other articles on the same topic. Orangemarlin 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per OrangeMarlin; this is a notable DI campaign, and the article is supported by multiple independent sources. Guettarda 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per OM and Guettarda. •Jim62sch• 21:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong Keep I cannot imagine why on earth this article is not worthy of keeping. Basically the Discovery Institute has made itself prominent in the public sphere by its lobbying and public relations efforts. And all of its related activities are clearly of encyclopedic importance, including the campaign that is the subject of this article. I am certain that more material will be available to add to this article to flesh it out.--Filll 22:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Is this about a specific name campaign, or the general idea of "free speech on evolution," ? If the second, ID and related articles cover the ground very thoroughly. So it would have to be a specific campaign. Given that the discovery Institute is notable, not everything it does is. There is no reason to think a particular campaign notable unless it ha independently been the subject of notice.

Ref #1 is about ID, not this campaign in particular; so is #2, which uses the term in the generic sense only. #3 talks about many things, of which evolution under any wording is a minor part, #4 is generic "who don't believe in free speech on evolution," he explains." --that is not talking about any specific campaign. #5 is about ID in general and even says so. #6 doesn't even mention the phrase. #7 uses the title for the campaign, without in any way showing how it might differ from any of its other initiatives. In any case, it's an internal PR from the Institute and not an independent source. #8 doesn't mention the phrase. #9 doesn't mention the phrase. #10 is the 2nd part of #7, and in any case not independent. #11, again from the institute, doesn't mention the phrase. #12, also from the institute, uses the phrase .

so who considers this campaign a significant separate initiative-- First, even the institute itself doesn't seem to do so consistently. Second, there is no reference from a supporter of the Institute's position that uses the phrase--not even Bush. Third, there is no reference from an opponent of the position that uses the phrase.

I think that settles it--not a POV fork, exactly, but an attempt to use something not notable without a single independent reference to the phrase as a specific title of anything, to provide another place to discuss the controversy over the institute and ID. It's about as notable as calling it "Intelligent Design, argument continued into 2007" DGG 00:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, the Discovery Institute itself calls it a campaign: "Join The Free Speech on Evolution Campaign" Does anyone actually bother to read the sources provided there? FeloniousMonk 02:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Good article on a notable branch of the Discovery Institute's well-documented PR campaign to foist ID off as science. I don't see any genuine issues with the sources provided; some of the most strentuous objections here appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the guidelines for the proper use of primary sources. FeloniousMonk 01:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I read through them all, and , somewhat to my surprise, found that though they call it that twice, nobody else does. Nobody at all. Not their supporters, not their opponents. And they don't even do it consistently--see the other refs. There are zero independent refs to their use of the word. We will be the first. WP is not in the business of spreading the PR that nobody in the world has noticed.DGG 03:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? Sure about that?"I'm on the Discovery Institute's enemies list now. They have this thing called "the free speech on evolution campaign"..." PZ Myers at Pharyngula (blog). "Stephen Meyer and Jonathan Wells instead presented a "compromise", talking about having teachers "teach the controversy". One may dredge the DI web site for any of sundry press releases and commentaries where they espouse other catchphrases as well. On their "evolutionnews" weblog, one can easily find the DI "free speech on evolution" campaign page." Wesley R. Elsberry at The Panda's Thumb (blog). These are sources from the leading ID critics made at some of the leading venues where ID is debated. And before everyone jumps on the fact that these are blogs, both Pharyngula and The Panda's Thumb have been both widely accepted as reliable sources at Wikipedia for several years now. Pharyngula because it is a credible member of ScienceBlogs, a project of Seed magazine, and Panda's Thumb because of the respect it has garned within the scientific community and the high percentage of participation of that same community there. FeloniousMonk 05:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete: Awful article, might be some content to merge to [[Discovery Institute; The campaign is... somewhat noteworthy, but made out as more notable than it is. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per FeloniousMonk. --Ian Pitchford 07:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't really see a NPoV reason not to keep it now that more sources have been added (though I can understand Martialis' view when the AfD was opened). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep as per Odd nature and Orangemarlin. However, I would suggest considering merging into this article; it's not (yet?) obvious to me that this particular campaign is notable enough for its own article, but it certainly would fit into a larger, more general article on the Discovery Institute's disinformation campaigns. As an aside, this article was nominated for deletion only four days after its creation. Given this timescale, in future it might be more sensible to first encourage its creator/main editors to add sources for notability before nominating it for deletion on these grounds. The campaign the article describes stems from a notable organisation after all. --Plumbago 08:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. OK sourcing, not especially notable yet as a term. It does appear to be a strategy, though. Jokestress 19:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - I've changed my position following the additional sources and the comments of FeloniousMonk. I still have serious concerns about the articles sourcing since if we accept FeloniousMonk's argument there are, perhaps, 2 reliable sources. However I think Adam Cuerden's suggestion to merge this article with Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns is very reasonable. The subject of this article is not particularly notable and can't be sourced well enough to justify having its own page, especially when a summary article about this organization's other campaigns already exists--Cailil ^talk 20:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. While not a major campaign, it's sufficiently notable both on its own and as a link-to in the WP series on Intelligent design. I don't know of any other uses for "Free Speech on Evolution" other than this usage in the context of the Discovery Institute's campaign to argue that the "freedom of speech" clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution trumps the establishment clause of the First Amendment in the view of advocates of teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in the US public schools. So I wouldn't go by the Google standard of notability in this case--It's more notable than, say, Hickam's dictum. ... Kenosis 20:50, 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 delete. >Radiant< 08:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In Concert: New Rock 94-44, disc 2 of 2

In Concert: New Rock 94-44, disc 2 of 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Second nomination, first time kept, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Concert: New Rock 94-44, disc 2 of 2. However, as far as I can tell, this is a bootleg CD of a promotional radio concert they gave, it is not and has not been officially available, is not listed on Cranberries.com, gets only 11 Google hits apart from Wikipedia[10], ale of them just listing it in a discography (all presumably from the same source, but which one?). No actual verifiable sources about this album (notice the lack of info on "disc 1 of 2", which would be amazing for a real Cranberries (or Pretenders) album? Fails WP:MUSIC and fails in fact even WP:V currently (and I doubt anything reliable beyond a primary source exists currently). Fram 14:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 17:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as a non-notable unofficial bootleg. tomasz. 22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)q
• Delete as a non-notable recording never intended for release to the public. --Metropolitan90 04:45, 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 delete. --Coredesat 04:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emergence phenomenon

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

This article is poorly written and has remained so for a number of months without any editor touching it. The way in which it is written means that the article is not useful in any way, and until somebody comes along and completely starts again from scratch, I think we'd be better off without it. This is a contested prod. John24601 16:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete- Not only does the IP user 75.214.38.201 appear to be very single-purpose, they even removed the cleanup tag! It looks like this information belongs in a medical dictionary, or might even be a neologism. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 17:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-The article is unreadably bad as it stands, and appears to describe a set of symptoms occuring when people awake from anaesthesia, although you have to read to the end of the 'article', and have a bit of medical knowledge to realise this even then. It also looks like it's been cut and pasted from another source. "Emergence phenomenon" only gets 176 hits on Google, not much as emergence phenomenon is also a statistical term, as well as a business and psychological one. It's awful, let's get rid of it.FelixFelix ^talk 19:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Why not just redirect to anaesthesia? Pascal.Tesson 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• While redirects are cheap, do we even want to keep neologisms around? Is it a plausible search term, or a suitable synonym? Or maybe {{R from related word}}? -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 20:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Redirect - it is often inadvisable to redirect a sub-topic to its parent, especially in cases like this where the sub-topic is such a miniscule area which doesn't have its own section in the parent topic article. --John24601 21:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - as a phrase, PubMed fails to recognise the term. No evidence provided that reliable sources consider the term valid or in routine use, and as at best trivia therefore need not be included at all. Delete the jibberish. David Ruben ^Talk 22:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Remove the article, and if there is any valid content it could form a subheading as part of anaethesia. Owain.davies 07:34, 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 delete. --Coredesat 04:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beef Wellington (wrestler)

Beef Wellington (wrestler) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prod contested without improvement. Non notable minor league wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable wrestler, agree with Hackney 100% Hellswasteland 17:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom Nikki311 23:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete another wrestler with no real name to search databases, because this is written totally in keyfab, the wrestler can't be properly cited, there for fails WP:BIO/Athlete. Govvy 09:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sami Rintala

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

Architect of somewhat lacking notability. No sources beyond subject's own web site. Article was edited as part of an astroturfing campaign centered around Marco Casagrande, but those edits have been reverted. Even in the reverted state, the article reads like spam for the man and his firm. DarkAudit 16:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - No proof of notability or association with any notable projects. Looks more like a preformance artist than an architect. 99DBSIMLR 17:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 13:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aestheticization of violence

Aestheticization of violence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I struggled with this nomination as it is obvious that a lot of work has gone into this article, and all edits were made in good faith. However, the article is plagued with original research, and I doubt that this topic could ever satisfy the grounds of Wikipedia:No Original Research. DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This actually looks like a well reseached and sourced article. In fact, I don't even see that much Orginial Research. If you allege orginial research, you should show at least a few examples. I see tons of things that say "____" said that: "________". The problems with sourcing that I see are a few sections under film and video, and even there, most are sourced.Fimbulwintr 20:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. This is a difficult one, and I understand the struggle with the nomination. It's similar to its sister article Aestheticization as propaganda. Both articles have problems of borderline or overt violations of WP:OR (the film section in this article is particularly problematic) and both are somewhat confusing and/or seemingly off topic at points (also the topic as a whole is somewhat ill defined). They are too much like personal essays, and the basic core of both articles seems to have come from User:David91, apparently a respected editor who said he was going into the hospital for a few days over a year ago and has not been heard from since. Because this article, and its sister article, bear a strong imprint from an editor who is no longer active (we can only hope by his own choice) and because they are very esoteric, it is difficult to see how to go about fixing their weaknesses and turning them into good wikipedia articles. It seems like some people are trying, but I'm skeptical. Nonetheless I think the article should be kept for now as I think it is a legitimate topic worthy of wikipedia, it just needs a lot of work and it might ultimately have to be abandoned. I recommend an essay tag like the one at the top of Aestheticization as propaganda.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• keep the concept is commonly bandied about, & there's certainly a lot of what it refers to out there. other problems (essay, wp:or etc) should be dealt with by editing the article, regardless of nominator's inability to conceive of this  ⇒ bsnowball  10:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• keep basically it just needs a lot of work, but not scraping and re-starting. Whist there is a lot of OR in the article, the subject itself is well documented, and it's just a case of bringing more of that into the article. --Davémon 17:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future pavillion

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

Declined speedy. Article is part of a massive astroturfing campaign centered around Marco Casagrande. As worst, it is spam. At best, it is riddled with conflict of interest. Best to burn it and start over. Wikipedia is not an advertising tool. Astroturfing is willfull abuse of Wikipedia. DarkAudit 16:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as badly-namespaced non-notable artwerk and possible c.o.i. per D.A. tomasz. 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, even the expo it was at isn't linked. Whsitchy 20:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. 99DBSIMLR 17:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all. --JayJasper 14:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Opting for deletion here due to arguments by single-purpose accounts, as well as the fact that the article does not assert any notability. --Coredesat 04:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiggly Worm Productions

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Wiggly Worm Productions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company. Most of the few Google hits are for an unrelated company in the UK. Article creator has removed maintenance tags without improving the article. He had also created bio pages for the principals of the company, which were all A7 speedied. --Finngall ^talk 15:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't even assert notability, let alone have any. tomasz. 16:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Part of an underground scene and recognized by many more than you would think. Recognized in the IMDB, was easier accessed in google 3-4 years ago, but that just makes it history. User: CharlesHackley
• keep. don't see a reason why it should be deleted. google hits mean nothing. opiomi — Opiomi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• keep. User: Skeetown — Skeetown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete as NN company. Wildthing61476 20:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Unnotable indy film company. All mentioned individuals and films are also unnotable. No refs from third party sources. 99DBSIMLR 17:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Smacks of suckpuppetry. 99DBSIMLR 17:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If anyone wants the content to translate into English, I will userfy. W.marsh 16:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Topoliana

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

Listed on Pages Needing Translation for more than two weeks, so per guidelines there, sending to AfD. Essayic piece about a really small village. I'd asked a greek-speaker on Wikipedia to review it, and he said, "the article you aked me to translate refers to a tiny tiny village in central Greece. I don't know wether it deserves its place in the (current sized) wikipedia either. Check for example the size of the article about Karpenisi which is the capital of the whole prefecture the village belongs to." Given that, I hardly think that this is notable enough to keep, so besides listing it here, I'm advocating delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akradecki (talk • contribs)

• Delete - agree with akradecki. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - agree with akradecki.  Andreas  ^(T) 20:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Addendum: I am mainly concerned about the essay-like style of the article. It is not ready to be translated. At most, it should first be transwikied into el:Τοπόλιανα and made into a proper article before appearing here.  Andreas  ^(T) 13:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep - Villages are notable regardless of their size, so, the second half of the deletion reason presented should be discounted. It wouldn't take long to find several US towns which are of the same population as this village; and countering WP:BIAS should always be on our minds. Unfortunately, none of the article is in English. There are google hits that verify that it is a place, though. Neier 01:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - "Villages are notable regardless of their size" - can you point me to the guideline that says this? Wikipedia:Notability makes no mention of this criteria. Also, are you willing to translate the article? AKRadecki 02:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Cities_and_shops is not a guideline, but, I don't remember any AFD for a city/town being successful based on its lack of size. Neier 02:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete given that it is all in Greek. Would support retention of an English language stub or translation of the article (assuming that it is worth translating). Capitalistroadster 02:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is one of the places where I think an arbitrary guideline of "all" is appropriate, and this has been repeatedly said at AfD and always upheld. Otherwise where exactly would the cutoff go? DGG 01:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Translate and keep, if someone were to translate it. -Yupik 10:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ninja (TV series)

Ninja (TV series) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Procedural AfD, prod tag removed by author. I can find NO sources reagrding this "show". IMDB does no list this or any of the actors/actress. Possible hoax? Wildthing61476 15:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete in the spirit of CSD A1. It's not very short, but it has no context and no way of improving itself. YechielMan 16:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, possible spam, possible c.o.i. It's namespaced as a tv show, but i think the clue is in the little 'net link under the first line: "www.btinternet.com/ninjatv". Looks like another non-notable d.i.y. Web TV phenomenon. tomasz. 16:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. No sources to verify --† Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 16:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above. Carlossuarez46 20:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Agnes Fitzgerald

Mary Agnes Fitzgerald (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Given the complaints about non notable Arbuthnots and their comparison to the Kennedys [11] it only seems fair to judge them all equally- so, Delete this Kennedy as non notable. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Being the relative of someone notable doesn't necessarily make that person notable as well. The only real thing that she became newsworthy for was dying at a relative young age which some people attribute to a "Kennedy curse", but even that's a huge stretch. Not much of else can be written about her. --† Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 16:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Apparently this one did not even die young, but was the 1882-1936 one rather than the 1936-1940 one. Notability does not automatically transfer to relatives. Already has a box in the Kennedy family tree in Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy which seems quite sufficient. Edison 18:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article creator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --Coredesat 04:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Casagrande & Rintala

Casagrande & Rintala (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is part of the massive astroturfing campaign centered around Marco Casagrande. No sources are provided to verify any claims. Astroturfing is spam and willful abuse of Wikipedia to further one's own ends. DarkAudit 15:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per DarkAudit. Massive campaign of meatpuppets to promote Casagrande. --Spike Wilbury 16:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Puppetry confirmed Best to burn this one and start over. DarkAudit 18:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Crikey. Delete per spamness, c.o.i., sockpuppetry. tomasz. 22:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Procedural non-admin closure. YechielMan 18:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heroes of Azerbaijan

Heroes of Azerbaijan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is unsourced opinion. There may or may not be an award of a similar name awarded by the Azerbaijan government, but an article should focus on the fact that it's the government's opinion and on the official nature of the award. The link provided is not in English, so I can't tell whether it's just one more person's opinion. In general, the article hopelessly POV and a guaranteed source of edit wars. Imagine Rush Limbaugh and Al Gore preparing lists of "Heroes of America" and comparing them. Might be a recreation of deleted material, but I don't know what the old page name was. Richfife 15:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Richfife, first of all, why are you rushing to nominate articles for deletion? You wrote a few hours ago: "OK then, if I don't get some evidence that this is an official award in the next day or two, I'm going to nominate the article for deletion as original research. - Richfife 18:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)". Note that day or two have not passed yet. Secondly, English-language sources have already been provided. As you see, this is not an unsourced opinion. See the article's Talk for more. ---Zondi 16:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Withdraw nom Zondi has provided the necessary backup for most of the article except the last entry (Babak). More on the talk page - Richfife 16:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep seems legit. JJL 16:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Albanian Brewing Company

New Albanian Brewing Company (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is regarding a microbrewery in Indiana. Speedy was contested, so bringing to AfD. Unlike the Bluegrass Brewing Company, which has won awards for it's beer, I can't find where this establishment meets WP:CORP Wildthing61476 15:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete 600 ghits, mostly of local interest. NN per corporation guidelines. YechielMan 16:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Twotone drumsticks

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

This is basically an advertisement as well as being a copy of this page. Speedy contested several times. ... discospinster _talk 15:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as spam and copyvio. tomasz. 15:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete reads like an advert. --† Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 16:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Genesis covers

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

Delete - see for precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs covered by Jimi Hendrix. That an artist sang another artist's song live is generally not notable and is likely not verifiable. Notable cover versions should be noted in an article for the song and/or a discography for the cover artist. Otto4711 15:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per my reasoning @ Hendrix. tomasz. 15:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Whereas I believe official covers of an artist are verifiable and possibly encyclopedic covers by an artist can get unruly because of the grey areas of distinctions of what counts as an official cover and whether that is the intent of this list. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This is covers of Genesis, not covers by Genesis. –Unint 00:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No reason to fork this stuff out into its own article, if it is verifiable then it should be included with the rest of Genesis' discography instead of on its own. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic. JJL 16:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 17:56, 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 delete. Prematurely closed per Mangojuice below, and also as a potentially dangerous hoax that might be used to support an investment scam (I've seen similar cases). The dyslexic puppets have all been blocked, too.

Any law enforcement personnel that need to view this article's contents can click here to contact me, or they can contact any other administrator. Sandstein 18:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Rosner

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

Contested prod; listing here after prod tag was re-added by Oscarthecat. Prod reason was "No sources and unverifiable." I am neutral. Mangojuice^talk 15:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

• Do not remove this artivle evidence has been put on this article anx it threfore is perfectly coherent. Trust me I know the person personally. Sincerley Yours —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Rosner Family (talk • contribs).

• I think this article is perfectly adequate and the information is verifiable and the sources are presnet. Yet i trully beleive that this article should be kept just like Wikipedia does for millions of others . I am in perfec understanding with this article and I wish it stays

Lets give this article a try without any Warning and lets see how it does??? Oscarthecat i trully beleive this article is coherent. Give it a try take out the Warning......

I like this article reallyUser:Wkikfamilyboy

• Article must stay, its info is correct and Well said User:Jackieboy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikifamilyboy (talk • contribs). — Wikifamilyboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Article is very nice...i suggest we keep it ,Da trick. — Da trick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Should we keep it.. I VOTE YES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.235.231 (talk • contribs) — 82.120.235.231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• It's a no from me - in that it contravenes basic Wikipedia stuff - being an article about the author's father Georgethe23rd 16:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and discount meatpuppetry This is not a vote. There is a decided lack of reliable or verifiable sources, and an admitted conflict of interest. It is not good practice for one to write an article about one's own father. 'I know the person personally' is not an acceptable argument. DarkAudit 16:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as being not particularly notable (imagine the headline "Man in Makes Lots of Money Shock" hmmm.) and the conflict of interest so comically displayed above. tomasz. 16:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; Google search does not turn up much by way of notability or verifiable sources; puppetfest; COI. --MCB 17:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Claim of net worth not supported - not on Forbes' list of billionaires; puts credibility of article in doubt. Lack of reliable sources. Clarityfiend 17:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I think Forbes' is more reliable than Merril Lynch personally. Are the puppets reported? Whsitchy 17:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Listed the puppets at the sock reporting page, should be taken care of. Whsitchy 17:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merril Lynch is the worlds most powerful private bank with Capgimini..Sorry ot say but yes it is more reliable than forbes as it has a gvtmental aspect and number accesability

but hey if you want to delete it delete it but you know that we could keep this page whilst taking out the info that bothers people no? — 82.120.235.231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• The Merrill Lynch "reference" does not make any mention of Rosner that I can see. Clarityfiend 18:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Certain COI, non-verifiable content, shameful meat puppetry - all together certain delete. Bigdaddy1981 19:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Yahoo! search comes up with an astrophysicist instead of this guy. Add suspected hoax to the list. Whsitchy 19:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I like this article, and for your personal info it happens that two people have the same name,the fact that robert rosner exist and is the founder of vestar is not debatable just go on the site he is right there,now the fact that merril lynch doesnt publish his name is normal because he is a private,for sure the info is valid!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.253.141.80 (talk • contribs)

• Comment He does exist but... all the top hits on Google as well turn up the astrophysicist. Adding Vestar to the search field comes up with less than 500. Whsitchy 22:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Since you admit the Merrill Lynch (interesting that you misspell it the same way as the article) reference doesn't mention him, why is it even included? Clarityfiend 23:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Delete as corrected by Whstchy. this is a variant on our problem with little known languages, where we can't evaluate the importance of publications unless they're in English. --we in general are not familiar with the standards and the sources and what makes for notability in the business world. As a working standard, I'd consider using something easy to determine and quantifiable, such as the $1 billion threshold. DGG 01:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There's no proof of having $1 billion though. That's the thing. --Whsitchy 01:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, he is not on the Forbes list referenced. He may be in the ML report, but we'd need a quote from it from someone who has access. DGG 04:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merril Lynch is spelt this way and it is correctly spelt in the article.. But how many times are we going to say it . Delete this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.235.67 (talk • contribs)

• "Hello fellow webmasters, i hear there seems to be an issue with the Merril Lynch report. Well luckely for you , I work in the Merril Lynch paris office and I know as a fact the presence of Mr Rosner if you would like me too i could send a PDF page which we could post on this page which states his presence on the Merril Lynch report would that help. I dont personally know rosner but I know that he owns this private equity firm and that he is on this report and that he does live in Paris. All I know is that their is no lie on this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BobyMerril (talk • contribs).

• Note: as "BobyMerril" has recently recreated the page on the company Rosner works for, again copying most of the text from the Vestar website, and the above is patently unbelievable, I have blocked him as an abusive sockpuppet. I find it really odd that this guy is supposed to be a billionaire and yet his article is being supported almost exclusively by new accounts that can't spell. If there aren't any keep comments from established users by the end of today, I'm going to delete this as a hoax and per WP:SNOW. Mangojuice^talk 14:43, 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 delete. --Coredesat 04:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pumpkin-headed deer

Pumpkin-headed deer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Deers with their heads in punpkins? Funny but a bit too much of a trivia thing to be encyclopedic, I think. Maybe there is something here to include in a artice about wild animals behaviour in a human environment - is there any out there? - but is not enough to stand on its own. - Nabla 14:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Classic example of interesting-but-not-notable. --Stlemur 14:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with deer by creating a section about the interaction between humans and deer. --Masamage ♫ 15:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as trivia, this is for the That's Life! (or similar wacky section) page of something like Reader's Digest but is too broad and trivial to make a meaningful encyclopaedia article from. Shame, as from the name i was expecting some kind of new frontier in genetic engineering. tomasz. 16:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Humorous bit of news trivia, but nothing to indicate this is a verifiable phenomenon worthy of an encyclopedia article. There is some potential for inclusion of some of the sources in the deer article but again, it is largely trivial so I'm not sure a merge is warranted. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A good illustration that not every water-cooler story belongs in an encyclopedia, even if it is on TV and in several newspapers. See the essay WP:NOTNEWS for more discussion. Edison 18:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not suitable for an encyclopedia; although its an amusing story. Bigdaddy1981 19:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as trivia (should we have an article on every possible amusing-animal-event?), and note that none of the references actually seem to be of incidents involving pumpkins. Also see Least-Notable Wikipedia Article Contest Results - I pretty much agree with the reasoning given here. Mdwh 21:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is not paper. If I saw a pumpkin-headed deer I would want to be able to look up what it was all about and what to do about it. If this is indeed a common occurence and not just a one time thing, it deserves its article. Stevecudmore 16:56, 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 delete. --Coredesat 04:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marky Mark (wrestler)

Marky Mark (wrestler) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable wrestler, no reliable references or citations Od Mishehu 14:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• DO NOT Delete - Top Alberta wrestler, Referenced on bothe the Prairie Wrestling ALliance and Stampede wrestling websites. Recently won Edmonton's Boxing And Wrestling Commission Wrestler of the Year award. 13:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable wrestler, no reliable references or citations. Hellswasteland 16:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no independent sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I can't imagine even the most hardcore "smark" would be able to prove the subject's notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no proof of nobility Nikki311 23:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Although I did find some stuff on a google search, there is too much interference from the other Marky Mark to make this wrestler stand out. He should of chosen a better name!! Govvy 09:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; while I have heard of him, he isn't exactly a household name. McPhail 13:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars Battlefront III

Star Wars Battlefront III (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP is not a crystal ball. Unsourced speculative information. Speedied before, but recreated, so let's get an official AFD behind keeping it deleted until such a time as well sourced information is availible. TexasAndroid 13:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm going to be bold and declare a snow delete per this one line:

  Please keep in mind that this game has yet to even be officially announced by LucasArts or Free Radical, and all of this information is speculative.

  Whsitchy 14:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keeping it in mind. Speedy delete. tomasz. 15:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I say to delete or sandbox it until there is enough verifiable information on the game to justify an article. Hellswasteland 17:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, purely as self-admitted crystalballery. Hooboy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The Force is not strong in this one. Cheers, Lanky (TALK) 13:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Look at the IMAGE ON THE PAGE!! Sanchmarc (TALK) 2:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. According to that image's usage rationale, it was created by user:Sanchmarc and therefore represents no change to this article's crystalballery per the fact "that this game has yet to even be officially announced by LucasArts or Free Radical, and all of this information is speculative". tomasz. 07:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• I looked at the image on the page. Very pretty. My !vote stands as delete. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• OK, I looked at the image, and then I looked at the image history, on which you said, "I JUST WISH IT REALLY CAME OUT!!!". That was two days ago. Care to explain why this is notable now, and why you want us to keep it? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Speculation, as per above. Maintainerzero 19:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Reply. WELL, I DON'T MIND THE PAGE BEING DELETED, BUT THE IMAGE I'LL KEEP MYSELF FOR USES! =) If Anyone Wants to Use It, GIVE ME CREDIT BABY!Sanchmarc (TALK) 11:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate vote. (User already expressed himself previously on this AFD.) - TexasAndroid 18:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm a little unclear. Is this permissable use of the imaging system? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All mentions about this game on the search engine are purely speculative forum topics. This implies crystalballing on the article's behalf.--Kylohk 09:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply. You Never Really Know if This Game will Really Come Out So I Myself will eventually keep the Image for Now. If it's Deleted, It's Deleted....I Won't Leave the Image on Wikipedia for Sure So... I'll Leave it on My Comp.. Sanchmarc

• Well, here's the skinny, Sanchmarc. No, we don't know if the game is coming out - which is why it's brought here in the first place. Speculation of the release of the game is what I like to call "crystalballery", which I loosely define as dubious predictions of future events with no concrete information saying that this will definitely happen (such as, say, an article about the thirteenth sequel to the Police Academy series of films) - and one really important thing that WP is not is a crystal ball. I won't delete the image, it's up to someone else as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for your understanding. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs that contain U.S. city, state, or regional names in its title

List of songs that contain U.S. city, state, or regional names in its title (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. These songs have nothing in common beyond happening to mention the name of a US geographical subdivision in the title and the inclusion criteria are far too broad. Otto4711 13:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This horrible list of tenuously-connected information will be pretty much impossible to ever finish and would get up to approximately 1,000,000,000 bytes before you can say "April 29, 1992 (Miami)". tomasz. 13:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for all of the reasons stated above. --Kyoko 14:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete what's with all the song lists coming up? Whsitchy 14:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. I wish I could somehow cast a !vote to delete all of these "List of songs with whatever in the title" because they all fail inclusion guidelines for the same reason - a list of loosely related topics per WP:NOT. There is no reason to categorize (or listify) songs based on arbitrary elements of their titles. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Loose criteria. Very difficult to even update. --† Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate lists of loosely connected things. Goodnightmush^Talk 02:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 18:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unmaintainable list at the extreme end of fan cruft.Blueboy96 19:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom., and all. --JayJasper 14:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 17:56, 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 keep. W.marsh 16:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vaginal flatulence

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

Maybe a sourced encyclopaedic article can be written on this topic, but this is not it, and a ten minute Google search which left me wanting to wash my computer did not reveal anything credible on which to base it. The article has some sources which are dead external links, some which are about something else (fistula, a valid and well-covered topic), and at least one which is utterly risible (a link to the IMDB profile of a film which is asserted to include this). None of the supposed sources in this article actually supports the subject. None of the sources I could find is actually a valid, attributable source. Lots of forums, of course. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Another farcical article in which the references bear no relation whatsoever to the topic that is being discussed. Unreferenced articles get deleted. Moreschi ^Talk 13:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• The humourous slang dictionary published by Viz is utterly risible, too, surely? Uncle G 14:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note that Garrigues (Henry Jacques Garrigues (1905). Gynecology, medical and surgical. Lippincott, 163. ) documents "Garrulity of the vulva, or flatus vaginalis", as do Crossen (Harry Sturgeon Crossen (1922). Diseases of Women. C. V. Mosby, 372. ) and Thomas (Theodore Gaillard Thomas (1891). A Practical treatise on the diseases of women. Lea Bros, 168. ). Uncle G 14:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I removed the promotional link to one porn movie. What remains, though there are a couple of broken links, seems like pretty decently written, encyclopedic material to me. There's no emergency of sourcing here, it will eventually improve. Mangojuice^talk 15:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep And add more sources etc. But the article is encyclopaedic Lurker 15:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Somewhat marginal, and perhaps there is a satisfactory merge target for something like this, perhaps regarding other vaginal health issues. However there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this article, it seems sourced and encyclopedic, could use a little more work but no reason to delete. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A real phenomenon, so far sourced barely adequately. Needs continued serch for good sources, perhaps non-Google in medicval texts. Edison 18:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a real phenomenon. The article needs work but is not un-encyclopaedic in any particular way, especially if porn links have been removed. Mumun 無文 19:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The possible view than sexual topics are unlikely to have adequate sources has been defeated here by the existence of reliable medical articles. But I see no reason to remove working links to examples from pornography. (as distinct from dead links--these need checking even more frequently than other internet links.DGG 01:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Just because it is sexual and somewhat out of the norm for discussion doesn't make it any less real. I agree that sources are important, but it can be very difficult to find sources on these types of topics. I also see no reason to remove valid links just because they are considered pornographic in nature if they are valid references, keep them.lbutler 46 19:34, 31 May 2007 UTC
• Keep This does happen and a well rounded encyclopedia should include details on why and what can be done about it. Triddle 21:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep queefs are as much a biological occurance as sneezing is, i'm sure we've got an article on sneezing.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 17:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iowa's 1st congressional district election, 2006

Iowa's 1st congressional district election, 2006 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NPOV problems, unref'd, half the article is a little bio for the losing side. 99DBSIMLR 13:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - article topic seems in line with Category:United States House of Representatives elections by state and Congressional elections are pretty much notable by definition. Slap the appropriate clean-up tags on it. Otto4711 13:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Changing to Merge and redirect per Davewild. I think the election article is the better merge target since both articles are strictly about the election and not the district as a whole. Otto4711 19:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Otto.  RGTraynor  14:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm no fan of this type of article - I don't think Wikipedia should be an elections compendium - but my personal opinion here is a moot point. It passes inclusion criteria. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - There's much better information about the election found in this article: Iowa's 1st congressional district. Maybe a merger is in order. 99DBSIMLR 17:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• DELETE — Article is now outdated. The pertinent information that readers will find most useful is included in the article Iowa's congressional elections, 2006. [[Briguy52748 17:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)]]
• Merge and redirect to Iowa's congressional elections, 2006. Valid article topic but see nothing that cannot be incorporated within the main article on the 2006 elections in Iowa. A sepearate article would only be valid if there was too much information to fit on the main article. Davewild 18:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• merge to Iowa's congressional elections, 2006 and Iowa's 1st congressional district. Pretty much anything can be covered in those. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This article is about a notable event and has lots of company at Category:United States House of Representatives elections by state. Lots o' tags exist to request cleanup, as required; deletion is not the solution. Alansohn 04:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect (unless expanded at the time of closing). This article is not large enough to fork off from Iowa's congressional elections, 2006. Looking at Category:United States House of Representatives elections by state, I found that better examples like Texas's 22nd congressional district election, 2006, California's 48th congressional district special election, 2005, and Arizona 1st congressional district election, 2006. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. This content is poorly written. The best factual parts should be salvaged with a merge. Nimur 01:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was launch the WMDs. Krimpet (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs mentioning George W. Bush

List of songs mentioning George W. Bush (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. These songs have nothing in common beyond sharing a word or two in their lyrics. Otto4711 13:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and per the fact that such a list is a honey trap for any non-notables wanting to put up a link to their own eloquent and magnificent anti-Bush polemic. (see #R) tomasz. 13:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a lyrics database. Not only is this not an encyclopedic topic, but per tomasz, it's a magnet for spamvertising, and also this is not the kind of topic Wikipedia does well. Someone who wants to learn about this, there are loads of lyrics sites out there with search features. Mangojuice^talk 15:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:OR. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete what the.... stop this now before it spreads - argh!!! Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 16:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Categorify - useful category. The Evil Spartan 17:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, we already have a list of songs mentioning presidents. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Question what list is that? I don't see it; I see the much longer List of songs about Ronald Reagan and the category Category:Songs_criticizing_George_W._Bush_administration.DGG 01:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Categorify and delete. This appears to be more suitable as a cat. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 17:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and oppose categorifying. Having a collection of both songs that support and criticize Bush or just mentions his name can hardly be of any encyclopedic use. Pax:Vobiscum 18:42, 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 delete. --Coredesat 05:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lon ton tui

Lon ton tui (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I can find no evidence to verify this information, which seems a probable hoax. Prod removed by creator. FisherQueen (Talk) 13:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Got into magic watching Paul Daniels on telly... big in China, is he? Sacked for participating in illegal camel racing? Award from teen pop music publication Smash Hits? Died in a lawnmower incident? Everything about this screams bored Western schoolkids being "hilarious" in lunch break, delete as bad joke/hoax with extreme prejudice. tomasz. 13:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If he saw Daniels on TV at the age of 12 that would have been in 1959 or 1960. However, Paul Daniels tells us that "Daniels made his television debut on Opportunity Knocks in 1970". The rest of the piece looks like bollocks too. BTLizard 13:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: fails WP:V and probably WP:NFT and WP:BULLSHIT as well. This is the sole Wiki activity of the creator and the anon IP doing most of the editing.  RGTraynor  14:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources, probably made up, discount this commment if it is shown that the subject actually exists. Abeg92contribs 14:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant hoax. The "poem" linked in the article isn't even Chinese. Who knows what it's actually about? Deranged bulbasaur 14:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD something or other; deletion requested by page creator. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Execution of Witches

Execution of Witches (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

For background on this issue see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of witches executed. This is essentially the same sort of list as the previous one on Afd, just better formatted. I'm sympathetic to the author's argument that this is not a copyvio, given that it's a list based on objective criteria for inclusion, and thus not a creative work. Nevertheless, I think it should be deleted for all the reasons given in the previous nom. (namely that the people listed here are mostly not notable subjects and that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). It also cannot be proved that any of these people were actually witches as the article title implies. Furthermore, some of these deaths seem not to be executions of witches (there are some peculiar inclusions like murders and juvenile suicides). Deranged bulbasaur 12:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that this was originally a PROD, but the template was removed by the author without comment. Deranged bulbasaur 13:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as broad-ranging, patchy list which could never be completed, and being in same vein as previously-deleted other list. tomasz. 13:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as requires complete rewrite. PROD was deleted accidentally. Canadiandude_007 15:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honey Balani

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

single mention in a periodical does not warrant wiki entry Northfox 12:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable, she was "in the right place at the right time" even for the article. It could have been any outsourced assistant whatsit and the article will likely never be more than a stub. tomasz. 13:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Although I somewhat disagree about a single mention in a periodical not warranting inclusion in wikipedia (I believe it depends on what the person has been mentioned for), I do agree that this specific person is not notable enough to have an article on Wiki. The fact that it is a stub explains it all, there is simply not enough notable information to back up a full article. Hellswasteland 17:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Destination X Hawaii

Destination X Hawaii (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable production raised in a recent AfD debate. As it happens, a directed Google search for this show (leaving out this article, Myspace and Youtube) turns up only 54 unique hits, which is a cut beyond awful for a show actually airing where people can see it. None of those hits are from a reliable, published, third-party source per WP:V. Furthermore, this is both a WP:SPAM and a WP:COI violation, since User:MichelleWinkofer, the creator of the article, is a public relations staffer working for the program's producer, and her sole Wikipedia activity has been to promote himself and his works; see the previous AfD for details.  RGTraynor  12:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete seems to be a non-notable show available in limited markets on limited networks. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep It was noted in the AFD on the show's producer that it is carried on Dish Network, a satellite channel subscribed to by 20 million viewers, and that it was in the top 25% in some measure of viewership per [12]. Not sure what that site is measuring or how it translates into market share comparable to Nielson ratings. (I would tune it in if my cable system carried it). Edison 18:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Err, inaccurate. That's not in the top 25% of viewership. It's 61st out of 250 in airings. For all we know, those 30 airings could represent 4 AM paid advertisement showings on the Grass Hut Channel.  RGTraynor  19:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There may be 20 million Dish Network subscribers, but Water Channel is an extremely obscure channel in their service. DarkAudit 19:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• "Comment:" I am a newbie to Wikipedia and did not intentionally want to create any violation in the creation of pages for Destination X Hawaii or its creator . I believe I can exercise the WP policy of correction of misinformation though, especially when its infers "disses". Just presenting facts here as is allowed especially if there is misinformation?. The TV series is in fact the most widely distributed travel and educational show ( its not American Idol, sorry) about Hawaii: Thats verified by a third party resource that tracks all shows including educational and travel shows in America.:[13].

The travel and educational series Destination X Hawaii is cast with primarily non caucassions and is about about a culture that seems to get "dissed" quite a bit; Hawaii. It took this culture decades to have the Grammy acknowledge this culture's contribution to media too. The travel and education TV series about Hawaii gets instead the typical "whitebread" perspective and a clear diss to the culture with a remark by an an editor about the suggestions of its airing on the "The Grass Hut" Channel. A listing of all stations that it airs on is listed at the referenced Back Channel Third party tracking site. What Wikipedia policy says an education and travel show has to have a certain Neilson rating? Ask most in the Hawaiin culture how they feel about such disses and suggestions when you put the words Hawaii from our TV series, you get a reply of "Grass Hut" and they will tell you they are typical. The Water Channel is hardly obscure, its two channels down from the Travel Channel on Dish TV. The TV series is also viewable online where editors can see its importantance in revealing the culture, and traditions and spirit of Aloha to viewers. The content and cultural context of the series is important content and often overlooked by the those not interested and those that think Hawaiians all live in grass huts. The show is published online by a third party site that has to approve content and broadcasts only premier programming including Destination X Hawaii and programs from A&E and The Discovery Channel in HD online [http://www.vuze.com/content/BucketBrowse.htm?sp=X&sp=X&sp=X&sp=1&sp=SNAME&sp=SALL&sp=l59&sp=X&sp=S&sp=X&sp=X&sp=1}. So viewers who cant view it like the editor who said he could not get it, can check its content out online and in HD. The site where its broadcast worldwide as well in ipTV and in HD has a strict policy of only accepting significant content there with many other major broadcasters and is not a site that like youtube.com that will take anyone's content as was referenced by another editor as the only site that they came upon with Destination X Hawaii. This is misinformation that simply needs the correction of. The editor also comments that the show is perhaps airing at 4Am, the airing times for each episode are typically 8:30 PM Wednesday in over 39 major markets in the USA every Wednesday night and that is referenced by data on Back Channel Media, a reliable third party resource. #1 Distributed education and travel show in Hawaii, I think it belongs on Wikipedia but let others decide that.--70.181.123.149 22:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)--MichelleWinkofer 22:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment You are an admitted PR flack for the people involved in this show. Your conflict of interest is showing. Wikipedia is not a marketing tool, and you and your tactics need to go elsewhere. DarkAudit 22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia doesn't require high Nielsen ratings. It does require reliable, independent, third-party, published sources which actually discuss the show. We're talking newspaper articles, books, interview transcripts from major news outlets, the like ... not advertising copy on the websites of the obscure channels airing the show. None have been provided.  RGTraynor  13:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete strongly, per nom G1ggy! _{Review me!} 23:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul C. Babin

Paul C. Babin ([http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/p/a/u/Paul_C._Babin_0afb.html edit]|talk|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/p/a/u/Paul_C._Babin_0afb.html history]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/w/h/a/Special%7EWhatlinkshere_Paul_C._Babin_93ea.html links]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/p/a/u/Paul_C._Babin_0afb.html watch]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/l/o/g/Special%7ELog_01d8.html logs]) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure about this one, but I dont think just being on the crew of a bunch of movies satisfies notability. The subject hasn't pioneered any new techniques or did anything extraordinary. 99DBSIMLR 12:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:BIO, WP:V. Only 201 Google hits, almost all of which are crew lists of movies in which he's participated. The article itself, written in a tone more suitable to a Myspace panegyric, is the sole Wiki contribution of the creator.  RGTraynor  13:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as conflict of int., non-notable & non-verifiable. A note of praise from Spielberg is the most noteworthy thing in it but unfortunately WP:BIO does not list "has been complimented by one considered a great in his field" as a criterion. tomasz. 13:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 16:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skydive UL

Skydive UL ([http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/s/k/y/Skydive_UL_2b5f.html edit]|talk|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/s/k/y/Skydive_UL_2b5f.html history]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/w/h/a/Special%7EWhatlinkshere_Skydive_UL_5290.html links]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/s/k/y/Skydive_UL_2b5f.html watch]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/l/o/g/Special%7ELog_01d8.html logs]) – (View AfD)

Article about a student organization that makes no assertion of notibility or has any third party references. 99DBSIMLR 12:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Non notable club. Less than 15 [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22skydive+UL%22&hl=en&safe=off&start=10&sa=N ghits]. No sources provided after being tagged for 11 days. --OnoremDil 12:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable, no sources cited or available. Hut 8.5 12:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Christ on a bike, if we started letting uni clubs & societies have their own pages this'd be Facebook in no time. my uni alone had at least 60. nn. tomasz. 13:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete There's no assertion of notability. We even have a template for this (Template:Db-club). So tagged. Deranged bulbasaur 14:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing early: this article has been entirely rewritten and now only bears a passing resemblance to the nominated article. No delete votes other than the nominator's. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sweat of the brow

Sweat of the brow ([http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/s/w/e/Sweat_of_the_brow.html edit]|talk|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/s/w/e/Sweat_of_the_brow.html history]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/w/h/a/Special%7EWhatlinkshere_Sweat_of_the_brow_5e0b.html links]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/s/w/e/Sweat_of_the_brow.html watch]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/l/o/g/Special%7ELog_01d8.html logs]) – (View AfD)

Article is little more than an unref'd definition. 99DBSIMLR 12:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, very weakly. No, it isn't very good at all. But this is not about the ordinary English meaning of the phrase "sweat of the brow"; it is about a concept existing in European (?) "intellectual property" (i.e. monopoly-franchise) law, whereunder pure effort in compiling unoriginal data may give rise to monopoly rights; it contrasts with U.S. copyright law, which requires at least a smidgen of originality. This text would not be wholly useless to someone who wanted to write a better article on the topic. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• When you see an unreferenced article such as this, go and find references, such as McCarthy's Desk Encyclopedia of Intellectual Property page 428, yourself and make the article better. Deletion is not Cleanup, and is not the only tool in the toolbox. Uncle G 14:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Sure, the English in the article isn't so good but the subject matter is valid and doesn't warrant deletion. --Interesdom 16:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this is an important and notable concept in copyright law, and a major difference between US law and the law of most countries in Europe. Needs improvement, not deletion. DES ^(talk) 22:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I have done some cleanup and wikification. DES ^(talk) 22:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Even though this article contains some mistakes in couple sentences, just needs to be improved. This article is extremely important in copyright law. Daniel 5127 02:38, 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 delete. W.marsh 14:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EOrganisation

EOrganisation ([http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/e/o/r/EOrganisation_a720.html edit]|talk|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/e/o/r/EOrganisation_a720.html history]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/w/h/a/Special%7EWhatlinkshere_EOrganisation_62f1.html links]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/e/o/r/EOrganisation_a720.html watch]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/l/o/g/Special%7ELog_01d8.html logs]) – (View AfD)

Delete: The article is contrary to Wiki policy on neologisms. One or more organisations have put links to the page, but have done so for the same reason: they have put "e" in front Organisation. Leave a message here if you have any comments, or alternative call me on my ePhone. Gavin Collins 11:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• eDelete, eNeologism and original eResearch. tomasz. 12:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was boldly redirected to the existing article at the correct name, per W guice. Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice 12:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Love Stone

Love Stone ([http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/l/o/v/Love_Stone_adf9.html edit]|talk|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/l/o/v/Love_Stone_adf9.html history]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/w/h/a/Special%7EWhatlinkshere_Love_Stone_f98f.html links]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/l/o/v/Love_Stone_adf9.html watch]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/l/o/g/Special%7ELog_01d8.html logs]) – (View AfD)

This should be deleted as it should be caled LoveStoned, and that already has an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Izzy259 (talk • contribs) on May 29, 2007 (11:27 UTC).

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 11:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to "LoveStoned/I Think She Knows Interlude". if someone got the title wrong enough to create an erroneously-named article, there'll probably be more getting it wrong trying to find the original. tomasz. 11:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BlueIllusion OS

BlueIllusion OS ([http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/b/l/u/BlueIllusion_OS_e4f6.html edit]|talk|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/b/l/u/BlueIllusion_OS_e4f6.html history]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/w/h/a/Special%7EWhatlinkshere_BlueIllusion_OS_3645.html links]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/b/l/u/BlueIllusion_OS_e4f6.html watch]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/l/o/g/Special%7ELog_01d8.html logs]) – (View AfD)

Was put up for speedy as spam, not entirely convinced, so passing by here. ^Khukri 11:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: This article has one line of text plus link to vendors website. Have no illusions (blue or otherwise), this is classic spam.--Gavin Collins 12:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Per Gavin Collins. I'm also the original nominator. Also note that the article makes no claim to notability. A google search seems to back up its lack of notability too, since the results are only forum postings and developer lists. --Android Mouse 15:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of assertion of notability. Someguy1221 19:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mangojuice^talk 17:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prolog standards compliance

Prolog standards compliance ([http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/p/r/o/Prolog_standards_compliance.html edit]|talk|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/p/r/o/Prolog_standards_compliance.html history]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/w/h/a/Special%7EWhatlinkshere_Prolog_standards_compliance_082b.html links]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/p/r/o/Prolog_standards_compliance.html watch]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/l/o/g/Special%7ELog_01d8.html logs]) – (View AfD)

This collection of charts appears to me to be an indiscriminate collection of information. FisherQueen (Talk) 11:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The article perhaps belongs in a sandbox at this stage of development. As yet there are no explanations of what the tables mean. But this is on its way. The Prolog programming language is governed by an ISO standard. At present there is no prolog implementations that meet the ISO standard - and this is important. When completed the article will describe how the Prolog programming languages fail in this respect and the implications of this failure. All information will be verifiable, mostly from peer-reviewed publications. I think FisherQueen is being a bit overzealous at this stage. ParkerJones2007 11:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

For those not familiar with Prolog, it's a programming language taught as part of computer science degrees at many (if not most) good universities. ParkerJones2007 11:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think FisherQueen was being overzealous, since as it is now, the article looks like someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia decided to post dozens of completely inscrutable charts for no reason. I don't mean any offense, but articles that are genuinely in progress towards becoming something acceptable don't usually look like that one does. Even if they were explained, that many charts seems highly excessive (to a layperson such as myself, anyway). I am torn about what to vote, since the AFD won't close for five days and I do believe this article may be significantly different then. But my instinct right now is Userfy, with no prejudice against the article being moved back after improvement. Propaniac 16:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree that this seems to be a somewhat indiscriminate collection of information. Propaniac can userfy anytime he wants. Someguy1221 19:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Indiscriminate collection of information?

The information in the tables has almost a one-to-one correspondance with the ISO Prolog standard: ISO/IEC 13211-1^[1]. Are you therefore also claiming that the standard is an indiscriminate collection of information? ParkerJones2007 09:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Also note that Wikipedia is not a mirror for its sources. And I believe perhaps the below comments are the best option, moving this to Wikisource. Large tables of information should contribute to the understanding of a concept, but this is more of a reference. Someguy1221 18:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Idea: Keep article but Wikisource tables

If it is the large number of tables that are the main objection then would it be better to have them in Wikisource while the article summarises the results? From WP:NOT#IINFO, item 9:

"Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic." ParkerJones2007 10:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• idea:pls don't use headings, stuffs up the toc on afd list, thx  ⇒ bsnowball  10:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Give the guy some credit: he made the largest article on Wikipedia! That takes some fortitude. Don't be too hasty about deleting this one: it's a monument to human endurance.  ;) Fifth Rider 21:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I independently found it on Special:Longpages. It's a classic WP:NOT page, but I like the colors. YechielMan 22:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just citing WP:NOT is a bit vague. Could you explain which part you think is relevant? I'm glad you at least like the colours... ParkerJones2007 02:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Hmmm. It is kind of interesting for a specialist. It would be better to have an overview with historical information, how Prolog evolved and how/why it got divergent at the end. Visual Prolog, bad on standardizing but popular is not mentioned at all. Pavel Vozenilek 22:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Summary so far:

• doesn't look like a usual article
  • Inaccurate, look at other articles covering ISO standards ISO 8583, ISO 639:x, there are hundreds.
• looks like an indiscriminate collection of data
  • Inaccurate, the article has 1-1 correspondence with an ISO standard. This is apparent if you look at the standard.
• The article is a mirror for its sources
  • Inaccurate, the article does not mirror its source - just look at the source.
• The article is too long
  • it is long...

(Summary made by User:ParkerJones2007)

I guess people (at least me) expect a bit more narrative article which describes how Prolog had evolved from Edinburg implementation to ISO Prolog and what has happened since then. This is more like engineering table. Pavel Vozenilek 21:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Pavel, as I'm sure you know you're very welcome to contribute to the article and I think your suggestions about the standard's history would definitely improve it. The question being debated here is not whether the article is complete but whether it should exist in the first place. ParkerJones2007 09:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki or move to ISO page. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 22:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Possible Speedy Delete as probable copyvio. See [http://fsl.cs.uiuc.edu/images/9/9c/PrologStandard.pdf this .pdf document] for a copyrighted version of essentially the same content. It would appear that someone copy and pasted from a similar publication, perhaps from an ISO specification or from course materials. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 22:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I wrote (most of) the article. There was no copy and paste. The tables do not appear in the ISO standard (the document you refer to). The only thing they have in common are *some* section headings. The section headings are concepts of a programming language that existed prior to this document. Claiming copyright on them would be like claiming copyright on words like "sodium", "oxygen" and other chemical elements. ParkerJones2007 07:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawing comments pending further study. Deepest Apologies to ParkerJones2007, with an urgent request to provide verifiability from reliable sources - otherwise it may appear to constitute original research which is also forbidden. I still feel it must either constitute a reorganized and reformatted version from unidentified expert sources, or constitute original research if ParkerJones2007 IS "the expert", in which case we may have other issues to deal with, such as a possible conflict of interest or self published sourcing. Nevertheless again I apologize for assuming an apparent copyright violation of someone else's published materials. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 09:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem T-dot, no offence taken. The data is neither original research nor am I the author. They were reported (in summarised form) in a peer-reviewed publication that is cited at the end of the WP article. The publication does not contain the individual results due to space limitations. However, the results are important, that's why I created an article here. I'm of course open to suggestions as to improve formatting and organisation. ParkerJones2007 09:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Change to Keep and Improve, per above retraction of Speedy Delete. Recommend article improvements: Had to go "outside" to learn that this is related to Artificial Intelligence logic and coding, for example. It needs a 2-3 paragraph introductory explanation of what the article is about - to lay a foundation of what the tables mean. Then each table or section needs a paragraph explaining what it means to a lay person. There are plenty of examples that could be used as boilerplate models (not endorsing content, just showing examples of how to make the article useful to the lay person students of the subject): Table of logic symbols, Prolog, MATLAB, Production system. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 15:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per T-Dog G1ggy! _{Review me!} 02:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see reply to T-dot ParkerJones2007 07:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
    • (Might want to reconsider the validity of the Speedy Delete, due to my retraction above). By the way I love the "T-Dog" typo! Better than the original! --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 15:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This is an excellent comparison of Prolog implementations. We've many similar articles on software comparisons. At worst, this could be a transwiki to Wikibooks candidate, where it can be a part of Prolog wikibook (in case others feel that it's too long and collection of indiscriminate information). utcursch | talk 14:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Yup. Utcursch is correct. The article needs work (e.g. tables with only green are excessive), but if we accept the Parker's assurances that this is neither plagiarism nor his own synthesis - and I see no reason not to - then I think it's pretty clear at this point that it is suitable for inclusion. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BBC China, etc.

BBC China ([http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/b/b/c/BBC_China_51db.html edit]|talk|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/b/b/c/BBC_China_51db.html history]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/w/h/a/Special%7EWhatlinkshere_BBC_China_5c5a.html links]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/b/b/c/BBC_China_51db.html watch]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/l/o/g/Special%7ELog_01d8.html logs]) – (View AfD)

China's BBC ([http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/c/h/i/China%27s_BBC_a1a1.html edit]|talk|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/c/h/i/China%27s_BBC_a1a1.html history]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/w/h/a/Special%7EWhatlinkshere_China%27s_BBC_8f02.html links]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/c/h/i/China%27s_BBC_a1a1.html watch]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/l/o/g/Special%7ELog_01d8.html logs])

BBC Chinese Television ([http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/b/b/c/BBC_Chinese_Television_8a3a.html edit]|talk|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/b/b/c/BBC_Chinese_Television_8a3a.html history]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/w/h/a/Special%7EWhatlinkshere_BBC_Chinese_Television_8645.html links]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/b/b/c/BBC_Chinese_Television_8a3a.html watch]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/l/o/g/Special%7ELog_01d8.html logs])

These are all hoaxes, surely? -- RHaworth 10:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, it looks like a hoax. Google test doesn't show anything about BBC China in the context of television. Speedy delete. --Tinctorius 10:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. The Beeb does operate in China but these three articles look like prime tripe. tomasz. 11:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• These appear to be slightly befuddled accounts of the rebranding and the various hiatuses in the distribution of BBC World and BBC World Service Television in China, which we already document in the proper places. Uncle G 12:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and I would have to concur with RHaworth's suggestion that it's a hoax. I think the line "BBC China was planned to be taken off air in order to make room for the new CBeebies" describes a situation that is nigh on impossible. While CBeebies is of course a domestic BBC channel in the UK, the thought that "BBC China" would be taken off air to be replaced with the Teletubbies is more than a bit unlikely. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 20:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I copyedited BBC China a while back to fix the broken English and did think the bit about CBeebies was somewhat dubious. The additional text that's been added since does tip it further towards hoax - Peter Sissons as anchor? Plus [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1107470.stm this.] EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:19, 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 speedy delete per G11 and A7. Sr13 17:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Substance design

Substance design ([http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/s/u/b/Substance_design.html edit]|talk|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/s/u/b/Substance_design.html history]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/w/h/a/Special%7EWhatlinkshere_Substance_design_d088.html links]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/s/u/b/Substance_design.html watch]|[http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/l/o/g/Special%7ELog_01d8.html logs]) – (View AfD)

Spam (?) for non-notable company. Website says "We need some money, will do a great deal for one of our first jobs", so hardly a notable company. Linked person is not relevant. Emeraude 11:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD G11 and A7. No claim at all for notability of this web hosting company is made out in this unreferenced article. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD g11 - spam & nonnotable company. ***Clamster 14:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a POV fork. The fact that the article creator has been POV pushing in this AFD discussion does not help his case, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Coredesat 05:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic English

Looks like a heap of handwaving, or at best a "POV fork". I redirected to English people but that's been undone. The author says he created it due to "University studies" but it seems to contain little information and very little that is sourced. Perhaps it should just be deleted. --Tony Sidaway 10:ef02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• [assumed keep]. No - it starts to investigate the term Ethnic English and its position in UK Law and its grwoing relevance in the UK aurrounding Census and other matters. Tony Sidway simply does not understand the subject. It prossibly does noy conform to his POV - so he wants to delete it rather than discuss it properly. Toxteth34 10:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Ethnicity is defined under UK law both in the race relation act and in other documentation. The English have been defined as a Ethnic Group since 1965. They are NOT a nation however - depending on what you define as a nation. But their ethnicity is English. hence a trial 2007 Census for the UK.Toxteth34 10:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Move to Ethnic classification in the UK, if not already covered. -- RHaworth 11:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well there are already Census 2001 Ethnic Codes and Ethnic groups of the United Kingdom that appear to cover the subject. Uncle G 13:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Tone and content appear to me as being one step removed from being labeled as Racist..--Gavin Collins 12:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to English people. I too have misgivings about the tone. Note that the author removed the AfD tag, which was reinstated by another editor. BTLizard 12:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• keepQuote Tone and content appear to me as being one step removed from being labeled as Racist. NO once again you do not know what you are talking about. The Ethnicity of English people has been recognised since 1965 (RR Act.) As is being furter recognised by changes in the 2007 Census. Try and look at your won predjudices if you think this way. The article is a matter of fact look at the term Ethnic English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toxteth34 (talk • contribs) 2007-05-29 12:43:17
• Delete per above. I'm not as worried about the (really rather non-existent) tone as some of the other editors, but this is a rambling, redundant mess that doesn't "investigate" much of anything at all and looks like a WP:OR violation. Editing and defending this article is the sole Wiki activity of Toxteth34, its creator.  RGTraynor  13:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• I'm curious to know where this idea of a "2007 census" comes from. Census in the United Kingdom occurs every 10 years, the next to occur in 2011. The idea of a "2007 census" appears to come solely from a picture hosted on a lobbyist web site — which also appears to be the origin of the particular idea of "ethnic english" being propounded in this article. Uncle G 13:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• There we are - we have it - you do not truely know the subject matter - there is a change to the Census rules by the Government and introduced by the Government. The Term Ethnic English is now with us - having been dormant for about 30 years. Don't put a delet if you do not know what you are talking about. There is a change to the 2011 Census to better reflect the population mix of the UK. Ethnic English is a government term and has been is use by lawyers for some time. It is going through a trila Census in 2007. Way it is. the term is now being used/ Toxteh34 13:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The 2007 trial is a small voluntary survey to test the census mechanism in preparation for the 2011 census. You can find out about it [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census/2011Census/2011Project/2007test.asp here]. It's of no particular relevance to this discussion, however. BTLizard 13:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I had already found that. It makes it clear that the design of the 2011 U.K. census is still being developed. Both above and in the article, however, Toxteth34 (talk · contribs) writes of a "2007 census", pointing to a lobbyist web site. Given that as 89.243.63.240 (talk · contribs) — apparently the same person going by the edit history of this discussion — xe has also written about that very lobbyist web site at Steadfast, it appears that these particular ideas of "ethnic english" and a "2007 census" are all coming from a single source, and simply don't exist outside of it. Uncle G 13:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I have just now looked at the Steadfast site. It very much strengthens my qualms as to the agenda behind this article. BTLizard 14:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• If I am reading it right the Steadfast site is a charity.Toxteth34 17:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Correction, they've got UK registered charity status but that means next to nothing. My school was a registered charity. tomasz. 11:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • With respect it does have relevance as you are all going to be asked your ethnicity in coming years which means we ae all going to have to understand what the term means. So are you Ethnically English will be a question the gorvernment puts to you and really we should be having this debate on the discussion page of the article. Would make good reading as a debate. Took me a little time to get my head around it. But it is a term that has relevance. very much so.Toxteth34 13:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I suggest that you think a lot more carefully about your assertion that all Wikipedia editors are going to be asked questions by the U.K. government. Uncle G 13:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The above comment still doesn't make the 2007 trial have relevance to this article, though, and as Uncle G already pointed out, this article is irrelevant in the face of this and this. tomasz. 13:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• No - once again you do ot know what you are talking about - the way it is being looked at is changing. By 2011 the census questionnaire will chnage. That is why I put previous examples on the article. To show the change. It takes a vit of a thought leap but I am sure people will get there. Or what is going to happen is that by 2011 people will not understand what the Census is saying. Forget the 2001 Census - this is now 7 years on. Toxteth34 13:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • 2007 − 2001 = 6 Uncle G 13:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• How can we have a lengthy debate on a relatively new term and it not be an article? Toxteth34 13:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a forum for hosting a debate. Uncle G 13:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. i don't think you've read the 2001 census article properly; there's already a sub-section on the proposed changes to the census which covers all this. quite apart from that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so if there's significant change in the way the political system is administered we can document it when it happens as opposed to creating new pages of speculation. P.S. once again please consider adding any scrap of verifiable evidence to support your claims instead of just starting all of your responses with "No - you don't know what you're talking about" or some variation thereof. If this is indeed such a massive political change as you seem to imply, it sounds like you'd be able to amply source the whole thing from the government's own website. Off you go. tomasz. 14:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No - here is evidence of the changes - read up above on one of the previous comments it is already there [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census/2011Census/2011Project/2007test.asp 2011 article] Toxteth34 14:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Quote above Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, precisely - and this is a relatively new term - Ethnic English - just like Ethnic Irish etc etc. It is here to stay. Can Wikipedia cope with a new term?Toxteth34 14:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Cmt. The page you provided does not mention the terms "ethnic" or even "English". It does say that there are some proposals for the new census. Big wow. All this is doing is making the whole idea look like original research. And anyway, if this is a "new term" as you've just said, how does that square with your earlier claim that "The Ethnicity of English people has been recognised since 1965 (RR Act.)"? and you still need sources (ones that directly back up what you said rather than referring to an incidental part of a side argument). tomasz. 14:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can Wikipedia cope with a new term? If there are reliable, published, independent, third-party sources. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance.  RGTraynor  14:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Is anyone understanding that whilst not exactly new it is a newly deployed term - so my reasearch is original? Once again see [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census/2011Census/2011Project/2007test.asp 2011 article] Toxteth34
• This is an encyclopedia so this is a term in use.Toxteth34 14:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "not exactly new but newly deployed"? sorry, but that's self-contradictory. "This is an encyclopedia so this is a term in use." that's not a rule, actually. tomasz. 14:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• OK have a look at this page of the test census [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/2007_test_H1_form.pdf PDF os 2007 Trial Sample] Toxteth34 14:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• It clearly shows the term Ethnic English by asking the question. Toxteth34 14:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. To me it just says "English". is the word "ethnic" invisible or something? tomasz. 14:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Or something - check out section 13 of [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/2007_test_H1_form.pdf PDF of 2007 Trial Sample] it specifically asked for your Ethnicity - English / Irish etc etc. Way it is Toxteth34 15:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeh, that's the section i was talking about. It doesn't say "Ethnic English" anywhere. It says "What is your ethnic group? Choose one section from A to E, then tick the box to show your ethnic group". Then the list of checkable boxes like so:
    • A White
    • English
    • Other British
    • Irish
    • Any other white background, write in
    • See? no "Ethnic English" anywhere. So i take it we can look forward to further interesting articles entitled "Ethnic Other British" and "Ethnic Any other white background, write in", then? Or is this just a quibbling point reading too much into a minor change in self-classification in the census? i think you know my view. tomasz. 17:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It says tick the boxes to show your ethnic group - one of which is English - i.e. Ethnic EnglishToxteth34 19:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's the i.e. Ethnic English that is original research. tomasz. 11:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• keep I see what he / she is saying - and looking at the term Ethnic English it is definitely real.TimberWeald 16:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete close to being a POV fork with the introduction looking like original research but certainly duplication of information from other articles. Anything about the English as an ethnic group should be on the English people article. Anything about the ethnic and census classifications should be in the Census 2001 Ethnic Codes and Ethnic groups of the United Kingdom articles. An article on Census 2011 Ethnic Codes however could be created around the proposed classifcations for the next census. Davewild 19:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Look at section 13 of [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/2007_test_H1_form.pdf PDF of 2007 Trial Sample] it clearly asks you to tick if you are Ethnically English. The term means alot more in law than say 'English People'. And sort of whether people like it or not the Government says so. So like Ethnic Irish or whatever which I presume no one has a problem with it is the same. Some of you may not get it - but it exists in Law. Toxteth34 19:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment To quote from the top of English people "This article is about the English as an ethnic group." I am not denying that the government uses and will use the term 'ethnically english'. However there is now need to have a seperate article from English people and Ethnic groups of the United Kingdom which can cover the topic fine. We do not need a seperate article with the same content but a different title. As per Scotland - Scottish ethnicity redirects to Scottish people, see no reason why English ethnicity cannot do the same. Davewild 20:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The term English People or Scottish People is virtually menaingless nowadays. It simply does not rack up in terms of new terminology / the law / what is current thinking. Ethnicity is the official position. Toxteth34 22:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - A google search just points to some bizarre looking Nationalist sites. As per "new terminology" - I have never heard of the term before. A few blogs and the insane rantings of a few far right groups does not coin a "new term".