Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 30

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

The result was delete. Note also: the text of the article was copied from [1]. —Centrx→talk • 04:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Leigh Adams

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

He is a nonnotable filmmaker with 300 nonwiki Google hits. The top few are his own website, IMDb and such; nothing from a reliable source. The article has had cleanup tags for months. YechielMan 23:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per no reliable source. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 57 Ghits, for someone in that line of work, I would expect a lot more if he were notable. In fact, what I found is that this article is a faintly disguised attempt at plagiarism of this page, and no assertion of permission has been made, thus making it speediable in my book. As the only real source is the subject's own website, this article fails WP:A, and may be in breach of WP:BLP. Ohconfucius 08:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, always a bad sign when Wikipedia is the first result. Fails WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 09:38, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deprise Brescia

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

Major claim to notability is a non-speaking role in fitness shows, does not come near to meeting the guideline for notability in my opinion SirFozzie 22:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - In my opinion it does fail WP:BIO. If she was the star of the fitness show, it might be different. The fact is, she was a cast member. Not under my standards of being notable. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 22:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think notability is somewhere above being a random body on an exercise show. Resolute 23:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no significant roles as an actor in addition t the above comments. -- Whpq 03:30, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dawson's Creek: seasons 5 and 6

Dawson's Creek: seasons 5 and 6 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - solid mass of plot summary utterly lacking in any real-world context, clear-cut violation of WP:NOT#INFO point 7. Otto4711 22:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Very weak keep Delete per WP:EPISODE though I don't think it really fits... seems redundant. see below --Whsitchy 23:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't apply here, article has no content besides a summary.--Shadowdrak 00:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Changed. Also, requesting merger of the three related noms to here. --Whsitchy 01:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No objection to a merger. I just couldn't remember how to bundle AFD noms. Otto4711 03:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT. ~EdBoy^[c] 01:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:18, 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 15:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dawson's Creek: seasons 3 and 4

Dawson's Creek: seasons 3 and 4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Pure plot summary with no real-world context. Otto4711 22:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT. ~EdBoy^[c] 01:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:19, 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. Sr13 06:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dawson's Creek: seasons 1 and 2

Dawson's Creek: seasons 1 and 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• Delete - Pure plot summary utterly lacking in any real-world context. Otto4711 22:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Per above--Shadowdrak 00:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT. ~EdBoy^[c] 01:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no epasodie guide! User:Microraptor Dude
• Delete I'd rather see something like this than individual episode articles, but what confuses me is that there already is separate season articles. With that in mind, deletion would be fine with me, but I thought I would mention it. -- Ned Scott 22:57, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Ramsay Arbuthnot

Charles Ramsay Arbuthnot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is just a mess about a non-notable subject. Part of the ongoing quest to clear up and tidy the many Arbuthnot pages. I suggest it is deleted, if anything further ever comes to light it always be re-created but at the moment it is an embarrassment to the project. Giano 21:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 22:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• As usual, Delete unless expanded. While his service record is not the most informative document on the planet, one thing that is clear is that he was a Rear Admiral and not an Admiral. Since he was in this rank 1904-1913 - one of the few periods Britain wasn't in a war - it seems unlikely he had the opportunity to distinguish himself — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually he was promoted from Vice Admiral to Admiral on the retired list, September 19, 1911 (September 22, 1911 London Gazette) also see the obituary from the Times below to see if that changes your mind. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment He retired as a Rear Admiral, July 1, 1907 (July 2, 1907 Gazette). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a geneology site, and once you remove all of the family relations, there really isn't anything there. Resolute 23:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Gustav. Seems this is one of the more minimally notable Arbuthnot's. Resolute 02:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

*Delete - He does not seem to have any notable accomplishments or reliable sources, other than his service record. Change to Keep - Gustav has provided some pretty convincing evidence, chiefly the obituary. If this man just died yesterday, he'd certainly have his own article. Let's not be victims of recentism, now. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think I'll actually vote Keep on this one as he has quite a long obituary in the Times-
• "OBITUARY - ADMIRAL C. R. ARBUTHNOT. Admiral Charles Ramsey Arbuthnot died yester­day morning at his residence. Selwood Lodge, Frome, in his 64th year. He was the second son of the late Mr. George Clerk Arbuthnot, of Mavisbank, Mid Lothian, and entered the Navy as a cadet in September, 1863. In 1871 he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant from the Royal yacht, and became a flag officer in 1904, retiring-in 1907 and being promoted to admiral in 1911. He served in the Arctic yacht Pandora in 1876-76 and was awarded the Arctic medal. From 1892 to 1895 he commanded the Orlando, flagship in Australia, and from 1900 to 1903 was in charge of the Cambridge, School of Gunnery, at Devonport. He acted as Naval Aide-­de-Camp to King Edward, and in that capacity was in attendance on his Majesty on the occasion of his Coronation. Since his retirement, Admiral Arbuthnot was prominently associated with the Unionist Party in Somerset and represented Frome on the County Council. He was a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society. Admiral Arbuthnot married in 1880 Emily Caroline who died in 1910), daughter of the late Rear-Admiral C. F. Schomberg, and leaves a son. Lieutenant G.S. Arbuthnot, R.N., and two daughters. The funeral will take place-at Frome on Friday, at 1.30.". Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep even just from the article-- this is not trivial, but I am not sure just what it corresponds to in the US. "Aide-de-Camp to King Edward VII.", and from the obit, apparently an arctic explorer. The failure to properly highlight this information and show its importance did not help the article; as seems to be typical with this family, there is often something there. DGG 01:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think a fair amount of them aren't notable which is probably to be expected as it seems like Kittybrewster added just about everyone who could find on his family tree who had an officer rank or title. This one I think probably is- note he was a fellow of the Royal Geographical Society also. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • We have a category for that actually Category:Fellows of the Royal Geographical Society. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Here's a link to the Arctic medal of which he was a recipient. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I'm curious about the status and importance of a Naval Aide-de-Camp to the King, but unless that title has an exceptional amount of inherent notability, there still remains a serious deficit of notability for this individual. Changed to Keep, see below. --Hemlock Martinis 01:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment His specific title (aides-de-camp differ in importance depending on the era, the ADC's rank, their qualifications, and who exactly they're ADC to) is not exactly equal to any American title, but at the time it would have been a more powerful and important role than it is now. I'd say roughly equivalent to a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the modern US. More or less. --Charlene 02:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Where on earth have you found that information - ADC to the King is in no way equivalent to "Joint Chiefs of Staff" - it is an honory title given for a short duration to an officer denoting no huge power at all - in fact very little beyond cermonial duties - rather like a Lord-in-waiting and secratary combined wearing uniform. He was certainly not a Personal-ADC. See Aide-de-camp. Giano 09:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • Thank you! I change my vote to Keep. --Hemlock Martinis 02:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - Where are you getting "equivalent to the Joint Chiefs of Staff" from? In the UK, Aide de Camp to the Monarch is (and was then) a purely ceremonial role (given that the monarch hasn't personally fought in battle since King Billy), whilst in the US Aide de Camp is the guy who organises a general's staff (hiring secretaries, making sure the staff car turns up on time, etc). Incidentally, the Arctic medal was "awarded to all who participated in any Polar expedition", not for any specific achievement — iridescenti (talk to me!) 02:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. He appears notable due to his rank as ADC to King Edward, which at the time was a more important position than an ADC to the Queen in 2007. --Charlene 02:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Artic medal winner, high-ranking admiral in the Royal Navy. Added a citation. --Infrangible 02:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• KeepThis subject has notability in comparison to, or greater than, any number of historical bios on wiki. (maybe this says something about the bigger picture but, it should be a level playing field}. --Stormbay 03:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment OK, on Aide-de-camp it says: "Equerries are equivalents to Aides-de-Camp in the Royal Household, in which ADC's are restricted to senior officers with a primarily honorific role" so the role may be less significant than I thought. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 09:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep as there seems to be precious little actual accomplishment (lieutenant on a boat that went north, routine service in the south seas, etc.), but he was a fellow of the R.G.S. and had a ceremonial accolade at the end of his career, so just barely. If I were related to him I'd be proud, but this just seems like a dictionary of biography entry, not someone who is really notable. --Dhartung | Talk 09:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep multiple sources and an Admiral Kernel Saunters 11:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, seems notable enough to me, and it's all fairly well-referenced. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I have had to think for a while about this one, but I have come around to asking myself if a junior admiral should be treated any different from a junior general. Yes, he commanded a few ships and the Devonshire gunnery school; yes, he got a medal (probably more than one); yes, he was an ADC. But none of those is was really a particularly notable achievement. Did he actually do anything of note? We don't even have an article on his Australian command, HMS Orlando (the name ship for the Orlando-class cruisers; we do have an article on an earlier HMS Orlando, which was scrapped in 1871) nor the gunnery school (I believe this is HMS Cambridge), and it is is not clear whether the Pandora is any of the ones mentioned at HMS Pandora. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

But since any naval vessel is considered notable, we could easily have these articles. DGG 03:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - close but no cigar. He obviously had a good solid worthy and unexceptional career, but on the basis of the article + the above obit he just doesn't seem to have done anything beyond the norm. ADC and RGS connections are red herrings: distinguished but not in themselves noteworthy enough to justify an article. HeartofaDog 01:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A.C. Milan squad

A.C. Milan squad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

FC Barcelona squad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This debate has occurred before. Here in Wikipedia we don't have individual articles for club squads. This is highly unnecessary and the squads already have a section in the club article. Punkmorten 22:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO - unnecessary collection of information. --Angelo 22:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You cannot argue about the contents. This is a group deletion and the articles' contents are quite different. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion. The point here is the type of article itself, like Punkmorten proposed--ClaudioMB 21:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you please stop your crusade? We are discussing about the need for standalone squad articles, so please accept what the Wikipedia community and users say. There's no need to answer to all the users supporting the deletion process, i.e. everyone but you. --Angelo 00:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • First, no, I'll not stop it, because I have the right to defend my point of view. Also, it's rude to ask some one to stop defend his point of view. Second, no one have to accept what the community and users say, if what they are saying has no base. This is not a voting, "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one." from WP:AFD#AfD_etiquette. Third, for sure there is need to answer all points, it's the only way to argue against that point. Finally, remember, just because I'm alone here, that does not mean I'm wrong. --ClaudioMB 14:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't know, maybe I'm too biased to say something different, but you look more like attacking point of views of the others rather than defending yours. Anyway, let's stop it here, just let me lend you my hand with a possible proposal: why don't you make an attempt to create an article about the current FC Barcelona season as well as I did for US Palermo and include your own table? Football seasons for top-level teams are known to be absolutely notable, so don't worry about AfDs in the case. --Angelo 18:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
          • First, I'm not attacking, I'm contra arguing a PoV that is 100% against my PoV. Totally ok in a discussion. Second, thanks for you suggestion, as I said to Resolute below, I'm think to write some thing about the current squad, even though I prefer tables and data. Unfortunately, for the following days I won't have much time, I don't know if I will able to write before this AfD close. Maybe you could help on this, you write very well. Anyway, I still believe the way the article is now makes it valid. Finally, yes, I need to improve my keep argument below, I'll do it.--ClaudioMB 02:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per WP:NOT#INFO. I don't feel the real need to have the article. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 22:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Please, which one of the 10 items on WP:NOT#INFO are you referring to?--ClaudioMB 21:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with the respective team articles--JForget 23:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Football team squads are always present in the respective team articles. These are actually duplicates. --Angelo 23:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I was pretty much sure, lists like those existed already just like in the NHL, NFL, CFL and NBA team articles--JForget 23:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Delete as it completely lacks context, and is redundant. It strikes me that such an article could be useful if a lot of prose was added - perhaps writing about historically notable players, and including the current squad as an addition, but as it is currently designed, it is better suited to the main article. Resolute 23:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As you can check, FC Barcelona squad has much more information then the squad listed on the main article.--ClaudioMB 18:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This information is already present in the main article; there is no need for a separate one. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As you can check, FC Barcelona squad has much more information then the squad listed on the main article.--ClaudioMB 15:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. ~EdBoy^[c] 01:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As you can check, FC Barcelona squad has much more information then the squad listed on the main article. --ClaudioMB 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Because there is real interest on detailed information about some clubs' squads. That's true, because detailed information already exist on the players' articles. The squad articles gather detailed information to release a club scope's view. It also allows to sort and compare players' information. A merge, perhaps, will be not good, because it'll bring to much detail information to the club's page and it could disturb those who don't want it.--ClaudioMB creator of FC Barcelona squad 04:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The two articles are formated differently. Please, take a look on both of them. --ClaudioMB 05:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Continuing: First, the information added on the last couple days are relevant for a football club: start team, tactical formation and pitch formation. All of them related to the main purpose of a football club: play football. Second, relevant information not necessarily comes as text, it could come as tables, lists, graphics or pictures, as long they deliver the intended information. Nevertheless, including written explanations and facts will be a good improvement. Finally, because the article is less then 3 days old and, so far, edited just by one person, it will need more time and people to mature. So, delete an article like that will be wrong. By the way, I'm guessing the article's title should be "FC Barcelona Current Squad" instead of "FC Barcelona Squad".--ClaudioMB 06:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - unnecessary duplication as per all above. And yes, the articles are formatted differently, which makes no difference to the existence of either. Creator has seemingly split these off the main club articles after finding consensus against him/her at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football for changing the standard football club squad listing format. - fchd 06:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As you can check, FC Barcelona squad has much more information then the squad listed on the main article.--ClaudioMB 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - unnecessary fork against consensus, duplication. Qwghlm 07:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As you can check, FC Barcelona squad has much more information then the squad listed on the main article.--ClaudioMB 18:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• I'm asking to remove FC_Barcelona_squad from this delete group because its content and format is quite different from the other one, this is not following WP:AFD#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion.--ClaudioMB 08:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - it's not the format that's at issue here. It's the fact that these split-off articles exist as seperate entities. - fchd 08:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - pointless duplication WikiGull 10:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As you can check, FC Barcelona squad has much more information then the squad listed on the main article.--ClaudioMB 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Govvy 10:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As you can check, FC Barcelona squad has much more information then the squad listed on the main article.--ClaudioMB 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Following Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Discussion these articles could not be deleted based on the guideline argument used as reason for deletion (posted by Punkmorten). Now, I'm going to try find a compromise. FC_Barcelona_squad is right now just 1 day old. The article still been improved. Everyone here is invited to contribute on it. After while, when the article matures, if still not satisfying some people then we will discuss it.--ClaudioMB 14:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You just don't get it. The format is not the problem. The very existance of a individual article for a squad is the problem. Punkmorten 16:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • That is the guideline I'm talking about.--ClaudioMB 16:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Which is a very sensible reason for putting an article to AfD. Your point seems to be lost on everyone else here. Duplicate articles, and pointless off-shoots have been debated and usually deleted here hundreds if not thousands of times, all following the policies. - fchd 16:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
        • First, I'm going to quote "disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it" from Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Discussion. Second, my point is not lost among others because there is just a single point for deletion: "Here in Wikipedia we don't have individual articles for club squads". You cannot argue about the content because this is a group deletion and the articles' contents are quite different. Third, if the other articles that were deleted were similar to FC Barcelona squad, I have to say or no one tried to keep it, or they tried but didn't know about Deletion Policy or they new about it but they weren't quite firm. Finally, I'd like to recall for a compromise, like I explained before. The two discussions before plus this one, perhaps, are going too long. I accept my half part of the guilt on this.--ClaudioMB 20:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
          • How about the fact that these articles are bare lists with no scope, context or prose? I can see this as being a logical breakout for such team articles, but what these lists need badly is context. Write an article on FC Barcelona players. Write about the historical greats for the team, write about the current squad, and include this list as part of that. That, imo, would argue the notability and context to justify the article. What currently stands is redundant and unnecessary. Resolute 01:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Thanks for your suggestions. I was already think about write something about the current squad, or maybe some else that see the article could do it. Unfortunately, the article was tag for deletion four hours after created. I could agree with a tag for improvement or a request to comment. The article FC Barcelona squad was improved in the last 24h and now there is more unique and usable information. So, I have to disagree that is redundant and unnecessary. Could be merge, but maybe it will be too much information for the majority of reads.--ClaudioMB 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
              • - But all the "improvements" are less encyclopaedic than the basic squad list. I really think you are on to a loser here, and shoudl concentrate in improving the players articles so that they show the information you are interested in. - fchd 15:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
                • First, I could see how the information on FC Barcelona squad is less encyclopedic then the squad list. Second, I think a discussion about AfD is not a competition, so there aren't winners and losers. The goal here is to improve the Wikipedia, I have my point of view that an article with details of a football team squad will be an improvement to the main clubs' article. Some people don't. Finally, after you suggested I'll be a "loser", I didn't appreciate you telling what I should or not to do.--ClaudioMB 16:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Should be in the main article --BanRay 20:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That's your PoV. I think it should be apart, that's my PoV. That's even the discussion.--ClaudioMB 21:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but I fail to get your point --BanRay 14:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
      • My point was that someone cannot just give his/her point of view, because this is not a voting ("Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one." from WP:AFD#AfD_etiquette). It's necessary a clear reason (using Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion).--ClaudioMB 16:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
        • The whole thing looks absolutely obvious to everyone, but you, sorry, but I'm not gonna make it any clearer than that --BanRay 17:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
          • First, now I realize your initial position is contradictory. Are you asking for deletion or merge? Second, 'obvious' is not a reason for deletion, also 'everyone but you' because it is not a voting. --ClaudioMB 19:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment from someone ignorant about soccer: Some editors use the term "club squad" in a way that makes me think it means something other than "a list of the current players". I'm not sure that's correct, though. Would it make sense to have an article on Club squad to explain this concept? JamesMLane t c 08:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I can't recall "club squad" or the more prevalent just "squad" referring to anything other than the list of available players. - fchd 15:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. – Elisson • T • C • 14:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please, which one of the 10 items on WP:NOT#INFO are you referring to? --ClaudioMB 16:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect the extra information. However, we should use a hide tag for the younger reserve squads so that they can easily be hidden from view; they're more information than the average reader would want. But if they are hidden by default, they can be accessed after a merger. matt91486 23:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I couldn't understand what you mean by Redirect. Please, could you explain it? --ClaudioMB 16:14, 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 Closed - first AfD is still live. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

[edit] Masetelli (2nd nomination)

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

IP user 167.104.6.43 has deleted the {{prod}} and {{subst:afd1}} tags unilaterally for both Masetelli and Yurubarya. Strodie 21:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The following article is also nominated for deletion (both articles are unverifiable):

Yurubarya (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

For reasons and ongoing discussion, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masetelli . Strodie 21:31, 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 CSD A7. David Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 00:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] R6Messagenet.com

R6Messagenet.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A non-notable motorcycle message board/forum. The one cited reference is about the bike not the forum, which is mentioned only in passing. Does not meet WP:WEB. Mattinbgn/ ^talk 21:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, blatant advertising may be A7 too. Carlosguitar 22:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - Per Carlosguitar. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 22:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Very messy article in the first place and advertisement--JForget 23:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete A7 (web). I'm reluctant to call spam because they aren't seemingly pushing something for monetary gain, they're just trying to promote. Not enough for a G11, as such, IMHO, but still enough for an A7. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - an editor has put a {{hangon}} on the page, and promises to improve. I'll assume good faith, but I question notability no less. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:31, 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 due to noted verifiability concerns. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WWE Global Warning Tour

WWE Global Warning Tour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Was a non-notable wrestling event. Article creator claims it was on PPV (as did the author of the original article), but no proof has been provided. Article has been deleted twice before (once in an AFD, and then when an article it redirected too was deleted. Nothing to proove why this is any different from the many other international tours WWE does every year. TJ Spyke 21:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator, non-notable and lack of non-trivial coverage. Burntsauce 22:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How is this different from other one off PPVs such as Tuesday in Texas and WWF One Night Only? Should those be deleted too? Amazon.ca and imdb list the the DVD of this show as a PPV. Also, the last AFD was improper, having the nominator close the multiple afds after just three days, they were actually undeleted as out of process but then speedied by someone else. Halfarmed 22:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No proof has been provided that this was ever on PPV. TJ Spyke 22:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Proof is being pursued. An email has been sent to WWE asked for a history of the Fanatic Series to be put on the website. If it is, Global Warning will definitely be included - and you'll have your proof. 124.180.195.212 12:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC) — 124.180.195.212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Very weak keep WP:EPISODE could be argued here. But I really don't see the point of this. I expect the wrestling fans to jump on this one. Whsitchy 23:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There has been no source for it being on PPV or TV. If there was proof that this was a PPV, I wouldn't have nominated it. TJ Spyke 00:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Point, why it's very weak. Whsitchy 00:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Also, it has practically no incoming links, which further proves its non-notibility. Nikki311 02:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Screw it, it's non-notable. Whsitchy 03:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Elrith 04:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep was definitely shown on pay per view in the US in late 2002. Time needed to seek verifiable evidence of this. Was advertised during a main PPV (probably No Mercy or Survivor Series) as part of the monthly Fanatic Series. Notable for being the record holder for the venue for attendance at a sporting event. 58.171.84.247 02:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC) — 58.171.84.247 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I don't know if it was aired on PPV in Australia, but it was never shown on PPV in the United States. TJ Spyke 03:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh yes it was, TJ. As part of the Fanatic Series as anon 58 said. Rick Doodle 02:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The WWE Fanatic Series airs general WWE content, including straight to DVD stuff like "Divas Do New York". It's not the same as regular PPV. They don't air normal wrestling events on it. Besides, there is no proof it was aired as part of the Fanatic Series anyways. TJ Spyke 02:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
        • They HAVE aired normal wrestling events on it - Global Warning, Inxurrection and Rebellion (UK based PPV's) have all featured in the Fanatic Series. I hope that anon who said WWE had been emailed responds with the proof you need. Rick Doodle 10:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

*Keep If proven as an Australian PPV, Delete otherwise as a house show (albeit with extremely impressive attendance). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep'This is an Australian pay per view, therefore it should be kept. It was released on DVD & it was aired on PPV in other countries, including the United States. Zlrussell 23:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It was NOT aired on PPV in the United States, and so far there has been no proof that it aired on PPV in Australia either. TJ Spyke 00:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If there is proof that it was shown on Australian pay-per-view (of which it'll be of same notability as WWE Rebellion and WWE Insurrextion for example), I'll change to keep. -- Oakster  Talk   17:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• EXTREMELY Strong Keep TJ, you are wrong. I shall check my DVD records of the main WWE pay per views from late 2002 (I have them) to verify when Global Warning was shown in the US as part of the Fanatic Series, but it was DEFINITELY shown. Further, the show at what was then called Colonial Stadium (now the Telstra Dome) received mainstream coverage with a two page spread in Melbourne's Herald Sun. The story - titled "We were warned" (with the W in warned replaced with the WWE logo) - quotes the show as "being taped for DVD release and pay per view presentation in the United States at a later date." It also attracted an attendance of 56,734 which stands as the attendance record for a sporting event at the venue - and at the time was the record for the venue full stop (it was beaten later by a Robbie Williams concert). When I get the month that show was shown on the Fanatic Series I'll get back to this AfD (won't be today because of One Night Stand). Curse of Fenric 22:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Curse of Fenric's statement Mal Case 05:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Curse has provided no proof that it was ever on PPV, or that's it's notable. How about people try citing policy and guidelines for their reason? TJ Spyke 05:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • A two page spread in a major city daily newspaper doesn't make it notable???? Rick Doodle 11:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • From what i've seen in the past, even house shows sometimes get coverage in local papers. The newspaper in my city had coverage of the RAW event they had here (the one from last June when DX officially reformed) taking up most of the first page of the sports section. Also, WP requires multiple non-trivial sources. TJ Spyke 22:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Show me a house show that drew 56,000 people, TJ. And in Australia a two page spread on one event is MAJOR NEWS! I think it's about time WP:IAR was applied in this case, but I'm about to check my DVD collection to confirm when Global Warning was show in the US as a part of the Fanatic Series. Curse of Fenric 00:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        • OK - I can now confirm that Global Warning was shown in the US on pay per view in November 2002. It was advertised during the 2002 Survivor Series with a cute add that provided a typical Australian "Steve Irwin" style promo, followed by an American "translation". It was part of the Fanatic Series as stated. Sorry, TJ - you are wrong. It WAS show in the US on pay per view. Curse of Fenric 00:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
          • You cannot use yourself as the source. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
            • The source is the coverage of the Survivor Series - not me, Suriel. Curse of Fenric 00:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Can you provide a YouTube video of it? I have been checking sources that cover the event and none mention any such promo. TJ Spyke 00:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
                • It was after the Trish/Victoria title match, TJ. I don't have the equipment to put it on You Tube unfortunately. I'll see what I can do about getting someone else to do it but that will take time as I live in the country and not the city. Any suggestions would help. Curse of Fenric 01:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
                  • I suppose someone else might have put it up already. When an IP questioned the attendance for 2 PPV's, they provided a YouTube video of JR stating the attendance at the event. If this article does get deleted, it can be recreated if you can proove that it's notable. TJ Spyke 01:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete again. This article is a recreation, this was previously delete! Btw this is not a PPV it's just a tour DVD. Because of that note is why it was deleted last time. Govvy 10:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Change to firm delete Last night I took a break from looking for a new motorbike to Google this event (now THAT is commitment to Wikipedia!) and could not find any reliable source to confirm this as a PPV. I could be wrong, if so prove it! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Suriel, you'll have problems finding any Fanatic Series pay per view outside of the last 12 months so that's hardly proof of your case Curse of Fenric 00:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm aware Google hits aren't an indication of notability but when it relates to wrestling, if it aint got a decent source on the net then often it aint got a decent source full stop. I managed to find legit online sources for WCW (now "History of" article) dating back 10 years ago so if it was notable it would be around. As yet no-one has proved this event was an Australian PPV. I see no compelling reason to Ignore All Rules. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I provided more evidence in my edit above, Suriel. And WCW is a bad example BTW. You could say the same for ECW and indeed the NWA pre WCW. On the IAR - I provided mainstream evidence with the Herald Sun quote (as stated it is a major daily here in Melbourne). Because of local notability, that has to be taken into account. It was issues similar to this that caused me to leave WP - I only came back because this AfD was brought to my attention as I was actually at the show in question. I know that fact isn't enough by itself, but I can at least say that it was said at the start of the show that it was being recorded as a pay per view (by Tony Chimel) - a statement confirmed as I quoted from the Herald Sun (they probably got it from Chimel as well). Curse of Fenric 00:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Multiple non-trivial coverage is needed. Also, local newspapers usually cover wrestling events (from WWE) in that area, at least from what I have seen. TJ Spyke 00:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Not in Australia they don't, TJ. That's why the two page spread is highly unusual - and therefore highly notable. Heck, the attendance record was HUGE news! Curse of Fenric 01:01, 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 speedily deleted by Khukri. MER-C 09:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris garling

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

A non-notable reality television contestant. While the subject won the competition, I am not sure how much more could be written about him that would not be better included in the Biggest Loser article. Mattinbgn/ ^talk 21:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 21:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The article is not sourced, and I also believe it fails WP:BIO. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 21:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. ~EdBoy^[c] 01:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete This article should have been killed as soon as it was created using db-bio. Thewinchester ^(talk) 04:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would have tagged it myself but there was a least a claim of notability made. Mind you, I don't think it is adequate for keeping but I don't think it meets WP:CSD#A7. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 04:45, 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 to redirect it to Tortoiseshell cat and to add a brief, cited mention of the term there. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Money cat

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

Sources were requested for over a year, then I added a WP:PROD request, which was removed with the claim that sources would be added soon. Really... how long does it take to say where the author got this information from? Also, some of the claims (about this being mentioned in "House of Seven Gables") have been debunked. Sources should be shown to exist before we decide to keep this article around for a few more years... promises of sources are not the same as sources. I find nothing confirming this on Google or Google Scholar, although there may be some sort of asian charm marketed as a "Money Cat", it has nothing to do with what this article describes (see Maneki Neko). --W.marsh 21:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Some quick research about Money Cats and New England seem to lead that Money Cat is just a Massachusetts slang term having to do with witches or something, which you can find on the last page of this. [3] Certainly doesn't seem enough to create an article, maybe a redirect to Folklore of the United States or an equivalent article on New England is in order? --Korranus 21:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• This probably isn't WP:NFT, as I've heard of a similar thing in the UK, but there's nothing here to say it couldn't be merged to a folklore page as above. Preferably with some sources. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• If you look on Google Scholar again, you'll find articles from the Journal of American Folklore such as this and this and from Western Folklore such as this that document the idea that a three-coloured cat is considered to be good luck in Japan. If you look on Google Books you'll find books that document the same folklore belief occurring in Maine. There's not much more than 1 sentence's worth of content to be wrung out of these sources, though: "A calico cat with three colours, known as a money cat, is considered to be good luck in Maine and Japan." Uncle G 00:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Tortoiseshell cat. According to Language in the USA: Themes for the Twenty-first Century, the term refers only to calico and perhaps tortoiseshell cats, not to all female cats. This can be mentioned in a sentence under tortoiseshell cat, alongside the similar Japanese folklore (though we should clarify that the term "money cat" is a US regionalism, not a Japanese term). —Celithemis 00:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's already mentioned in Tortoiseshell cat - 1st paragraph - no mention of 'money cat', though. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• There's a general reference to folklore already, but the term should be mentioned (preferably not in the lead), and this should redirect there. —Celithemis 02:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Any cat that does not pee on my stuff is good luck in my book. (Also lucky for the cat if you know what I mean) --Infrangible 01:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ~EdBoy^[c] 01:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC) (That's nice, Infrangible)
• Delete per nom and the fact that it's mentioned in Tortoiseshell cat. BTW, Infrangible, please observe WP:NPAOC (No Personal Attacks on Cats) --Richard 08:15, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elliot Ross Buckley

Elliot Ross Buckley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This reads like an obituary, with nothing substantial that seems to qualify for an encyclopedic entry. Fresh 20:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete under WP:BIO - the most notable thing I can find on the guy is that he served on the US Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission in the 80s, and that commission doesn't have a Wikipedia page itself. Other than that, losing a political race and being an oil company lawyer doesn't make him notable enough. --Korranus 21:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, He did more than that, he ran for a US House of Representatives seat, and also for Mayor of New Orleans. I don't believe this is violation of WP:BIO. If you do a google search, see here, you will see there are about 1,100,000 results. Granted not all of those are of this person, but I would think a good portion are. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 22:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I did a Google search before commenting, and if you enclose the name in quotes, you get exactly ten results. Perhaps the question we need to answer here is whether the races for the House seat and the New Orleans mayor were notable. --Korranus 22:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. While he held some fair profile positions, I'm not sure that these constitute notability. Near as I can tell, he never actually won the elections he ran in. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission is an appellate body within the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), so it's a legitimate federal appointive office. Newyorkbrad 00:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No question, there, it just matters whether this is notable. I reserve the right to change my mind. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Mayors of large cities are considered notable, and New Orleans counts. running for the HofR isn't enough by itself, but together with mayor, and the other administrative positions, it is clearly enough. DGG 01:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Note that Mr. Buckley was never the actual mayor of New Orleans, he simply ran. From the vote of the HofR, it doesn't look like he was even close. I would agree that if he was mayor it would be notible, but simply running shouldn't warrant an article.--Fresh 01:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Dennis. ~EdBoy^[c] 01:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Being simply a nominee for office does not constitute notability per WP:BIO, nor does the OSHRC office. Also of note is that almost the entire article is unsourced from reliable sources. The article reads like an obituary because that is the only source for almost all of it: his obituary. The author of this article frequently creates articles about non-notable individuals and sources those articles with nothing (or almost nothing) more than the individual's family-provided, small-town newspaper obituary. While reporter bylined obituaries (such as those found in the New York Times) would be acceptable sources, family-provided obituaries in small newspapers are not. Such family-provided obituaries do not indicate notability (anyone can submit one; they indicate that his family thought he was notable, but not that anyone else thought so), nor are they reliable sources, because they are not subjected to any extensive fact-checking by a reporter or editor. If what the family says seems plausible, then it runs. This appears to be the case with Buckley's obituary listed as a reference for this article, since there is no reporter listed as the obituary's author, and since the Las Cruces Sun-News is indeed a small newspaper that accepts and runs family-provided obituaries. If the article is kept, it should be reduced to a stub of info that is verifiable from sources other than that obituary: cousin of WFB Jr., that he ran for congress, that he ran for mayor, his tenure on the OSHRC, and that's about it. Mwelch 01:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - those five "references" are nothing of the sort. Two are laundry-lists of names, one is his son's wedding announcement, one is about someone entirely different and doesn't mention him once, while the fifth is his obituary from the local paper which, in light of certain other articles, I've no doubt would be suspiciously similar to this article were we to compare them side-by-side - and even if it weren't is in no way a reliable source. If he was mayor he'd warrant a weak keep, but this is a failed candidate - a very different thing — iridescenti (talk to me!) 02:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failed candidates are not automatically notable for that non-accomplishment. The plethora of non-notable biographies that this article's author continues to cut and paste into Wikipedia is frankly saddening. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate dictionary of biography of every two-bit politician of the last century in two U.S. states. --Dhartung | Talk 09:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The AlexBot scored the article 100 points. How many points are needed for inclusion? It has six or seven links. Billy Hathorn 13:47, 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 15:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Konigsmark Upgrade

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

Contested prod. Author contends that his material is being stolen and is writing this article to protect it. But I can't find any hits for this on Google--why can't such obvious hoaxes be speedied? Blueboy96 20:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete The reason hoaxes can't be speedied is that in rare cases, they turn out to be true. This isn't one of those cases. Zero google hits = unverifiable. YechielMan 23:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Vanity / "original research" by user:Andykonigsmark. -- RHaworth 00:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete pathetic vanity that is, also, poorly written. 65.241.15.131 01:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Look I realize that you gentlemen want to protect the integrity of wikipedia, but I am a comedian and I am trying to protect my material. You can view my material at my comedy page at www.myspace.com/andykonigsmark

• Yet another reason to delete this--as much as I agree with his intentions, this article fails WP:NOT.Blueboy96 00:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Why is this even here? Closenplay 00:57, 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 Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Salmon

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

I'm not sure this person exists. Can't find him or his film The Grim Death on IMDb or google. Belovedfreak 20:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Directed one film, which the article defines as a 'flop;' no sources, no indication of him on a Google search (and if there's bad horror films out there, I'm sure Google would know about them if only because someone has MSTed them or tried)... Delete as NN. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete borders on speedy delete. There is nothing that resembles notability here. Sorry.—Gaff ^ταλκ 22:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as un verified and non-notable. Probably not speedy since a claim to have directed a comercial film (even a B movie) is an assertion of notability. Eluchil404 20:26, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris 'Isto' White (American musician)

Chris 'Isto' White (American musician) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non notable musician whose only claim to fame is that one of his songs has been viewed 400,000 times. Certainly not as notable as lonelygirl15. Has received no recording contract unlike the Arctic Monkeys or Lily Allen Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 19:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - 63 unique Google hits, all of them posted videos someplace, blogs or something similar. No reliable sources to indicate that he passes WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Leaving this in would result in a slippery slope for anyone who posts on YouTube. Also, no refs and nothing relible.--Fresh 20:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely possible for someone to become famous, even notable, as a musician through somewhere like YouTube. It is becoming more likely all the time. What we need to decide is — has this happened here? It seems that the commentators here believe it hasn't (I'm assuming they've all actually looked into the matter), and that the article should therefore be deleted. Fair enough. That's a far cry from "Oh no! YouTube!", however. 203.122.238.225 00:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Come back when you have an actual contract.Blueboy96 20:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 22:07, 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. Whilst the majority of contributors (4:3) have argued to keep this, I am unable to find a valid reason to keep the article based on Wikipedia policy in any of their arguments:

1. "I have added references." - This fails to address the primary cause for concern.
2. "Armenian heroes should have their own list" - Not a valid argument (and violates NPOV).
3. "Keep per the above two arguments" - above two arguments do not address the problem.
4. "Just because there is an objection of one person being on the list doesn't mean we delete the whole article" - there was no objection to one person, the objection was to the article itself.

I don't often do this nowadays, but with not one valid argument to retain this article, and the 3 arguments for deletion being far, far stronger, I can only close this as a delete. Neil ╦ 11:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Armenian national heroes

List of Armenian national heroes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

List is unverifiable opinion of editors and definite edit war bait. If an article of this type is not based on the opinions of an official entity like this one is: National heroes of Nepal, it really shouldn't stay. Richfife 19:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Cruft.Blueboy96 20:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Inclusion criteria are too ill-defined. YechielMan 23:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Convert to category - lists of this kind are much better as categories. Their only value is when there are red links identifying articles that need to be written. Peterkingiron 00:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. If sourced, could be a viable article, but I don't foresee that being doable. JJL 00:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Like what YechielMan says, who gets to decide who is a hero and who is a villian? --Infrangible 02:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I am the creator of this article and I apologize for not properly referencing it before. I have added references to all the national heroes that you can see in the article right now. I have removed those whom I could not find references to. I have this page under my watchlist and will remove unreferenced future additions. - Fedayee 03:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reply still delete Here's a post I made to Talk:Heroes of Azerbaijan that I think touches on the problems that still remain (Replace "Azerbaijan" with "Armenia" as needed):

I'm going to put up these two AFDs for your perusal: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mother of the Nation and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Father of the Nation. These are two articles which contained lists of people that were considered either the mother or the father of their nation. They both were technically well referenced with news articles in which various people were called "The father of England", for instance. But, the term is too easily used. Any journalist can toss the term into an article to add emphasis, and they often do. One person was able to find 20 different people that had been called "the mother of Finland". The same problem applies to people being called a "Hero of Azerbaijan". It's too easy for someone to simply use the phrase in passing. For this article to work, their need to be good sized sources from large, respectable groups or publications that are dedicated very specifically to the idea that Babek (or whomever) is a "Hero of Azerbaijan". The articles need to be written for no other reason than to prove that point. Simply tossing off the phrase in the middle of a narrative isn't enough. No less a figure than Ronald Reagan referred to Oliver North as a hero of the United States. That's a reliable source, but if I created an article named "Heroes of the USA" and included Oliver North, I'd be laughed off of Wikipedia. Calling someone a hero to an entire nation is a serious business. You're speaking for every single citizen of that nation. Don't do it lightly. - Richfife 05:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Apart from being featured in the List of Armenians, Armenian heroes (those who are venerated by the Armenian nation) should have their own list. -- Davo88 02:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Define "Venerated by the Armenian nation". What percentage of people have to venerate someone before they qualify. 70%? 80%? 90%? The term "heroes" is very slippery and you haven't addressed the points I made above. - Richfife 04:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • One of the entries is considered a "hero" for assassinating a major Turkish politician. There's no way that's not controversial. - Richfife 17:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • There is at least one source (ArmeniaNow) which is a poll on who Armenians think their national heroes are (more names should be added in accordance with that poll). Alot of these people have statues dedicated to them in Armenia (all sourced). Also, what's wrong with controversy and being called a hero? Mind you that the so-called "Turkish politician" who was assassinated is actually the equivalent of Adolf Hitler (nicknamed the "Turkish Hitler"). He is the one who brainchilded the Armenian Genocide. - Fedayee 20:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • The Armenia Now article might possibly be a good start, however it seems that there was a list of nominees that the voters had to choose from. Still something that was selected by one or two journalists. Also, comparing anyone other than Hitler to Hitler is a really bad idea and will get you nowhere with me, for reasons discussed at length here: [4]. - Richfife 21:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • If one is nominated to be voted by the population of Armenia, then it must mean that he can very well be a national hero. Anyway, all these men are considered "national heroes" already, the poll is merely giving it a ranking. As for the Hitler comparison, I don't know why you are being so defensive ... I am not attacking you or speaking emotionally, I am merely citing facts based on sources here and here. - Fedayee 23:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Fedayee and Davo88.--MarshallBagramyan 04:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Armenian heroes are the notable people who have made a significant contribution to the creation, re-creation, defense, or well-being of the sovereign Armenian nation. They are corner-stones of Armenian statehood. Names such as Vartan Mamikonian, Haik, and Mesrob Mashdots are well known by Armenians because of their immense influence and great deeds. The definition of what is a hero is fairly simple. Perhaps you, User:Richfife, do not see the "heroness" in them because you're not an Armenian. -- Davo88 23:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned above, there is no firm criteria for the article and it purports to speak for all Armenians when it does not. Stating that any true Armenian will obviously consider a particular person a hero isn't addressing the problems with the list at all. And don't forget, we're not talking about the man himself, we're talking about whether the person who killed him should be considered a hero. - Richfife 00:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Which man? Talat Pasha? -- Davo88 00:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • No, Soghomon Tehlirian. - Richfife 00:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I see no wrong in him being dubbed a hero. After all, he did kill Talaat Pasha, the man who systematically planned the Armenian Genocide that led to the death of up to 1.5 million Armenians. - Fedayee 01:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't object to you holding the opinion that he's a hero. I even agree with you. I never said I didn't. The problem is it's still our opinion, and opinion shouldn't be on Wikipedia. - Richfife 05:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Just because there is an objection of one person being on the list doesn't mean we have to delete the whole article. Thats what the discussion page is for. VartanM 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply My objection is to the entire list being the opinion of editors, not a single entry. See my comments above. Thanks! - Richfife 05:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Specifically, please read the paragraph that begins: "I'm going to put up these two AFDs for your perusal". Thanks! - Richfife 20:05, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Iranian national heroes

List of Iranian national heroes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

List is unverifiable opinion of editors and definite edit war bait. If an article of this type is not based on the opinions of an official entity like this one is: National heroes of Nepal, it really shouldn't stay. Richfife 19:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliable official sources can be found for who Iran's naional heroes are. Davewild 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Blimey, that's got a bullseye on it. None of the "heroes" listed are sourced - that's just asking for disaster. Without reliable sources indicating that they really are considered 'heroes,' delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Cruft.Blueboy96 20:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not verifiable and also POV. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 22:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Convert to Category - Lists of this kind are only useful if they include red links showing articles that need to be written. Which persons were national heros is inevitably a matter of opinion, but we can probably leave those who know the subject to fight that out. Peterkingiron 00:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. If sourced, could be a viable article, but I don't foresee that being doable. JJL 00:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Seems kind of subjective depending on who you ask. --Infrangible 02:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment : What about this pages :

• Philippine National Heroes
• National heroes of Nepal
• List of National Heroes of Indonesia
• Heroes of Azerbaijan

• • Reply The Philippine list should probably go (for the same reasons). The other three reference (at least partially) lists that were created by official entities. Those should probably stay, except... The "Historical Figures" section of Azerbaijan should go for the same reasons. See the talk page on that article. - Richfife 14:52, 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 15:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Realtime Interdimensional Passegeways RIP

Realtime Interdimensional Passegeways RIP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Reason Unnotable play by email game, unref'd, original researchy 99DBSIMLR 18:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - zero Google results, and no references at all, thus lacks notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete on grounds of no verifiable references. Looks like a case of WP:N or WP:POV.--Gavin Collins 07:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete NN online game, fails WP:WEB Percy Snoodle 13:19, 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. W.marsh 20:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jane Harvey

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

Non-notable editor and musician. Corvus cornix 18:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

After some debate and reading of the guidelines, as the originator of this article, I agree with Corvus Cornix Chrischmoo 19:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Does this qualify as db-author? Eluchil404 20:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If only one author significantly contributed to the article, and agrees that is should be deleted, it should qualify for a speedy. I'll tag it.--Kylohk 09:32, 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. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] America 2020

America 2020 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unnotable play by email game, unref'd, original researchy 99DBSIMLR 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as this appears to be entirely original research. Might also want to consider related article Realtime Interdimensional Passegeways RIP. JavaTenor 18:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Considered and added.99DBSIMLR 18:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment tone is kind of like someone reminiscing about the old days, not really encyclopedic. Maybe deserves passing mention under Minitel? --Infrangible 02:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - If its notable enough, it could probably be mentioned in Play-by-mail game. 99DBSIMLR 10:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN, fails WP:WEB Percy Snoodle 13:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom G1ggy! _{Review me!} 05:13, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LooSE TV

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

Student society at the LSE. No evidence of notability. Possibly speedy-able, but there is a discussion at the talk page where some editors defend the page. My vote: delete then redirect (possibly protected) to Nasta. AndyJones 18:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nonnotable club. YechielMan 23:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non notable club and self promotion, i agree with andy jones plan Sherzo 05:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete young and non-notable student society. No evidence of having made notable productions or won notable prizes. Just having participated in a NASTA confference is no where near sufficient. Ohconfucius 08:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

would like to ask abt the double standards on notability with regards to student media. why are student newspapers and radio stations considered notable, but student television not so? even when the exposure which these various media receive is similar. Susoctv 11:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think student newspapers are notable either. AndyJones 13:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How about obscure american high schools? there is a whole list of them, with individual articles. i think this whole notability thing is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. Susoctv 18:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree: the issue of including/excluding schools was hotly debated here at Wikipedia around a year ago. However, that's not an argument for keeping this article, about a subject which isn't notable however you cut it. AndyJones 18:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable club. Also WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST isn't a reason to keep the article. Wildthing61476 18:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you're looking for WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but you're right. AndyJones 18:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Goes to show you I don't know my crap :) Wildthing61476 21:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• • you should say why this article is notable? Sherzo 21:18, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] As Maine Goes

As Maine Goes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Orphaned for the better part of the year, there are no outside resources to substantiate the author's claims to notability. I have this feeling it won't be updated in the near future. Postcard Cathy 18:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• DELETE - Unnotable website. 99DBSIMLR 18:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --JayJasper 19:52, 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 16:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Harte

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

Delete: Non-notable; violates WP:MEMORIAL Dustbowldiaspora 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Does not assert notability. I couldnt find and references to the subject. Google searchs of "Patrick Harte IRA" and "Patrick Harte Cork" returns no hits. 99DBSIMLR 18:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Non-Notable.Arnon Chaffin ^{Got a message?} 19:06, 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 speedily deleted by MZMcBride. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post's Corners Public School

Post's Corners Public School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not encyclopedic EvilOverlordX 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. No notability, non-neutral, unverifiable, unencyclopedic, vanity. Perhaps a sandbox edit? Apparently something made up by a bored student in class one day. Apparently not going to be improved and brought up to standards. Even the image is difficult to sort out. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 17:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:ORG, by all means. --B. Wolterding 18:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as nonsense. 99DBSIMLR 18:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Reads like an advert. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:22, 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< 09:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voy Sobon

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

Although this article says this poet is very notable, the off-wiki statistics do not seem to corroborate this. For example, his book Bad Words Dictionary: And Even Worse Expressions is said to be a "cult book worldwide" that sold "millions of copies," there are no reviews of it online as returned by Google. [5] and a search for "Voy Sobon Genet" returns 19 hits, none of which are relevant. [6] It appears someone is trying to promote a non-notable individual; the same person apparently wrote a corresponding article on the Polish Wikipedia. Resurgent insurgent 02:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above Gimme danger 13:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above Edison 15:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Copied from talk page: The book Bad Words Dictionary was sold originally for $7.95. Today is reaching over $100 a copy on amazon.ca, amazon.co.jp Is it not a cult following among book readers? Look carefully for reviews when you tipe Voy Sobon in a search engine. (Yoshiwaka 02:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC))
• Comment here is the review you are looking for and page of his book on Amazon though I'm not sure if he is notable.--The Joke النكتة‎ 17:23, 28 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 17:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Amazon sales rank of 1.4million. Article therefore blatantly untrue on at least one point. No sources, promotional, nn. AndyJones 18:18, 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. IronGargoyle 22:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rock Concert Instruction Manual

Rock Concert Instruction Manual (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - there do not appear to be independent reliable sources attesting to the notability of the subject. Content does not appear to be verifiable. Otto4711 15:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• delete - I agree with Otto. Smells a bit hoaxful. May change my opinion if it can be sourced during this AfD. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - a quick Google turns up this page on the official website, which appears to be a copy of a Cincinnati Post review. Unfortunately, it only confirms some of the article contents. - makomk 17:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This review in the Peoria Journal Star provides more information. Whether either of these actually counts as reliable, I'm not sure. - makomk 17:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Reviews that mention the manual in passing as part of the larger review would IMHO constitute trivial mentions. Otto4711 19:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Edited my previous comment. Okay, so the concept of it exists; but is it an actual "manual", or is it just a concept that is used during a performance? If a "Rock Concert Instruction Manual" is only a concept that is referred to in passing durig Blue Man's performance, then it is still not notable unless someone has written about it in detail, or even until it's been published. Otherwise, this article is essentially on a make-believe topic. As an analogy: if Bart Simpson was reciting these rules during an episode of The Simpsons, I'd want to delete the article; but if there actually was a Simpsons book published telling all about this, I'd be in favour of keep. Right now, I'm still up for delete. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nabla 17:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisting because only two opinions stated (including the nominator's) is a bit short. Plus the AfD tag was removed from the article on the 26th, so this AfD really did had much less than the expected exposure. - Nabla 17:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge if true. Abeg92contribs 17:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge - This info is a big part of BMG's touring shows, and as people are introduced to the shows/music/items, finding the real list here is very beneficial. If it is not worthy of its own page, merge the info into the main Blue Man Group page as part of their themes and ideas. There is nothing better than finding interesting information right here on Wikipedia. --Mtjaws 01:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge intro at most with Blue Man Group. This isn't notable on its own. --Dhartung | Talk 09:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Comment: I attended a BMG show in New York two years ago, and on a recent trip back to NYC, was able to recognize another group of people who had recently seen the show because they were talking about the one-armed fist pump on the subway (see entry). So, it has clearly been an enduring, and notable feature of the show, as noted by Mtjaws above. One possibility might be to merge the paragraph format information at the beginning into the main article, and then change the list of various rock-star acts into a list, in the same spirit as the List of The Simpsons chalkboard gags (following on the theme above). That way the main list-y content is preserved, as a list, and the body is integrated into the BMG article. Edhubbard 12:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• For the information to be retained in any form in any article there have to be reliable sources for it. There have yet to be any such sources offered. Otto4711 00:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Lack of sources is not a valid criterion for deletion. However, a lack of notability is, and that was what you asked for in the initial deletion nom. I did a search for some references, and while it is possible to verify the content, in doing this search, I have become less convinced that the list-y parts are notable enough to deserve an entry of their own. I am copying the results of my google search here, so that other people can see them and evaluate them:

http://www.miketoohey.com/bluemangroup/index.html This is a fansite which refers to the Rock Concert Instruction Manual, including a number of pictures of the moves, a listing of the standard ones in the shows.

http://www.pollstar.com/news/viewhotstar.pl?Artist=BLUMAN This review talks about the “Rock Concert Instructional Manual” and how it is integral to the show.

http://www.blueman.com/newspress/tour.php?id=76_0_7_0_C This review mention’s the “Rock Concert Instruction Manual” by name, and some of the elements in the manual as part of the Blue Man Group show. Note that this comes from The Columbus Dispatch, but is reproduced on the BMG official website.

http://mostlymodernmusic.blogspot.com/2007/03/concert-review-blue-man-group.html This from a blogger who seems to have found the current version of the wikipedia entry well done.

http://video.aol.com/video-search/Blue-Man-Group-Rock-Concert-Movement-1-and-2/id/1698345001 Here is a video that someone took from the show (probably not licensed, and not wiki-appropriate) showing the first two moves from the “Rock Concert Instruction Manual” and how they fit into the show.

Given this, my vote is to Merge the text into the main BMG article, and Delete the list. Edhubbard 11:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Blue Man Group. A closer tie with BMG is needed. STrRedWolf 13:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Blue Man Group. Aside from my own personal knowledge of the show, and that this "manual" is indeed part of their recent tour schtick, it's not notable enough to sustain an article by itself. It would make a nice edition (with sources, like several of the ones above) to its parent article. María (habla conmigo) 13:03, 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 Keep.. Navou 02:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preeti Desai

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

"Advertisement" page for a model whose only notability has been winning a poll which appeared in a "lifestyle" section of a newspaper. The primary purpose of the article appears to be to direct people towards her website and "myspace" page Canderra 17:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. One criterion from WP:BIO reads: "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." The Miss Great Britain should be sufficient in that respect, by my judgement. A source should be added however. --B. Wolterding 17:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  comment:Miss Great Britain is not a "significant recognized awards" though. It is a newspaper's competition chosen by a little publicised section which appeared in the middle of one copy (i.e. for one day) of a daily newspaper. Canderra 17:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not from Great Britain, so I don't know how the distinction between these awards is perceived by the general public. Still, a Google search reveals approx. 200 results that mention this person winning this particular award - to me, that seems to be a bit more than just a small note in a newspaper. --B. Wolterding 17:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. She proudly wears the crown vacated by Danielle Lloyd. She's also the first Indian to have been so honoured. Easily qualifies for inclusion. JJay 17:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: JJay is incorrect. Danielle Lloyd has an article due to the "scandal" and ensuing stuff. Most Miss Great Britain winners have nothing, nor should they. There's just no real information on this person other than what comes from the one single appearance, which is insufficient coverage to make a biography. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• See the following: [7],[8], [9],[10], [11]. --JJay 18:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like I was wrong. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:52, 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 Keep. KrakatoaKatie 23:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Le Funk

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

Non notable album. No reliable sources can be found for the album, nor has there any evidence that it has appeared on any chart. Does not satisfy WP:MUSIC.--Kylohk 16:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The band barely makes WP:Band already. This article has to go. Stellatomailing 15:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Keep if the Band Stays Reviewing the policy, I have to agree with Closenplay. If the band stays, the album stays. Unless somebody is nominating the band article to go.Stellatomailing 02:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's about as stubby as an album stub can be but I strongly disagree that the band "barely makes WP:BAND" (not that you would know from their poorly referenced article). Definitely a notable band and by extension the album should be kept. Closenplay 01:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I worked the article over but good. My above disparaging of the article as "stubby" no longer stands. Closenplay 14:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep—Multiple professional reviews are now listed. I agree with Closenplay that the band article could use some improved referencing.--Paul Erik 14:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I see an AMG link, the band's notable from all appearances. Stubbiness isn't really a deletion criterion. Crystallina 02:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Not a great article but the subject is a notable publication by a notable band. A1octopus 18:30, 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 speedy delete. Natalie 18:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timothy Wilken

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

Non-notable person. The 4 external links are all from the "same" website and all appear to be written by the subject: There aren't any third party works. A prod attempt was contested in December which is why I'm running through AFD, otherwise I would have tried prod myself. It has been tagged as "questionable notability" since December as well. Little context in the article to notability and no references to support. MECU≈talk 16:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources to back any claims. Presence of User:Twilken in the edit history smacks of conflict of interest. Only barely, if at all, escapes an A7 speedy. Will tag as such. DarkAudit 17:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No third-party verification & un-notable person. Primary purpose of article appears to be to link to the individual's website. Canderra 17:18, 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. IronGargoyle 23:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of globalization

History of globalization (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Propose delete on grounds of WP:POV fork. Reading between the (unfinished) lines, I think the creator started transcribing a summary of the book after which the article is named, peppered it with his own (random) thoughts, then abanoned the project. --Gavin Collins 15:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Does appear to be a POV fork, or at the very least falls under the category of original research. There is quite possibly a valid article to be had on this subject, but this one does not appear to be it. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to globalization and make some of the salvageable text a section in that article.Blueboy96 20:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to globalization and throw all info to that article unless article sets expanded more significantly with profound and deeper research. That may already be in the globalization article.--JForget 23:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete its nearly all original research. Black Harry (T|C) 01:21, 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. Sr13 01:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Kelly (porn star)

Kim Kelly (porn star) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The current version contains no assertion of notability (say by WP:PORNBIO), thus the article qualifies for deletion. I am sending it here rather than PRODing since there have been apparently controversial debates about previous unsourced versions of the article. Sent here as part of the Notability Wikiproject --B. Wolterding 15:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete bordering on speedy. Not only is there no claims to any notability, the article could fall under CSD A1 for a very short article with little or no substance. Wildthing61476 16:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - an earlier version of the article possibly passes WP:N if someone can dig out sources, but if ever WP:IDONTLIKEIT was a valid argument, now's the time — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 21:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I went searching for some sources of the previous version of the article, but all I found were a copy of the press release announcing that Kim was going the ManJuice diet, plus a quickie miniarticle and a really short interview both referring to her starting the interview. In my opinion, there's nothing out there. Tabercil 23:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete ad for escort service. JJL 00:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. The "Man Juice Diet" got some news, but not that much. This seems to be the most-quoted article on that, and it isn't much. Other than that, she's just another escort. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:12, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Braemar Community Association

Braemar Community Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article's subject is a homeowners association for which neither the primary author or myself can seem to establish notability. Braemar, itself, does not appear on maps, nor is it a census-designated place. The area is correctly located in Linton Hall, Virginia, which is CDP. I have moved relevant historical material from this article to Linton Hall. Mmoyer 15:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. This article asserts notability but does not establish it. Even if the statement about being the "largest para-government structure in western Prince William County" could be verified, it's a fairly dubious claim to notability. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This article isn't perfect, it has notability, it doesnt establish it, but it can be improved. 10,000 people live there, it obviosuly wont appear on the census for obvious reasons, and it appears on google maps. 82.43.111.162 16:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and give the author some time to add secondary sources (and Google Maps is certainly not enough here). There are some claims of notability, for example the awards mentioned. If this can be properly backed with reliable sources, then the subject is probably notable. If, however, sources are not added (or do not exist) then the article should be deleted. In the meantime, leave the notability warning on the article. --B. Wolterding 16:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: Article has been tagged for notability for a month prior to AFD. Mmoyer 21:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete a homeowner's association isn't a neighborhood, it's a subsection of a neighborhood. There are no citations as to who gave out the awards claimed. As far as we know, they were given out by the town. DarkAudit 17:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it's not a place, it's an association, and there are community associations all over the world, as far as I know. How does this one stand out and become encyclopedic? The article doesn't really give us much to work with in that vein. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. My vote would be otherwise if this were about a neighborhood rather than a homeowner association. Burntsauce 23:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Neighbourhoods in major cities are notable, but community associations aren't. This isn't even the only Braemar Community Association around, so if it were kept it'd have to be disambiguated anyway. --Charlene 02:42, 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 It would appear after reviewing the arguments presented, consensus is Delete. Navou 02:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander George Arbuthnot (British army officer)

Alexander George Arbuthnot (British army officer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A fairly standard British officer who got a few medals- considering we don't even know when he died he can't really have been that notable. Delete Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have now actually found his death- he died May 3, 1961 (aged 86) described as "colonel commandment of the First Division, R.A. from 1924 to 1928. After his retirement in 1929 he was commandment of the N.E. district, Kenya Defence Force, until 1933.". Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Further Comment Please note he was not a Brigadier General but a Brigadier which was the highest Colonel rank not the lowest General rank. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Provisional (if I can use that word without being part of the {{irc}}) Delete — although it says he was a Brigadier General - who in WWI might well have done something notable - on closer reading it seems he was a Major in WWI and consequently doesn't get the "get out of gaol free" card under WP:MILITARY#Notability by virtue of having "commanded a large body of men in combat". Let this one have its full five days (at least), though, since Kittybrewster's currently still serving out a 48 hour block, and he's the one best placed to give possible reasons to keep. The Order of the Star of Karageorge is potentially a "highest military decoration" — as with the Order of Leopold, with which I suspect some of the editors here are somewhat more familiar than they were this time last week, it comes in multiple orders of which only the "Grand Cross" is a highest-military-decoration for WP:N purposes. If it's the highest one, than change to keep as per the discussions ad nauseam last time — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment From The Times, February 16, 1917, Lt. Col. A.G. Arbuthnot D.S.O., R.A., was awarded the Order of Karageorge, 4th class (with swords) in September/October, 1916 (what looks like a thousand or more people also received various honours from the King of Serbia). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is unsure when a lot of people died in wars, so moot point, he was awarded an important medal, there is no reason to delete. 82.43.111.162 16:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually he didn't die in a war- he was recorded as being an "honorary Game Warden" in Kenya in 1952 and was living there till at least 1955. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 16:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless more information comes to light regarding the possible "save" from the OS Karageorge. The "thousand or more people" referred to above as receiving awards from Serbia may have been receiving considerably lesser awards, making them irrelevant to the comparison, or similar awards, making the award itself less notable. I'd like to know more on that one. Otherwise, it's a referenced article about a chap I'm very grateful to for his service, but still not sufficiently notable unless we change our notability policy and decide that we want every decorated army officer ever to be considered notable. – Kieran T ^(talk) 17:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Bearing in mind that this is just info from one lot of awarding (maybe their were others?), three people were awarded Order of Karageorge 2nd class with swords, ten the Order of Karageorge 3rd class with swords, and thirty three the Order of Karageorge 4th class with swords (what Arbuthnot got). Stangely the Order of the White Eagle is listed first in the honours which might seem to indicate it is senior (which would conflict with Wikipedia's information)- lots of senior officers were awarded that. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment As I read it, the two are equivalent - the White Eagle is for high-ranking officers & the Karageorge for "normal" soldiers and ranks. As with other Arbuthnot articles, it would be a lot easier to decide whether the award was important if there was the slightest hint as to what he won it for — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment I think, from this page [12] that 4th class, which Arbuthnot was awarded, must be the officer class (the higher classes being Commander>Grand Officer>Grand Cross) so he couldn't have got a lower award unless he was a soldier. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per below Carlossuarez46 19:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Weak keep a general officer in the UK military seems notable if RS's can establish that. Carlossuarez46 18:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually he died as a Brigadier not a Brigadier-General which was abolished in 1922 so he was never a general officer. Brigadier was the successor rank to Colonel-Commandment which he held 1925-1928. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks Gustav for the clarification and education, changed my weak keep to delete. Carlossuarez46 19:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: The worst thing about these pages is that they are so bad one could not make it up. " He was an honorary game warden of Kenya" referenced to "Shooting Of Elephants In Kenya". And as for that info-box highlighting for us his equally un-notable relations - words fail me. Delete as fast as possible. Giano 21:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Brigadier is an OF-6 (1 star general) rank, and he won the DSO and CMG, so may have done something notable (the latter suggests he was a civil servant of some sort), but there is currently nothing particularly notable here. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The Brigadier article states: "from 1922 to 1928 the British rank title used was that of Colonel Commandant which, although reflecting its modern role in the British Army as a senior colonel rather than a junior general, was not well received. Until shortly after the Second World War, it was only an appointment conferred on Colonels (as Commodore was an appointment conferred on naval Captains) and not a substantive rank." Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Also I don't think he was a civil servant it just says: "After his retirement in 1929 he was commandment of the N.E. district, Kenya Defence Force, until 1933", then as far as we know he spent his time as an honorary game warden in Kenya. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry, had not realised he retired before brigadier acquired its modern meaning. I would not be surprised if commanding part of the Kenya Defence Force, or being an "honorary" (?) game warden counted as a civil service (Colonial Service?) post. (Oh look, redlinks. CSB, anyone?) -- ALoan (Talk) 23:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Perhaps they might have been, but I imagine honorary game warden was more of an informal thing? Re:the CMG he was awarded it on January 1, 1917 "in connection with military operations in the field"- 6 were made KCMGs, 113 CMGs (mostly Cols., Lt.Cols. and Majors) (11 more from Australia, Canada and NZ, 22 from the India Office). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable.--padraig3uk 23:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I see no evidence of encyclopedic notability. --Hemlock Martinis 01:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep For the role of Kenya Defence Forces and game wardens, see the article on the country--these were quasi-military, sometimes in unpleasant ways; they were typical professions for semi retired military men. and yes, Game Wardens in Kenya at that did shoot elephants. We have to evaluate his career in terms of the period. Regardless of the details, Brigadier was always between Colonel and Major general--there have never been lower ranks of generals in the British army. DGG 05:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with his father Charles George Arbuthnot. A paragraph on AGA can easily be accommodated at the end of that article. Pharamond 06:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of encyclopedic notability. These straight-arrow bog-standard career officers who panned it out in colonial Africa are a dime a dozen, even a stock character. We don't need articles on all of them. --Dhartung | Talk 10:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per Pharamond *Keep, Automatically notable under: The following types of military figures are always notable: Recipients of a country's highest military decoration. The Order of Karageorge was the highest Serbian award at the time Kernel Saunters 12:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't the country's highest military decoration- he received the 4th class officer award- the Grand Cross is the highest award with Grand Officer and Commander under it. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that the award makes him notable - exactly how many British military personnel were awarded this award is what is needed here and at what level? i.e. was he a leading figure in the Balkans campaign? More research needed. Could this become a stub pending further research. Seems a bit over the top to rip this out prior to a good look Kernel Saunters 14:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already done the research- on the same date as his award was given, three people were awarded Order of Karageorge 2nd class with swords, ten the Order of Karageorge 3rd class with swords, and thirty three the Order of Karageorge 4th class with swords (what Arbuthnot got). A hundred or more high ranking officers got the Order of the White Eagle which was actually listed preceding the Karageorge which might seem to indicate it is senior (which would conflict with Wikipedia's information). Note he got the lowest officer award - the only lower awards are for soldiers -see this page for more information [13]. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Were the recipients you list at the same grade British? Kernel Saunters 14:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

1 from British Army received 2nd class, 6 received 3rd class, 21 received 4th class, and a thousand or more soldiers got lower awards i.e. the award in itself wasn't unusual and Arbuthnot got the lowest award for an officer. The other numbers were the Indian Army which was really part of the British Army at that time. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - a bog-standard career: not notable. HeartofaDog 01:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Giano -Doc^g 00:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• delete not compelling evidence of notability. Thanks very much to those who put in the time to research and establish this. JoshuaZ 15:49, 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 no consensus. IronGargoyle 05:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hicks Building

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

Contested prod. Non-notable building. Adambro 14:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It's beautifully written, and if it can be cited that it's one of the tallest buildings in the city, I might change my mind. YechielMan 14:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I am not yet convinced that this is a notable building. However it would make a good section of an article Buildings of the University of Sheffield (yet to be created); some of its buildings are individually notable (eg the Arts Tower, which is listed) and others less obviously so (eg there is the Psychology Building, built in brutalist concrete mode). -- roundhouse 14:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into said article above or article about the university. I've managed to tackle the other unreferenced point regarding the re-cladding, but as for it being one of the taller buildings in the city, it doesn't seem to be listed here or on Sheffield city council's website, so technically there is no assertion of notability. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 17:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Smerge to University of Sheffield per Zeibura. Not a notable building. --Dhartung | Talk 10:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Building is of great importance in Sheffield, and within the University of Sheffield. This is to form a series on Buildings and structures in Sheffield and the afore-mentioned list of Buildings of the University of Sheffield. See also {{SheffieldStructures}}, which will be transcluded onto some of these articles. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 09:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Whilst I'm sure the building is of great importance, the article does not seem to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. Adambro 12:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article establishes notablitiy to my satisfaction. Dsmdgold 17:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Article establishes sufficient notability to satisfy my understanding of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability. Dsmdgold 20:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The question is more whether the article establishes notability to satisfy the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability, something I don't believe it does. Adambro 12:31, 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 keep. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debagging

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

From PROD. The reason given at the PROD was "This article shows no specific encyclopedic merit. Debagging is, quite simply, not meant for a dictionary. If one were to pick up a Paper Encyclopedia, one would never find Debagging or Pantsing. In addition, part of this serves as a type of instruction manual (Debagging#Methodologies), which also has a broken link."

There was formerly a seperate article called Pantsing. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pantsing, closed just a week ago, this was merged and made a redirect to this article (Debagging). So in a way deleting this article would be an overriding of that AfD close, which I guess is alright Herostratus 13:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Abstain as nominator, this is a procedural nom. The orginal PROD was by User:IloveMP2yea. I would say that if the article is kept it should definitely be Moved to Pantsing, as this is the common term in the USA while Debagging appears to be possibly mainly limited to Oxford. The article states that they also use "skanking", "kecking", and "kegging" in the UK. Since the UK can't seem to get its act together on a common term, "pantsing" must be by far the more used term. I think the current article name is an artifact of the AfD at Pantsing, which perhaps should have been argued as a mergefrom Debagging. Herostratus 13:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I shouldn't base your argument on the part of the article that wasn't sourced. How do you know that there isn't a common term? If it's solely from the (now removed) bottom half of this article, which was a load of unsourced rubbish, you should treat that knowledge with suspicion. Uncle G 00:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and keep at this name too. This isn't something made up in school one day but it probably happens in some school every day and the argument that it wouldn't be found in a paper encyclopedia seems to defeat the whole purpose of Wikipedia. Nick mallory 14:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep-- featured in Evelyn Waugh novels. Rhinoracer 15:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - debagging is a recognised British term. I note that the definition has been trasnwikified to the dictionary already. The latter part of the article is excessively pretentious in its use of headings. The section on methodology has little value, but a list of literary references and notable instances might be useful. I would oppose a move to "pantsing" which is meaningless in British English - you cannot remove a man's pants (i.e. underpants) without first removing his trousers! Peterkingiron 00:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've zapped the transwikification at Wiktionary. That was yet another example of an editor not bothering to check Wiktionary first before nominating something for transwikification. That there was and is a prominent box at the top of the article linking to the articles that Wiktionary already has, and has had since 2005, almost two years before this article even existed, only made it yet more egregious. Uncle G 00:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• No-brainer Keep, and leave it where it is. "De-bagging" is a well-known British public school tradition, whether one likes it or not. The article is not brilliant, but sufficiently well referenced, and indicates that it is notable within the definition of wikipedia. Ohconfucius 08:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Certainly should be back at pantsing, where it had been for some time. The AfD was not handled well. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This article has never been at such a title. Uncle G 14:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The AfD result on pantsing was to merge with this article, but not necessarily into. (Actually, it looked to me that the outcome should have been delete both, but that's another issue.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The references don't include the term, and it sounds like a (slang) dicdef (so leave it in the wiktionary). -- Ratarsed 14:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's not a pretty article, and there's much room for improvement, but I see no reason why it should be deleted. The nominator's reasoning is not very convincing. One of the reasons for Wikipedia's existence is to provide a place for articles which would never find room in a paper encyclopedia. EthanL (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & Ratarsed. Or move to Unknickering. --Evb-wiki 17:05, 7 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. >Radiant< 09:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chamber Music Connection

Chamber Music Connection (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I am sure this is a laudable effort (giving students aged 8-21 the opportunity to practice and learn playing chamber music once a week in a smallish town), but I am having doubts about the encyclopedic notability. There are no hard facts about the number of students etc. Note: The article Opus string quartet by the same author has been speedily deleted. High on a tree 02:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment All of the references in the article are from the organizations website, which is not a reliable source. However, there are a middling number of google hits. Can reliable sources be found? Charlie 08:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Adding "Worthington" to the Google search cuts results to 400. I couldn't find any home-run sources in the top 10 hits. It looks like a nn small-town musical group, and I've seen those before. :) YechielMan 14:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• DeleteAgree with user above.KeNNy 02:06, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 17:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Huber

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

Delete: non-notable; PRODded previously but tag rv with no improvement. Dustbowldiaspora 13:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete 800 google hits associated with the university. Based on the top 10, he looks like just another professor; see WP:PROF. YechielMan 14:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Another 469 hits for his book GG-Szenario. Which is still not enough to impress, but it suggests that your count of his ghits was unnecessarily restrictive. —David Eppstein 18:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failing teh WP:PROF. tomasz. 15:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pharamond 16:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. There are a couple of significant references to him in German. Here a FAZ article about his "GG-Szenario" book, here an interview on Deutschlandradio. The article however is poorly written, apparently confusing Numismatics with Monetary Policy. Stammer 05:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the references found by Stammer. —David Eppstein 17:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• 'Weak keep The English language papers are in a miscellany of sources, only a few in major journals. The main source of notability would be from the book. DGG 04:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, decent Google scholar results. John Vandenberg 01:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, contributions undocumented, probably should have been marked for improvement before afd, but there is so little here. if the author does not care enough to write a first draft.... --Buridan 09:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  It was probably written in response to it being a redlink on three articles. John Vandenberg 10:03, 7 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. Peacent 17:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tytus Maksymilian Huber

Tytus Maksymilian Huber (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete: Non-notable in English wikipedia; PROD tag removed without authorization by anon IP. Likely vanity piece. Dustbowldiaspora 13:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It's extremely rare to find a "vanity piece" for a man who died 57 years ago. The long interwiki article in Polish is strong evidence for notability. YechielMan 14:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; I don't think an article can be notable in one language and not in another, and it certainly doesn't look like vanity. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 16:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pharamond 16:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now. Nominator's reasons for deletion do not follow AfD guidelines. Being notable only outside the United States or the English-speaking world does not mean a subject is non-notable; if he is or was notable in Poland, he passes WP:NOTE. I've posted a message to the Wikiproject Poland talkpage about it - let's see if anyone there can expand it before we delete it. --Charlene 02:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I have expanded a little, notable - on pl wiki, quite a few bios online. Unfortunatly his major contribution is something that apparently has 'no good English translation' - and I am not a mechanic/engineer specialist for translation terms... He is also noted in the Polish Biographical Dictionary. PS. I am sure that nominator breaking link to pl wiki is an accident, but please be careful in the future. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. --  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Maximilian Huber is quoted in Yield surface. Is this the same man?Xx236 07:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I am sure that's him, I'll create a redirect.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, looks fine after expansion by Piotrus. Jogers (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - for conducting an original research and finding a derivative of a very important law in physics - state equation, #3 after Einstein equations and conservation laws. greg park avenue 20:19, 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. Sr13 01:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs covered by Limp Bizkit

List of songs covered by Limp Bizkit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - it is not notable that a band played a particular song in concert. Verifiability of such songs is unlikely if not functionally impossible. If a recorded cover version is notable, it can be noted in an article for the song and/or in a Limp Bizkit discography article. Otto4711 12:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as covercruft per my reasoning @ Hendrix. tomasz. 12:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable information. Only Faith and Behind Blue Eyes got decent coverage, and both are mentioned already. Cheers, Lanky (TALK) 13:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Agree that the band only had two notable covers. Maybe some can be mentioned in the main article, but nothing that warrants its own article. hmwithtalk 14:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As with all the other "List of songs covered by X" articles, the information belongs under X's discography, not a seperate list. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as suggested above. Burntsauce 22:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:58, 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 16:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Phish Covers

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

Delete - has been tagged as unsourced for a year. Reliable sources probably can't be found that would satisfy verifiability concerns. It is also not particularly notable that a group played a cover song at a concert. Otto4711 12:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete – more claims to relevance than other of these "list of covers by..." artists as they're a jam band, very prone to covers, have covered whole albums for Hallowe'en, and whatnot. However, this is a double-edged sword as it also makes a definitive list of covers almost completely impossible to maintain, update, or ever make comprehensive. Thus delete as covercruft per my reasoning @ Hendrix. tomasz. 12:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought on this tomasz., but since Phish is no longer a group, it would be conceiveable to complete the list. However, the list would be so long and it seems non notable. Just throwing in my two cents. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 18:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources and no substantial encyclopedic use. Pax:Vobiscum 10:26, 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 and replace with Jessops (photographic retailer) - though these requests are I think better listed at requested moves. WjBscribe 05:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jessops

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

Need to delete to move Jessops (photographic retailer) in here, as this is an unnecessary disambiguation page; Instead the reference for Jessops of Nottingham should be an {{otheruses}} or similar Ratarsed 11:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• delete per nom. David Underdown 12:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Probably OK to cover this with speedy G6, and so tagged. EliminatorJR ^Talk 15:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 16:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The page should be kept either as a disambiguations or a redirect page as it is a notable company in the United Kingdom. Canderra 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  The point of deleting the disambiguation page is so that the current article at Jessops (photographic retailer) can be moved to Jessops, and the link to the John Lewis article inserted at the top. There'd be no point turning it into a redirect. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 17:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  This action requires the original article's deletion? Can't it simply be over-written? If not then I withdraw my original vote. Canderra 17:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  It has to be moved rather than copy pasted to preserve its page history, that's all. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 17:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and move per nom. --Guinnog 17:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and move per nom, the other entry on that page just isn't notable enough. Ben W Bell talk 18:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep 217.43.221.48 14:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  Why's that? -- Ratarsed 14:46, 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 16:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One Christmas

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

Doesn't appear to be a particularly notable event, written like an advert for the project Cheers, Afluent Rider 11:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as crystal ballery, no notability or assertion thereof, and basically for being a big school carol service. tomasz. 12:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I concur with the above assessment. Mmoyer 15:13, 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 Smerge to craniopagus parasiticus. The condition is notable, but the name of the child is not necessary in order to document that. Keep arguments are not invalidated by this; the coverage is of an example of the condition not as a biography of the child. Guy (Help!) 17:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manar Maged

This article is about a victim of circumstance... there is no need for Wikipedia to be the tabloid in this case. If there is anything truly notable here, merge it into Cojoined twins and leave a redirect. Doc's speedy was proper, and the restore was, in my view, not. ++Lar: t/c 11:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The condition is notable, not the individual. I think the most constructive strategy would be to relocate this case story to TwinStuff (also a wiki), which maintains a list of hundreds of conjoined twins. Una Smith 14:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per my nom. ++Lar: t/c 11:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep What is 'tabloid' about this article? It's written in a perfectly proper fashion and it's got multiple sources. The facts of this case are unusual and notable from a medical point of view and there was plenty of publicity surrounding the events at the time so this article is hardly an invasion of privacy. I don't see the rationale for deletion and none is actually given by the nominator. Nick mallory 11:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No reason given by me? The very nature of the article is tabloidish and sensationalistic... see WP:NOT, policy is changing. Merge it and leave a redirect, at best. In 100 years will this info be needed? ++Lar: t/c 12:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How can you even guess whats important in 100 years, let alone a year from now? Thats called crystalballing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • It's an extremely rare condition. People studying the topic will want to know about these cases and thus it is worthy of inclusion. Leaving the article causes no harm while deleting it is simply removing information that some will find useful/interesting/etc.. violet/riga (t) 12:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - notable and within policy. The references need work. violet/riga (t) 12:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Conjoined twins - What is notable is the condition, not the patient. - Tangotango (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• If merging this into conjoined twin improves that article, fine. otherwise delete. There is simply no case for an independent article here.--Doc^g 13:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Conjoined twin or to Craniopagus parasiticus as appropriate. Not-a-keep
• Merge or delete. The person is not notable for having the condition, and while notability is not a criteria for deletion it certainly is one for inclusion. Mackensen (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Q. For the mergists. Would a merge improve the target?--Doc^g 13:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC

"The case illustrates that there is a continuum from craniopagus parasiticus to the phenomenon of the conjoined twin." - so probably yes, in this case. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless our new approach is to have an article about everyone who suffered from a rare medical condition. Danny 13:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, this wasn't just a rare medical condition, it was also a rare and notable surgical procedure. MoodyGroove 19:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

• Merge & Redirect to conjoined twin. —Phil | Talk 13:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Conjoined twins. The argument for deletion seems to be not that notibility fails due to a lack of multiple independent reliable sources with substantial coverage, but that editors find the subject distasteful and "tabloidish." Wikipedia is not censored. The medical condition is clearly a proper subject for an encyclopedia and rare medical conditions are in fact discussed in well known paper encyclopedias. This would improve the article on the medical condition, by showing the state of the art in surgical attempts to separate the conjoined twins. Edison 13:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or delete. Remove actual names where appropriate and feasible (and perhaps delete all if not feasible). I'm concerned that we're not really delineating Wikipedia from a tabloid newspaper archive or a freakshow. It's neither. --Tony Sidaway 14:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to craniopagus parasiticus, removing anything prurient along the way. Nothing to do with censorship, eberything to do with drawing a distinction between tabloid freakshows and biograpies. The responsible way to treat this is to discuss it as an example of the condition, not to pretend that we have a biography (which we don't). Guy (Help!) 14:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Eliminate in some fashion - clear BLP violation. People who do not see this should go and reread BLP several times until they understand the policy. Phil Sandifer 14:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the actual article just once. She is dead.

The only living person mentioned is the fraternal twin Noora. Are you saying that BLP applies to Noora because it sure can't apply to Manar! Thus deleting the name Noora would stop the violation. violet/riga (t) 14:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should take your own advice. This is not a BLP violation, the references are there, it is critical of noone and undue weight is only placed on the subject of the conjoined twin because that is the only notable thing about her. (hence it shouldnt be a biographical article, but an example in a higher article) Viridae^Talk 02:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

*Keep - She (they) were the subject of major media coverage, including television appearances, ergo (they) were notable, despite for all the wrong reasons. The refs do need some work, however. Changed my recommendation to Merge to craniopagus parasiticus with a redirect per WP:BLP. Mmoyer 16:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to craniopagus parasiticus per Guy, some of the information/refs can usefully improve that article. There's certainly no reason to have a separate article, though. EliminatorJR ^Talk 15:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, prefer merge The case appears medically significant and the article focuses on the medical aspects of the case, rather than the sensationalism. Even though it was mentioned on Scopes, it does not appear to be the subject of an abusive internet meme. Although WP should respect the privacy concerns of non-public persons (which I think is what the invocation of WP:BLP above refers to), where the individuals involved do not appear to be concerned about keeping the subject of the story out of the public eye, privacy issues become less of a concern with respect to the information that the individuals are themselves making public. If I had a child with a rare birth defect I doubt I would take the child on Oprah, but the parents made the choice to do so. There is no need for WP to be more concerned about the privacy of a subject than the subject herself (or in this case her parents) is. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, strongly opposed to a merge. The arguments above are sound, this meets all relevant policies and guidelines. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Conjoined twin as per Mackensen and Tangotango. The article in question isn't a biography, but instead a medical history. FCYTravis 17:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to conjoined twin. This article isn't very valuable by itself, but parts of it could make a good addition to another article. --Carnildo 18:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The BBC is not "tabloid". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Missing the point. Prurient coverage is different from scholarly coverage or coverage which seeks to document an issue dispassionately. The BBC are just as capable of being sensationalist as anyone else. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. "sensationalist" is subjective. I base my opinions on the record of the medium. The BBC isn't being sensationalist in its coverage at all, and doesn't have a history of being sensationalist. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect, applicable content already merged. This is a case study, not a biography. The article for the specific condition (craniopagus parasiticus) was poor, little more than a mounting platform for links to this article and the one below it on AFD. I have taken the liberty of redirecting that article to the broader parasitic twin (which was also dismal), rewriting the content, and referencing the material. I see no compelling reason to delete as opposed to redirecting; these names are in case literature and media coverage, and BLP concerns (such as future impact on Google placement) are unfortunately not applicable in either case. Serpent's Choice 22:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There is a substantial amount of non-trivial third party coverage of this subject such that it meets and exceeds both WP:A and WP:BLP standards, and I say this as someone who spends a good portion of my time upholding such policies. Burntsauce 23:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge (if not fully completed) This is basically a fork, a notable example that is very useful in an appropriate higher article but barely notable enough on its own to warrant an article. Examples such as this are very useful to casual readers of the higher articles but not very useful randomly searching the encyclopaedia. It has no hope of ever being featured, its only hope of ever being featured content if it is merged. So from the point of view of not having a biographical article on every single person who has done something remarkable once and from the point of view of improving the net quality of our articles I think a merge is appropriate. Viridae^Talk 02:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep had TV show dedicated to her story, that certainly passes our bar for notability. I do not see any BLP concern here as content is well referenced.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't see the point of a redirect or a merge; I seriously doubt any Wikipedia readers are going to be searching for this person, and any relevant content is already in the appropriate articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• You never know what people are going to search for, though. The name is out there. Someone might see it in another source, and come here expecting more info. Zagalejo 17:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep victim of circumstances? That applies to most notable people. Go ahead an delete the article to G.W.Bush, because he became president because he was a victim of circumstances, respectively born into a high profile ex-Presidential family. Genius also comes in part with birth too. Delete the article about Mozart, because this poor guy was also a victim of circumstances. tsts. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 05:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, being afflicted with a medical condition this rare is notable (only 10 recorded cases). First operation of its kind in the Middle East. The article is well sourced and would be of interest to anyone doing research on conjoined twins. MoodyGroove 11:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove Merge to craniopagus parasiticus with redirect sounds reasonable, although comments the refer to this as a freak show or like a tabloid are completely off base. Conjoined twins are a perfectly legitimate subject for an encycolopedia. As for WP:BLP is it privacy issue? I'm all for the presumption of privacy, but the medical aspects of this case are central to the subject's notability and the case is well documented. I'm not clear on how this article harms anyone. MoodyGroove 19:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
• Delete This and other relevant cases can be noted in Parasitic twin while being sensitive to the family and the impact of being listed in a top-ten web site in perpetuity. Do not maintain as a redirect. Thatcher131 14:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Why not maintain as a redirect? I can imagine someone using this name as a search term. Suppose they had seen the name over at snopes, and came here expecting more info? Zagalejo 17:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per many of the fine points above. --Myles Long 21:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Easily meets our guidelines and the case is clearly notable on its own so merging is not a good idea. Prolog 14:18, 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 in the name of human dignity and our own self respect. It might be appropriate to include a reference to this case [14] in conjoined twins, but the name of the unfortunate infant should not be used on this encyclopedia. Writing from that external reference would not incur any licensing problems. --Tony Sidaway 00:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the most appropriate action would be to merge the information about this clearly notable case, without using names, into the "parasitic twin" article. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur. --Tony Sidaway 00:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rebeca Martínez

This article is about a victim of circumstance. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and there is no need for the article to exist. If you must, redirect the name of the victim to Cojoined twins but I don't even see the need for that. Wikipedia is, I beleive, moving in a more ethical direction, and removing this article will be part of that change. ++Lar: t/c 11:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• delete, per my nom ++Lar: t/c 11:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for the reasons I outlined in the Manar Maged AfD. What is unethical about this article? It's a perfectly factual event which is sourced and clearly notable. What part of Wikipedia policy do these two articles breach? Nick mallory 11:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - notable and within policy. The references need work. violet/riga (t) 12:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and/or Merge - The subject is notable, but I am thinking it may be better for her to be a Notable Case in the article for Craniopagus parasiticus rather than an individual article. --Ozgod 12:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - What is notable is the condition, not the patient. - Tangotango (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge the benefit of a separate article is, at best, negligible.Martinp23 13:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• If merging this into conjoined twin improves that article, fine. otherwise delete. There is simply no case for an independent article here.--Doc^g 13:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or delete per Doc glasgow. Notability not asserted nor assertable. Mackensen (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless our new approach is to have an article about everyone who suffered from a rare medical condition. Danny 13:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect to conjoined twin. —Phil | Talk 13:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, per several above. this is not a biography it's coverage of a condition (or rather, two unfortunates who have the condition). Let's not become the Internet freakshow, eh? Guy (Help!) 13:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Conjoined twins. This is a proper subject for an encyclopedia, and this case adds to the knowledge of the state of the art for separating them. An editors distaste for the subject is not a basis for deletion is the subject has substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, since Wikipedia is not censored to suit each editor's "ethical" notions. Edison 14:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing to do with censorship. WP:NOT censored is about the inclusion of frank portrayals of sexual or other content, this is not about that, it's about an agglomeration of tabloid news stories masquerading as a biography. There is a core if intelligent content, on the procedures used to separate these twins, but the twins themselves are not culturally or historically important other than by reference to their condition, so the logical place to cover the information is in the article on the condition. Please do not bandy the term "censorship" about, since that is absolutely not what motivates this debate; this debate is motivated by concern for human dignity. Even if you disagree on the approach, I woudl ask you to respect Lar's motives in initiating the debate. Guy (Help!) 14:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, but when someone says an article must be removed not because it lacks sources satisfying WP:A and WP:N but because it seems to them "tabloid" and "unethical" and they wish to make Wikipedia not have articles they find offensive, that IS censorship per se. The dictionary says a censor is a person who removes "what he considers morally or otherwise objectionable." Edison 14:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Then Wikipedia is censored. Phil Sandifer 14:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge to Craniopagus parasiticus. No reason to have a separate article. Kusma (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Eliminate in some fashion for BLP reasons. Phil Sandifer 14:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Isn't it amazing that when "Rebeca Martínez" is put into Google every single link on the first page is about this person. Removing it "for BLP reasons" is invalid a) because the person in question is dead, and b) the information is so readily available that all we would serve to do is let other places deal with the topic. The latter might not be a problem, but if we can show notability then it therefore warrants inclusion. violet/riga (t) 14:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep do not merge as above - meets all relevant standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Doc, Danny, Phil, et al. These people are not biographical candidates. They are encyclopedic only insofar as they relate to the medical procedure and phenomenon at issue, thus they should be mentioned in that context. FCYTravis 17:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per others above only notable for condition so should only be mentioned as an example of the condition. Davewild 19:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per the others, reads like a WP:COATRACK to me. Burntsauce 22:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above coments.--MONGO 22:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to parasitic twin, applicable content from several articles already merged there. See my longer response at the other AFD. Serpent's Choice 22:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge covered in reliable and reputable sources, no reason to delete. Kla'quot 04:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC) The fact that this was a briefly-covered news event would ordinarily incline me towards deletion, per WP:NOTNEWS. However, "first surgery of its kind" means that there is lasting scientific significance to the story. Kla'quot 08:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge relevant content to elsewhere, do not leave redirect. I am flummoxed as to how this individual was ever considered notable enough for an individual biography. Articles on medical cases go in articles concerning that syndrome. Moreschi ^Talk 09:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This and other relevant cases can be noted in Parasitic twin while being sensitive to the family and the impact of being listed in a top-ten web site in perpetuity. Do not maintain as a redirect. Thatcher131 14:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a medical case pretending to be a biography. Jkelly 21:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to meet WP:V and WP:N. Since this case is notable on its own, I don't see the need for merging the content anywhere. Prolog 14:12, 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 per numerous well-reasoned comments below, specifically that there is no evidence that the cultural or istorical significance of this case is sufficient to overwhelm the pressing WP:BLP concerns it raises. Concern for process is all very well in its place, but poorly sourced biographies of people who were "apparently" a kidnapping victim once would not seem to me to be that place. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delimar Vera Cuevas

Delimar Vera Cuevas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

10-year-old girl who "made headlines early in 2004" and should not have to live the rest of her life with a Wikipedia article reminding everyone for all eternity of what she went through. There's no evidence of long-term encyclopedicity demonstrated here. FCYTravis 08:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: If this article can be shown to have encyclopedic content that highlights why this case is important/notable it should be kept. Other than that I have no reason to want it kept or deleted, but I'm happy to see it go through the correct process. violet/riga (t) 08:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. This should not have been undeleted. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 10:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Per which speedy criterion? Prolog 10:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy an article that has been around for over three years? That would be rather insulting to those that edited the article and it is only fair that it goes through due process, especially when you have not been able to give a relevant criterion. violet/riga (t) 10:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I am willing to insult editors with sufficiently poor judgment to write this article. Phil Sandifer 14:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. I see no lasting notability here, and no need to sensationalise the plight of a victim. I think the speedy is in order per WP:BLP... and the undelete is OUT of order. that this was around for 3 years is more of a thing of shame than a reason to prolong the mistake. ++Lar: t/c 11:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Unfortunately there are hundreds of kidnapping cases every year, but this article fails to establish what made this instance unique or worthy of being an encyclopedia article. --Ozgod 12:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom and Lar. Cary Bass ^demandez 13:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic - not even violet riga seems to claim it is. She appears to have restored this 'out of process for process reasons - which is insane. -Doc^g 13:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Do not be afraid of following process in deleting articles. Do not refer to the actions of admins in following process as "insane." Whise this kidnapping case might technically have two or more newspaper articles with substantial coverage of the case, it is, sadly, an all too common event. The unusual part is the mother using CSI-style techniques and actually getting her child back. Since Wikipedia is not a newspaper archive, and not all news stories are encyclopedic even with multiple stories about the events and people, I do not see a loss to the Wikipedia project in deleting this. The argument for deleting it because it might cause embarrassment to the subject later in life is not convincing, since Wikipedia is not censored. Edison 14:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. I seriously question the ethics of anybody who seriously argues for keeping articles on barely notable children. Phil Sandifer 14:32, 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 Boldly merged to List of one-off characters on South Park by myself. Non-admin closure; I'm just cleaning up here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 10:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fat abbot

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

The character this article refers to only features in one episode of South Park, therefore the character is hardly notable. The character is already dealt with on the page referring to the episode. Finally, the script that makes up the page is copied straight from this website Jorvik 11:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Has hardly any noteability within the show, and more importantly: absolutey none outside of it. Dr bab 11:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
• Merge and redirect to List of one-off characters on South Park ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 14:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Merge/Redirect as above; the article is arguably a speedy deletion candidate under G12 and A1. The script copied from urbandictionary is a copyright violation (see section IV of their terms of service), and if removed there would be no context left in the article; all south park characters use profane street talk and refer to people as "bitches". I'd remove the copyvio material myself but I'm not sure whether that's acceptable while the AfD's going on, so I'll let someone else be the judge. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 16:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to List of one-off characters on South Park, no reason to keep as its own article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge made, someone may close the discussion now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:29, 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 Speedy delete g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki 13:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jackie Corley

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

This article, about Jackie Corley and created by User:Jackiecorley, appears to be about a non-notable author, using WP:BIO guidelines. Author does not appear to have produced any major works, outside of a handful of short stories and her own website. A recent post on her personal website (using the link on the article) states that "I finally signed up for a Wikipedia account and have gone into Wiki-insanity. We’re talking Word Riot plugging everywhere (though I still have to make an actual “Word Riot” entry)", suggesting that these Wikipedia articles are primarily being used for advertising purposes. Sjb90 10:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:SPAM, WP:AUTO, n.n., Wiki-insanity indeed. tomasz. 11:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Autobio-wikispam. --Evb-wiki 12:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as spam and vanity page. Clamster 12:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Most of the article was edited by the user, Jackiecorley which is advised against in WP:COI. --Ozgod 12:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Obviously a vanity page, especially as it's written by the subject. Greg 13:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Please go ahead and delete. I didn't read through enough Wiki protocol before posting Jackiecorley 13:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The user has blanked the article, but she has recreated it on her user page. YechielMan 13:28, 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. IronGargoyle 23:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emerging market business

Emerging market business (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is difficult-to-judge case because it may seem OnTopic. It seems relevant or useful at first glance, but I think the intent behind it is basically to pitch for consultancy services. Had the author included the content in Emerging markets, I would have more faith in the sources cited, such as the consultant's own research. I propose delete on the grounds that this is thinly disguised spam, namely source soliciting. --Gavin Collins 09:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, quite strongly. Reads like an essay; uncertain what it's trying to be about. The prose seems deliberately vague and gushy. Parts of it would read like a how-to manual but for the fact that the counsel given is so vague as to be wholly uninformative. (Companies that hope to improve or maintain their global market position must have a strong presence in developing economies. However, the products, services and skills used to achieve market leadership in mature markets do not automatically transfer to emerging market economies. When creating an expansion strategy, companies must consider many important differences between mature and emerging markets.) Prose this full of empty abstractions gives me a headache. Agree with the nominator that this bears all the hallmarks of consultancy crypto-spam. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikiversity, per the tag on the article. This is clearly an essay and thus beyond the scope of Wikipedia, but seems to go deeper than pure original thought, so it may work well as a learning material. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 16:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, my apologies to Vital Wave Consulting, but this really looks like a spam fork of emerging markets, which the author previously tried to spam. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:55, 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 this problem didn't get solved either. There's a lot of text here, and good arguments on both sides, I ultimately can't see a consensus one way or the other. There's a transwiki request up to move it to Wikiversity. I hope discussion on that is productive, it does indeed appear that Wikiversity may be a better home for it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsolved problems in chemistry

Unsolved problems in chemistry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Such a page is inherently PoV. Who decides that a problem is "unsolved"? Who decides that a "problem" is a "problem"? If this page is kept, I would wish to add "Why doesn't Physchim62 earn enough?" as the greatest unsolved problem in chemistry... Physchim62 (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Professional scientists can decide what a great unsolved problem is. Just look in the literature. Some common sense is also needed. Certain colleges even spend parts of their courses talking about what the unsolved problem are in disciplines such as physics and chemistry. It helps to establish what we know and we don't know and what type of new research is required in the future. Heliumballoon 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am a professional scientist, I have given my "greatest problem in chemistry"; my partner agrees we me, should we place it on the page? :P Physchim62 (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The unsolved problems in chemistry page suffers from exactly the same problems as the unsolved problems in biology page, which is currently nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in biology (2nd nomination).

The mere concept of "unsolved problems" does not really apply for chemistry. Famous single unsolved problems exist in the formal sciences like mathematics (see unsolved problems in mathematics) and in the applied sciences. For natural science, the "unsolved problems" are hidden in -and dictated by- the respective objects of study and nature.

The resulting lack of criteria for inclusion has resulted in an accumulation of randomly selected and often minor chemical topics, vague questions, non-chemistry topics, already or partly solved problems, pseudoscientific problems, and problems that could never be solved by scientific methods. The current version is a good example for that and the mentioned problems are obvious for any biologists or chemists. While readers who are not experienced in this field might find that collection interesting, it is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to keep purely entertaining articles (beside those eye-catchers on the main page).

An introduction into chemistry topics and an impression about research in this field is already given by our chemistry article the respective subdisciplines linked from there. A complete list of all possible chemical topics would not be useful and is beyond an encyclopedic article. A random selection of topics would be inherently biased and would thereby violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and, perhaps, Wikipedia:No original research. It is also immanently impossible to find reliable sources for a certain selection or inclusion, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Also judging from the contents on this page during the past years, this article is not manageable and can never become an encyclopedic article and should be deleted (the only alternative to deletion would be a precise definition of what belongs into this article and what not, but after thinking about this for a long time now, I could not come up with one). Cacycle 13:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - While this information is not cited, if it is valid, it could be potentially quite useful, and would be useful to someone. It seems a waste to simply delete. --Remi 10:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - there is consensus about this is scientific journals and textbooks. It also helps to define what new areas chemistry is exploring. Heliumballoon 10:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I am still not sure if you can imagine (after being here for only 14 days and 36 edits mainly in edit wars and policy discussion), how difficult it is to keep articles manageable if there is not the slightest agreement on what belongs there and what not. The big problem is that there is not any agreement on what makes a notable "unsolved problem in chemistry". But feel free to provide reliable sources to back up your claim. Cacycle 13:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Alas my username is so young and tender and so wet behind the ears..... Here are some specific peer reviewed articles that talk about an "unsolved problem" in chemistry. Defining the frontiers of science is something scientists do all the time and is very useful to know - surely worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.

• 1. Science magazine devoted a whole issue to 125 unsolved puzzles and questions. First 25 [15] Next 100 [16] Here are a few that are relevant to chemistry. What is the structure of water? Researchers continue to tussle over how many bonds each H2O molecule makes with its nearest neighbors. What is the nature of the glassy state? Molecules in a glass are arranged much like those in liquids but are more tightly packed. Where and why does liquid end and glass begin? Are there limits to rational chemical synthesis? The larger synthetic molecules get, the harder it is to control their shapes and make enough copies of them to be useful. Chemists will need new tools to keep their creations growing. Can we predict how proteins will fold? Out of a near infinitude of possible ways to fold, a protein picks one in just tens of microseconds. The same task takes 30 years of computer time.
• 2. [17] CHEMISTRY: Polymers Without Beginning or End Tom McLeish (20 September 2002) Science 297 (5589), 2005. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1076810] "Natural polymer molecules dominate biology, while artificial polymers are used as plastics or emulsifiers in countless modern products. Many characteristics of their crystalline, glassy, and fluid states can be traced back to the special properties generated by the ends of the molecules. But what would happen if there were no ends? What would be the properties of polymers composed entirely of closed loops?.......The new polymers may not immediately result in new, competitive products, but they stand every chance of clarifying some unsolved puzzles of polymer science.
• 3. [18] Chemistry: Enhanced: Putting Molecules Behind Bars Steven C. Zimmerman (25 April 1997) Science 276 (5312), 543. [DOI: 10.1126/science.276.5312.543] One of the most fundamental unsolved problems in chemistry is predicting, based solely on its molecular structure, how a molecule will pack in the solid state....
• 4. [19] presented here [20] Unsolved Problems in Nanotechnology: Chemical Processing by Self-Assembly - Matthew Tirrell - Departments of Chemical Engineering and Materials, Materials Research Laboratory, California NanoSystems Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara. The title of this paper says it all. It was presented at the department of Chemical Engineering at The Ohio State University - Centennial of the Department’s founding - April 24-25, 2003
• 5. [21] The French Chemical Society has a list of 10 problems with various sub-categories for Chemistry in the 21th Century that needed solving. Among them are questions such as: Why CO2 does not form a network like quartz? Devise structural methods that allow you to see how enzymes work in real time. N2 activation 70% of the air. Can we use it selectively and cost-efficiently to make organic compounds, e.g. amino acids? (Really) stable amorphous or glass materials. Stable for ever, whatever the Tg (i.e. fight thermodynamics) "Steath prodrugs" In order to, for instance, solubilise insoluble drugs (other than CDs, micelles, nano suspensions, super solvents, emulsions etc): a prodrug that would be formed only when the active is placed in contact with water (so that there is no need to describe and characterize the prodrug, but only the active), and would release the active immediately after administration to patient (so that there is only the active circulating in the plasma). Heliumballoon 17:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Commment- If this is kept, there should be some other inclusion-criterion. Should any little problem be inclduded? What makes a problem "large enough" that it merits a mention on this list? At the cutting-edge of any dicipline there will be a near-infinite amount of unsolved problems. Some of these will be solved after being "unsolved" for only a short period of time, since the reason they are unsolved are more because they are NEW problems than DIFFICULT problems. Only including problems that have been unsolved for say, five years, will give the list greater stability, but the number of unsolved problems will still be too large, I think, to include them all. My vote therefore must be delete in its current form, or keep with more restricitive and less arbitrary inclusion criteria.Dr bab 11:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This will never become an encyclopedic article, it is not manageable, not the slightest clue and agreement exists for inclusion (and exclusion) criteria, the list title is a misconception about the nature of chemistry, and it violates many Wikipedia policies (see nomination). Cacycle 13:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• strong keep as per heliumballoon. clearly mentions why this is notable and verifiable. in addition, i don't see why this editor's particular edit history or time with wikipedia has anything to do with the validity of their vote or argument. i'm CERTAIN after reading numerious writings by Jimbo Whales about how this is a democratic community that is entirely out-of-line. In the U.S., your vote doesn't count any less just because you're 18. Kudos to heliumballoon on responding very well and good-naturedly to it, but I still think it was out-of-line. Barsportsunlimited 19:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is interesting how this discussions attracts voters that have been around for only a week and that have not made a single article edit. Cacycle 20:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It's also interesting that instead of making statements to refute the arguments for keeping the article, you instead choose to attack the editing records of those who support keeping the article. -Interested2 23:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Cacycle's comment above is really out of line. Ad hominem is not a suitable way to discuss this. The real solution to edit issues in the Unsolved Problems series may be to identify people who will keep an eye on the articles, but fundamentally agree with the concept itself, rather than to delete the article. I sense frustration over having to edit out had entries to the point where even reasonable entries ones are reflexively deleted without proper consideration or justification. Ohwilleke 00:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. It should be obvious why I made the above comments (hint: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry). My main point is that we need exact criteria for this page, otherwise we will inevitable have endless arguments and frustration. But nobody voting to keep this article has suggested any so far. Cacycle 01:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comments and suggestions. The concept of chemistry having unsolved problems goes back a long way and it is something that is defined and accepted in the scientific community. Linus Pauling, the nobel prize winner famously lectured on it in his time [22] Let us turn to day. Many colleges lecture on it today. The University at Buffalo has a course (Chemistry 455-Advanced Organic Chemistry I (3)) that spends some of its time with unsolved problems in chemistry. Harvard's Chemical biology department says that "the courses offered by the program will emphasize concepts, unsolved (or partially solved) problems". Daniel Raleigh, Professor at Stony Brook University while describing his research says "An understanding of how proteins fold is one of the major unsolved problems of modern biochemistry" I hope at this point I have convinced people that it can be well defined.

So next how to define it? Well how about either one of the following:

1. That which in the scientific literature is seen as being an major unsolved problem.
2. The frontier of chemistry (what it is that people are trying to do but have not done yet) - eg the use of gold nano particles to deliver drugs.
3. Conceptual problems where empirical results contradict theory or areas where one theory contradicts another.
4. Areas where we do not understand why something occurs empirically (we have no theory at all). eg Why do fluorines have such unusual properties?

All arguments would need to be justified by quoting the appropriate literature. So one could either show that the literature says 'X' is a major unsolved problem. Or one shows that the literature says that one of the other categories apply and that the case is not trivial. Thus it would be recommended that this is something that would be left to practicing scientists. Heliumballoon 17:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• I appreciate this very first suggestion of possible criteria. But with this you essentially say that anything that is a current research topic can go on this page. There are hundred thousands of such topics, and every second introduction to a scientific article mentions an "unsolved problem". We need notability criteria. Your "everything goes" approach has been proven unmanageable over the last years and has led to more than one deletion request.

These would be my minimum requirements for an "unsolved problem in science" article:

• It should be well known as an important unsolved problem by everybody graduating in the respective field
• It should be well recognized by anybody in this field, independent of his subdiscipline
• It should have traditionally (i.e. over a certain timespan) be referred to as one of the important "unsolved problems" in that field
• It should be a well defined significant single problem and not just an incremental and gradual increase in knowledge
• It should not be just the rephrasing of the topic of an existing subdiscipline in that science

All list entries on unsolved problems in physics, unsolved problems in mathematics, and unsolved problems in philosophy pass this test easily. Now try to find the "unsolved problems in chemistry". Cacycle 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment There is a problem with the requirement "It should be well recognized by anybody in this field, independent of his subdiscipline". People who are not biochemists are not well aware of major problems in biochem. They may not be aware of the protein folding question. Similarly people who are not physical chemists may not be aware of the relativistic problems with element 137. People not in the nano field may not be aware of its big problems. Unlike physics, chemistry is a field where you need to actually "know" and memorize a lot of material. Additionally each subfield requires quite different skills. Physical chemists are quite different from everyone else in the field for instance. Biochemists have to have memorized a lot and also conduct their research quite differently. The same kind of thing applies to organic, inorganic, anylatcal, nano, environmental and polymer chemistry. Physics in this regard is different in that the fundamental qualities of each sub discipline are quite conceptually similar. Everything is built directly on mathematics. Of course they use different equations, but their approach is very similar. Their is also much less to memorize. However people should not think that just because other chemists do not know about a physical chem question, it is trivial. That may not be the case at all. The problem would still need to be something that is major jump. Indeed when people in one field solve a major problem in their area it can be of great use to other areas of chemistry.

Let me be clear. I am not saying that incremental advances should be included. However I think that it should it is possible to show that something is conceptually a big deal and show examples in the literature of people discussing the problem. A possible way (but not the only way) to know if a problem is a big deal is to ask "what are the consequences if the problem is solved". For example the biggest problem with fuel cells is that they require platinum. There simply is not enough platinum on earth to provide even a significant fraction of all automobiles with it. People have been working on alternative catalysts for years now. If someone solves this problem we really could go ahead and use fuel cells on a mass scale. Let me also say that this is an area where 'appealing to authority' alone is concerning. Any argument made for why something is a big advance should come with a conceptual explanation as well as with articles in the literature explaining the problem. Consensus would need to be achieved that this was a major problem in the field. But people would need to be convinced at a conceptual level as well. eg People need to be able to understand why its so important to solve the protein folding problem. Again I suggest that chemists or those with a strong background in current chemistry be involved with this. It is difficult to define what exactly is a big problem in chemistry - it is not 100% precise. But, just because its hard should not prevent us from making as high-quality attempt as possible. I see no evidence that trivial problems have been posted on the article in the recent past and have stayed their for a long time. The article seemed to have worked quite well in practice. Of course it could do with further improvement. Heliumballoon 14:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep as per the previous deletion debates on these series of articles. No new reasons for deletion have been added. -Interested2 23:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep as per heliumballoon. No question for me, this is interesting and relevant encyclopedic information and belongs here. Point well made. Agree with Barsportsunlimited about ad hominem comments - way to encourage new users. Scriblio 23:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC) — Scriblio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Once more a user that has been around for only about two weeks with 7 edits total (1 single minor edit to mainspace) who directly jumped into deletion discussions. Just wondering.... Cacycle 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment ...Wondering what? You know what I'm wondering? I'm wondering why I should not have an opinion on AfDs purely because I have only recently begun to add to / edit wikipedia... But whatever, for an admin who claims 10k+ edits to use ad hom handbags and innuendo against any new users that disagree with them is a certain way to stifle authentic discussion. Just quietly, it is also suggestive of someone with their own personal pov-axe to grind and subtly undermines any other contribution you make.--Scriblio 15:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as I see it, the proper definition is the series is that this series of articles is about the areas which are currently the subject of research by scientists in the field and to use the Wikipedian phrase are "notable" areas of research. This is a practical reference for people interested in pursuing a career in science to see what the current live issues in the field are and if those are issues of interest to those persons. The editing process also allows Wikipedia to exclude settled issues in a more timely fashion than a print source could, making this a good forum for it. In particular: Ohwilleke 00:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The resulting lack of criteria for inclusion has resulted in

- minor chemical topics (certainly O.K. to delete for lack of notability in a clear case);

- vague questions (not fatal if it captures the essence of the issue, the solution is tighter wording)

- non-chemistry topics (thus, move to the proper unsolved problem category)

- already or partly solved problems (already solved problems should obviously be deleted, but almost all problems are partly solve, this is no reason to complain about inclusion)

- pseudoscientific problems (Wikipedia should be accurate so removing these makes sense),

I agree that this must not be allowed in the article. I suggest that by restricting sources to scientific ones we will be ok. Eg - peer reviewed journals, science magazines, textbooks, websites of researchers, etc. Heliumballoon 11:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

- problems that could never be solved by scientific methods (how often is that really true? also, some insoluable problems never the less attract lots of serious research interest because even getting close to an ultimately insoluable problem is interesting -- for example, a list of all chemicals existing in nature is inherently impossible since we can't search it all, but never the less, getting close can be very worthwhille) Ohwilleke 00:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weakish delete This article is certainly better than the corresponding article for biology, but I think the same logic should apply - *Delete Almost all problems in chemisty are partly solved, some to greater or lesser degrees. Whether something is unsolved enough to belong on this list is inherently POV. ike9898 01:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As noted repeatedly, the "...in mathematics" and "...in physics" articles have logically-definable criteria on which to base such a entry; chemistry doesn't. (Not to mention the difficulty of writing such an entry with proper references and without POV problems). -- MarcoTolo 01:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Ohwilleke. Ezratrumpet 21:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• strong keep Zginder 21:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC) UIf this gets deleted then the physics one must be too. Just because you didn't major in Chemistry doesn't mean the article should be deleted.
  • You would be surprised to learn that most users who would like to see this article deleted are actually scientists and heavy contributors to chemistry articles on Wikipedia. Please read the nomination and the discussion above to see why many think that chemistry is different from physics. Cacycle 02:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I was asked to give my comments, but I don't want to vote either way. I'm by nature a strong inclusionist, but I am a little uncomfortable with this article. As has been pointed out, the list is too open-ended and subjective, though if the list is simply a distillation of the key literature on the topic (which it seems to be) then that makes me much happier. Does it belong in an encyclopedia? I'm not sure. On balance I don't think I could vote either way. Walkerma 06:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Commment No opinion on deletion/inclusion, but this article as it stands has serious fundamental flaws from a Wikipedia article standpoint, namely what criteria is determining that a particular problem should be listed here and where are the reliable sources establishing that these are "persistent questions with deep implications"? I've tagged the article and if it is indeed kept these problems need to be addressed.--Isotope23 17:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- I don't see any changes since the previous deletion debate, where the consensus was to keep. I hope this is not one of those articles that people nominate 16 times just to see if they get lucky. --Itub 16:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Commment What would be your criteria for adding content to this page. Cacycle 20:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• The article may not be perfect now, but its existence is justifiable. It could be improved by adding references that show why a problem is considered an important unsolved problem and by whom. Heliumballoon gave some possible examples above. I also remember seeing books about "the future of chemistry" that could be useful for this purpose. --Itub 21:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I nominated this after seeing the biology version; simply because this is is second nomination doesn't mean that I have a personal crusade against it. However, I do think that it is false, worthless and misleading: I hope that those editors who wish to keep it will improve it to the high intellectual caliber of their other Wikipedia contributions. Physchim62 (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just started the long process of finding references and of cleaning up the page. Heliumballoon 17:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Just in case that this list article survives this deletion request, I suggest that we first try to to reach a consensus on its talk page on what belongs there. That will prevent frustration on both sides. Cacycle 18:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: That's more than a good suggestion — Wikipedia guidelines actually require lists to have specific criteria for inclusion. -- MarcoTolo 19:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Even assuming that the article is false, worthless, and misleading, that is not reason enough to delete it. The questions should be: is the topic notable and are there reliable sources about it? We can still disagree about that, of course, but I think that the topic is notable and sources exists as mentioned above.

Commment. The closely related page unsolved problems in biology has now been deleted as an "inherently subjective list", see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in biology (2nd nomination). Cacycle 01:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per point of view risks with the article's title and subject, and potential indiscriminate collection of information. Question is - who decides? Any particular controversies, based on the references provided, can be documented on independent pages. Orderinchaos 14:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Definite keep: I am not going to repeat myself, I did participate in the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Unsolved_problems_in_medicine discussion (in it chemistry was included), voted to keep it, it was kept and that should be it. I do not see any reason why it should be nominated again. In any legal system a defendant can only be tried once. V8rik 17:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Unsolved problems in medicine has now been deleted for essentially the same reasons that led to this nomination, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in medicine 2. Cacycle 20:44, 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. Careful analysis of the references and strong arguments against this article meeting any group notability criteria hold more weight than the counter-arguments. IronGargoyle 04:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Penny Dreadful Players

Penny Dreadful Players (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Apparent advert (see early revisions), no assertion of notability. The Anome 08:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete vanity piece as it stands, needs sources. --Oscarthecat 09:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Hmm..."See early revisions"? You mean, if someone writes something stupid, and I fix it, it should still be thrown out, because the early revisions are bad? Yes, the group doesn't get wikipedia. Yes, I tried to help them in spite of themselves. The fact that they're clueless shouldn't affect how we treat an article about them. For notability, the very fact that they're a 15 year old theatre group at a well-known university would count, wouldn't it? There is a huge shortage of articles in Category:Student theatre. If this isn't an appropriate article topic, what would be? (sorry for the snippy tone, I seem to have wasted a lot of time on this group) Stevage 11:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The improvement to the article since early revision is considerable, but looking at the current version of the article, does it meet the WP:BIO criteria, in particular the sections on "entertainment groups" and "creative professionals" ? For example, if they have made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment let's get this added to the article and a source cited. --Oscarthecat 12:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think BIO applies here, it's an organisation, not a collection of named or otherwise related people. Stevage 16:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Then WP:CORP would apply, with the same effect. -- The Anome 19:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask that our page not be deleted. If an individual can have a wiki page, so should a group at a well-known University. We are currently working on getting more sources, but already have more that we originally did. This group is relevant to topics such as University of Illinois and student-theater, and will be a good source for prospective students wondering what activities there are to do at the University, as well as the 40,000 current students, and countless alumni. If anyone has any other suggestions for the page, we'd love to hear them. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.8.12 (talk • contribs)

The rules for inclusion are quite clear -- please see WP:CORP -- and at the moment the supporting cites supplied don't seem to me to meet the WP:CORP criteria. For example, self-published sources cannot be used to ascertain notability, and student magazines are typically not regarded as mainstream sources, or we would need to have an article about every student society at every college. Six of the external links that you have supplied all appear to use the same publishing software and page layout and all appear to be online student publications which are affiliates of one another. (Please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Penny Dreadful Players for an analysis of the external links provided.) What Wikipedia is not has more information about using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. -- The Anome 17:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that the Daily Illini , from which a number of the sources hail, is a legitimate newspaper in existence since 1871. In the champaign-urbana community it is mainstream media. the buzz magazine is a weekly entertainment magazine inserted into the Daily Illini. whether these articles are enough to ascertain notability, i don't know.-- Supermackin 21:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's still a student-run newspaper (albeit a long-established one), reporting on its local student drama society. Anyway, regardless of all this, no-one has yet, as far as I can tell, made any assertion that the Penny Dreadful Players have had any "notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" outside their local community, other than that which might be expected of any university drama society, of which there are thousands worldwide? -- The Anome 21:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable, advert, vanity, etc. G1ggy! _{Review me!} 07:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Colleges are generally notable, though college-affiliated groups need to show that they have received special coverage in external media, in my opinion, before they deserve articles. The sources provided so far don't appear to meet the test, since they amount to saying 'This group is famous all over campus.' I'm impressed by the analysisis of the sources done by User:Anome above and reported on the Talk page of this AfD. His quotations from policy are convincing as well. EdJohnston 17:42, 7 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 Withdrawn. Consensus is to keep per improvement PeaceNT 17:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calerway

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

The subject has performed with a number of notable bands but does not appear to be notable itself. The only sources provided are not independent of the subject. Mattinbgn/ ^talk 08:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 08:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Such bands as Heavy weight Chanp are basically in the same boat as Calerway, the band is pretty big over in Perth and has toured across Australia and Singapore and is releasing their proper album in the coming weeks.
• Comment Please think over the dealtetation, i would add more to the page but the offical site is down currently.
• Comment 30/05 7:54pm - I've read over those articles, but i'm still stuck on which points to clear up for the article? (beginner at this)
• Comment Link to the TripleJ playlist that played a Calerway song and interview with JP
  • Comment the link is dead or at least it doesn't work for me. I will look at the TripleJ website myself. I have taken the liberty of formatting your contributions to the discussion. Please sign your comments using ~~~~ at the end of your message so others know who is commenting. Mattinbgn/ ^talk 12:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Can't see it here. I still don't think it is notable, sorry.Mattinbgn/ ^talk 12:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Weak keep based on recent edits. I would withdraw but there is at least one other vote to delete, so probably should run its course. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 04:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. By WP:MUSIC, the band must have released at least 2 albums with major labels in order to be considered notable. The article only mentions one album, and Valet Records does not seem to be a major label (rather a startup indy label). So the subject fails notability guidelines, unless someone comes up with sources that support other criteria of WP:MUSIC (secondary coverage of tours, charted hits, etc.). --B. Wolterding 18:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the improvements in the article during the AfD, I am changing my vote to Keep. --B. Wolterding 08:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The notability guidelines under WP:MUSIC requires that the cirteria for musicans and music ensembles are notable if they meet one of the criteria not just that it has to have released at least 2 albums. It should be noted that the band has not only toured Australia - performing in Perth and Victoria but has also toured South-east Asia (which has been referenced via a independent source). The band have recieved airplay on Triple J the national youth broadcaster for Australia and their video clip has been aired on rage. All of which justifies the articles inclusion. Dan arndt 03:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:MUSIC by virtue of overseas tour (to Singapore). Lankiveil 08:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC).
• Keep, obscure but notable by virtue of criteria per WP:MUSIC. Orderinchaos 14:35, 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. The article fails to prove its notability, and does not describe the website in a encyclopedic manner (contrary to Faith Freedom International who also received significant independent coverage). -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pojo.com

Pojo.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about non-notable website. Article is unsourced (WP:A), doesn't appear to meet the guidelines for notable web content (WP:WEB), and is written like a guide to the site (WP:NOT#IINFO). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, just in case this interests anyone: Pojo.com Alexa rank 22,696; Faith Freedom International Alexa ranking 49,816. It didn't make up my mind but it's a good idea to compare to other articles (that have survived many AfDs). gren グレン 08:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable sources, fails WP:WEB. Alexa is not notability, and neither is Google, though a mere 377 unique Ghits [23] is worth noting. EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB. --Evb-wiki 12:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, borderline A7. It's a well written article and such, but I can't see any claim to why it's notable and as mentioned above, no references. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 16:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, strictly going by their own site (not preferred, but it's the simplest way to show this), the assertion of notability is "Pojo.com is the Internet's premiere location for the most popular of Gaming issues" . If so, it'd certainly merit inclusion. However, I don't know if it is so or not. FrozenPurpleCube 02:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The problem is that 1) There's no reliable sources to back up such a claim, and 2) the description as a "premier location for the most popular of Gaming issues" is way too vague. Do they mean tabletop or video games? In either case, I'd say there are bigger and more notable sites to deal with issues from either medium. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 10:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Um, that would be why I said "If so" and pointed out that it's only them saying so. It is however, still an obvious claim to notability, even though self-asserted. Whether or not you disagree or consider it vague isn't the issue. It's whether any reliable sources also say so. And I mostly bring it up to refute the speedy deletion claims. That would not be an appropriate action in this case. But beyond that, there is the book publication issue to consider as well. FrozenPurpleCube 14:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable website that is a blatant violation of WP:WEB. Speedy if possible. -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 00:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Hmm, well besides a website, they've published books/magazines with H&S Media, Inc. (Which may merit an article itself, given that it's had sales over 50 million $ a year) and more recently with Scholastic. These books are available at retail stores like Wal-mart, Target, and B&N as well as online from Amazon.com. I'm not sure if that means the site merits inclusion or not on that basis, but it does need to be examined. In any case, though, google searches and alexa rankings are flawed, especially so when you have to exclude the website itself. Therefore, I suggest not making any decision based on that. In any case, this should not be speedied, but given the full five days for folks to discuss this. FrozenPurpleCube 02:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Don't Delete. Encyclopedias have articles to inform readers, and regardless of how "notable" or "valuable" it may be, someone will probably come along and want a wiki on Pojo. You should look at some of the useless articles we have on here. We have tiny little stubs on some of the most unimportant subjects but I'm sure someone must want to know the history of a pencil. Fock Yeah Seaking 11:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are actually many concerns about the existence of useless and stub articles on Wikipedia, but that isn't a good argument to keep an article. It would be better if you took a look at WP:WEB or WP:CORP and see if you can meet any of the criteria there. FrozenPurpleCube 16:51, 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 Eluchil404 20:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Heaven Shop

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) guidelines Calliopejen1 07:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. The first ghit is a teacher's guide for the book, and author Deborah Ellis has a reasonable article. That's enough notability for me. Clarityfiend 08:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Otherwise notable author, book taught as part of a curriculum (WP:BK keep criteria #4), gonna have a poke at the article now. tomasz. 10:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. See what you think of it now. tomasz. 12:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Appears to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books) criteria 2 (awards, per referenced section in article) and borderline 4 (per tomasz - would personally like to see more about where/why this book is taught). -- saberwyn 13:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as it passes Wikipedia:Notability (books) and then some ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 13:07, 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. Sr13 01:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Dozier Tha Phantom

John Dozier Tha Phantom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to be notable. Musician active for less than two years, still attending highschool. Valentinian ^{T / C} 06:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Spam. Non-notable. -- RHaworth 08:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Birthdate: 1991. Artist website: MySpace. Diagnosis: nn spam. tomasz. 09:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki 13:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete tha [sic] article. Fails WP:MUSIC as mentioned above, and there's no assertion that tha [sic] music is reaching a wide audience. "Having one's own label" could easily equate to "burning CDs on a CD-R drive." --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete "will soon be an impact on the world" on the talk page suggests that he's done nothing of note yet. DarkAudit 16:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, non-notable spam. Get rid of it. Burntsauce 23:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Burntsauce. Closenplay 21:17, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rebecca Cummings (2nd nomination)

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

Article was previously kept on some pretty sketchy argumentation, mainly that editors liked her apparent accomplishments. However, I can't find a single reliable, independent source to verify any of it. Google doesn't turn up a single biography on her, a single newspaper article, trade magazine article, anything. The one article cited is down, and it's not even about her, it's about the fact that the Wikipedia article exists (according to our old signpost article mentioning it). So all we have is her own site and a webcast radio show. The article has been written by either Rebecca Cummings or someone closely affiliated with her, but without sources, writing about yourself is just original research. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not appear from the article to pass WP:PORNBIO or WP:BIO. No attribution for any of the claims. --Charlene 06:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This never should have been kept in the first place, and there's even less reason now. —Chowbok ☠ 07:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above and lack of multiple independant sources about the subject. -- saberwyn 13:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for failure to satisfy WP:A and WP:BIO. Edison 14:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete ad for an escort service. JJL 00:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Only 53 unique ghits for '"Rebecca Cummings" pornography -wikipedia', none of them from anything approaching a reliable source (although there may well be some relevant hits that don't include "pornography" it seems likely that any reliable source on her will include the word or a close-enough derivative of it that google will pick it up) JulesH 10:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I the original editor of the article. Along with my comments for keep in the first AfD I would like to add the following.
  • Rebecca's article has gotten two stub ratings since it was originally given a stub rating by an administrator, as well as others, who helped me get it to the point it was a complete article. With the last two stub banners that were posted by a bot one of the banners says, "(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)". Not one comment was left and I was left searching the guidelines and policies to try and find out why. Then when I ask for an Administrators help the article gets put up for deletion. (To clarify I should say Night Gyr posted a message in the same Administrator talk page and is not the Administrator I was asking for advice from.)
  • I must say writing a Wikipedia article has been an experience. At this point I will never write or help edit another article for Wikipedia. It's not worth the wasted time after the article is written. Rebecca's article became a complete article with the help and support of several administrators and users that treated me with the respect someone writing their first Wikipedia article should receive. It was even improved by a suggestion during the first article for deletion debate. I've read a lot of the endless whirlpool of pages about Wikipedia and the processes, guidelines and policies to writing good articles and porn bios just to have other guidelines and policies buried inside Wikipedia that contradict the ones I read brought up. I've addressed issues as they came up while I was writing the article, after I wrote the article and also the first time the article was put up for deletion just to see the exact same issues come up in this AfD. That says there wasn't very much research before putting the article up for deletion the second time or posting a comment.
  • To address the comments above:
  • 1) I would ask that you expand on why it does not meet criteria so I can better understand. example - Does not meet WP:PORNBIO because ____ instead of just Does not meet WP:PORNBIO.
  • 2) Please show verification that the newspaper article doesn't contain personal information about Rebecca that was used in her Wikipedia article. (The main thing that comes to my mind is her home town which I left out because it was original research and was added by User:TrojanMan after the newspaper article was published.)
  • 3) Is a webcast radio show any less of a reliable source then a TV or newspaper story?
  • 2) The original research issue was dealt with by Administrator User:Alkivar when I first started the article and in the first AfD.
  • 3) Can someone direct me to the guideline or policy that says an article cannot be written by someone closely affiliated to the subject of the article? (The issue if I was Rebecca was also dealt with by Administrator User:Alkivar)
  • 4) Where does it say WP:BIO is the only standard for articles involving people in the adult industry instead of including WP:PORNBIO?
  • 5) Can someone direct me to the guideline or policy that says the number of Google hits determines notability? (Someone notable in Rhode Island will have fewer hits then someone notable in California. Does that make them any less notable and unacceptable for Wikipedia?)
  • 6) I would also like to see verification that Rebecca is an escort or works for an escort service or that Heart Throbs or HT Productions is an escort service which would make her article just an "ad for an escort service".
  • The only new argument for deletion since the first AfD is the that the link to the referenced newspaper article is down and becasue of that parts of Rebecca's article cannot be verified. I agree the link is down but from the discussion in the first AfD it is obvious the newspaper article was there. (<~~ Chowbok - I think I found something we both can agree on.) To help me understand Wikipedia better can someone point me in the direction of a policy or guideline about what happens when a link used as a reference in an article is down and that the article should be put up for deletion. The other option and I cannot find the format to use in Rebecca's article is the newspaper (and possibly the Des Moines public library) should have the article in the companies library or on microfiche. I'm still searching but if someone let's me know where to find the information on how to reference the newspaper article by using the contact information of the newspaper or the public library I will change it in Rebecca's article which will eliminate the verifiability issue.--HeartThrobs 00:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The problem is pretty simple. When you write from firsthand experience, you end up writing facts that haven't been published anywhere before. Wikipedia isn't the place to do that, because everything written here needs to be verifiable to a reliable published source. The facts in the article need to be supported by reliable, published sources, and that's non-negotiable. It just wasn't enforced as strictly before. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • There is nothing in the article that is original research. I was informed about original research when I first started the article. (see home town example above) That is also why I asked for help in being pointed in the right direction on how to cite directly to the newspaper's office since the article was online but the link is now broken. I'm still trying to find it in the Wikipedia guidelines but haven't found it yet. --HeartThrobs 02:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC) I also edited my prior comments to indent the numbered comments so it is easier to read. The only changes made were two astericks added before 1).

• The Des Moines Register cite has been updated to include the Library Manager's telephone number. Does this solve the problem? --HeartThrobs 02:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as before. Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination, as the article does not sufficiently argue about the subject's notability to meet WP:PORNBIO. Tabercil 17:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment:The article does meet WP:PORNBIO - this lady has won several state awards. What I have a problem with, hoever, is the fact that this cannot be verified... anywhere. Google tells me that the awards exist, and also lists several people who have won them, but I am hard-pushed to find Rebecca Cummings even exists, let alone has won any recognition. A google search for her name pulls up more on an English teacher than her. Without any kind of citation and a severe lack of web presence, I really don't think we should have this article. If the person who knows her can provide some evidence for this lady's notability, perhaps it can be salvaged though. DevAlt 23:12, 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. W.marsh 16:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michigan Federation of Young Republicans

Michigan Federation of Young Republicans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article makes no assertion of notability for its subject. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment [24] looks like a secondary source. But I must point out that the edits are very infrequent since its creation on 2006-05-21. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The sources are about the alleged rape committed by the chairman not the federation. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No reliable sources. If a political organization is at all noteworthy, it will be covered in the press. There are no press mentions listed. EdJohnston 03:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources, and the entire essence of the subject is non-notable. That's not to say that "young republicans" are non notable per se, but in this case they are. G1ggy! _{Review me!} 07:28, 7 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, please defer merge-related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity

Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Minor campaign by the Discovery Instuitute, just over a thousand ghits, does not appear to have been picked up by any major news source. Also, is the debunking original research? There's so little on the PR stunt online... Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or merge back to D.I. JJL 00:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - seems notable enough. Guettarda 03:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Notable how? has anyne talked about this but them? Besides maybe a brief comment on Orwellian naming practices? Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Intelligent design movement. This could be whittled down to a paragraph. •Jim62sch• 12:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Although the DI has not yet heavily promoted this organization (probably because the list of signatories is not yet long enough), links to it now occupy a prominent position on Discovery Institute web pages. The latter part of this article is NOT original research, but just a quoting of appropriate references quantifying the membership of the fields invited to sign this petition. Without knowing the size of the fields involved, there is no way to judge what this survey means, and this article would verge towards a POV advertisement for the Discovery Institute. In fact, the earliest versions of this article were copied directly from the Discovery Institute website and read exactly like an advertisement. --Filll 13:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns, or (distant second choice) Intelligent design movement. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. It's notable and it's better to cover it neutrally and accurately on Wikipedia in it's own article (that appears as the 3rd result in Google) than letting the DI continue to misrepresent what it is to the public. IOW, this article stands as an accessible and neutral counterpoint to the DI's PR. Odd nature 16:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I believe that any publicity stunt done by a major publicity stunt company, such as Discovery Institute, is automatically notable even if it's slow to be taken up by the media, as soon as there are enough sources to be able to neutrally represent the stunt. Digwuren 16:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge to Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. Not enough for a standalone article. Clarityfiend 22:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. It is notable, but I would be favorable to Merge per KC. Orangemarlin 00:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Worthy of it's own article per Odd nature. FeloniousMonk 04:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Notable. But the numbers of people signing that statement should be related to the number of physicians who know about the statement and declined to sign it, not to the total number of physicians. Any data on how widely this statement is circulated among those professionals?Northfox 02:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, just as with the other 10 or 15 similar petitions that have been circulated on both sides of this issue, there is no way to determine this. This statement is no different than Project Steve or A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism or any of the others in this respect.--Filll 04:32, 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. Sr13 01:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Spaniel

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

This is a vanity article, written at the subject's request by his fans, and based almost entirely on his column, written for a minor fansite (which he runs). He's never been the subject of significant commentary written by anyone other than himself; there are two links mentioning him in the external links, but both of those are responses to his critical articles, by the subjects of those criticism. There's no sources we can use to write an article about him, save for his own all-but-self-published column. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete: As per nom. Bradybd 05:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Non-notable. --Dysepsion 07:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but transwiki, since some good faith work was done here. Shrug. Sources are actually not the problem here due to him being an Internet writer, but Mr. Spaniel is quite simply not notable enough. SnowFire 12:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Referenced, but non-notable. --Ozgod 12:48, 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 Delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toki Pona

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

An apparently non-notable, web-based constructed language. This article has a long history, created way back in early 2002; the history of this constructed language and its online community appears to be highly intertwined with Wikipedia, as it it was invented in "mid-2001," less than a year before this page was created, the creator of the language has extensively edited this article, and the apparently there was even a Toki Pona Wikipedia that has since been deactivated.

This article was previously nominated for deletion 2 1/2 years ago on the vague grounds of being "unencyclopedic"; it was kept, with most of the "keep" arguments on the grounds that it has a following on the Internet with several fan sites, a Yahoo group, and the now-defunct Wikipedia.

However, the original AfD did not deal with a very important point: the lack of available reliable sources to demonstrate notability and ensure that all of this information is verifiable. I've scoured the Google News archives, as well as my university's Lexis-Nexis search, but have been unable to find a single reliable source myself. Attempts have been made on the talk page to find sources, but the only ones that have been added are an article about constructed languages with a small sidebar entry about Toki Pona, and an article about the speed of thought that cites it among other examples of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. However, neither source addresses the language directly nor in detail, as WP:N defines. Additionally, the lack of reliable third-party sources makes it impossible to confirm crucial details such as the assertion that the language's creator Sonja Elen Kisa is actually a linguist, for instance, or to verify that the number of language speakers and "enthusiasts" is accurate. Krimpet (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Subject is not notable. The grammar information composing most of this article has never been published in any reliable source. Toki Pona has received no attention from academic linguistics. This language seems to only exist in Yahoo groups and websites published by its creator, who does not seem to claim any credentials as a professional linguist. -- Schaefer (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia could stand to be cleaned out of a number of Conlang articles, which, like other internet-based topics, got in early when standards weren't so strictly enforced. This just doesn't meet the standards for having sources that support the text. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, I think this might be as notable as many of the books we have. I do have a problem keeping it in this form which makes it look like a language when it's a study/book/research paper. Maybe it should be kept on this merits, although it would involve some work. gren グレン 08:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as failing WP:A and WP:N. Although it makes someone a fine hobby, and a few other people seem to like it, Wikipedia is not here to publicize things an editor made up which failed to demonstrate notability in the larger world out there. Edison 14:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Toki Pona is in fact quite well known among esperantists and indeed does give interesting insights in the Sapir-Whorf-hypothesis. And there are a lot of people who did not come across Toki Pona through the author's website or through Esperanto meetings where Toki Pona is often taught as well. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And Toki Pona certainly is one of the well-known and wide-spread planned languages (the fact that it is only some 5 years old makes it of course less known than older projects such as Volapük, Esperanto or Interlingua). In my opinion, Wikipedia should be kept from "private conlangs" spoken by only one or a very few persons. For Toki Pona there are certainly a hundred or more speakers. I'm sorry that I cannot prove this, it's just based on personal experience. But it's absolutely not true that the editor just made it up for the article (this would be called "Original Research", wouldn't it?) — N-true 14:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. The issue is not whether an editor "made up" the content or whether there are 3, 30, or 300 speakers. It's whether the reader can verify that the information in this article is compiled from reliable third-party publications. Once all the information that cannot be thus verified is removed, how much content do you expect will be left? -- Schaefer (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, if that is the case... then why are we arguing about notability? It's obvious that the language is notable (there was a Wikipedia in it, once, 12 links from other articles, dozens from talkpages and userpages, 30 interwiki links which are not just stubs, various TP-groups on Yahoo!, StudiVZ or LiveJournal, just to name a few...). The facts about the language's structure can easily be checked with the official website or can even be verified/corrected by Sonja E. Kisa herself. Merely its usage and speaker count is not as easily retrievable. — N-true 15:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Notability doesn't flow in circles: a subject's inclusion in Wikipedia can't be justified by its inclusion in Wikipedia. Groups on Yahoo! and LiveJournal are not encyclopedic sources. The grammar information on this page concerns a "language" with a dictionary of 118 words, and no literary works of reasonable length. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and the claiming there exists anyone who can express themselves fluently in a language limited to 118 words is extraordinary enough to warrant the attention of professional linguists the world over. No such attention has come. Not one word of Toki Pona has been published in any physical book, ever. I can't see where this "obvious" notability is coming from. -- Schaefer (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The facts about the language's structure can easily be checked with the official website or can even be verified/corrected by Sonja E. Kisa herself. — If the only source for an article is the sole word of a Wikipedia editor, then that article is unverifiable. If the only source for knowledge on a subject is what is documented about it by its inventor/creator/author, then that subject is not notable. Uncle G 01:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep there are factual sources for the contained material, several academic articles and even books make reference to the language. A Google search is an insufficient test for notability! Canderra 17:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Please name some of these academic articles. I've done searches on both LexisNexis and EBSCOHost for "toki pona" with no results, and the results on Google Scholar (4 results, none of which is in English) don't seem to be written by professional academics or published in any printed journals. -- Schaefer (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That statement is, as far as I can tell, untrue. I can find no books about this purported language. The German paper, alluded to by Schaefer, is self-published on a web site, and not a journal article at all. Uncle G 01:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There Was a TOKIPONA wikipedia. c'mon, we've fished a good one.Kfc1864Cuba Libre!My name is Maximus Caesar Zabidus 23:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for historical purposes, or as an alternative, transwiki to Meta. If a language was once taken seriously enough to have a Wikipedia in that language (although it has since been deleted and moved to Wikia), users should at least be able to find out what the language is like. (Note that the Toki Pona Wikipedia managed at one point to garner more articles than such languages as Tibetan, Somali, Lao, Khmer, and even Punjabi -- the latter of which has over 100 million speakers.) --Metropolitan90 06:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is that that fact was never considered notable enough by anyone outside of Wikipedia that they actually recorded it. The existence and demise of a Wikipedia is not a part of recorded human knowledge outside of Wikipedia. As such, it is unverifiable. The only way for a reader who has never heard that before to verify its truth is to labouriously perform primary historical research. There are no sources to consult that actually document the history that you are referring to. It is not part of recorded human knowledge.

    And the same goes for the language as a whole. No-one apart from its creator has actually documented it. There are no third-party primers, grammars, readers, tutorials, teaching aids, or other such published materials. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Everything in Wikipedia has to have gone through a process of fact checking, peer review, publication, and acceptance into the general corpus of human knowledge. Evidence that knowledge of this language has actually become part of the general corpus of human knowledge would be multiple non-trivial published works from people independent of the creator that are about the language. But no such works apparently exist.

    Keeping this "for historical purposes" is to argue that Wikipedia itself should be a primary historical source. Per our Wikipedia:No original research policy, Wikipedia is not a primary source. There are alternative outlets for primary research and primary source material. Wikipedia is not such an outlet. Uncle G 10:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Reliable sources: [25] [26] [27]. Yes, the last two seem to be self published, but they are written by people who appear to be experts in constructed languages. I'm not certain, but these four non-english results on google scholar are probably also acceptable: [28], Additional evidence of notability: a course offered in the language at MIT. Saying that there are no sources to verify the information in the article is ridiculous: almost all of the information in the article is contained in that first source. There is a very in-depth article linked in the references section of the current article. It might be in Russian, but there is no wikipedia policy that sources must be in English. It was apparently published in "Journal Kompyuterra No. 26-27 (July 20, 2004)" and seems to include a complete section on Toki Pona and its application to investigating the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. Also, the official web site of the language, while self published by its author, can be considered a reliable source for the vast majority of the content as it is mostly non-contentious. All-in-all, there is no shortage of sources here. JulesH 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

All three of those first websites you posted are self-published! The first is in the personal web space of B. K. Knight, a 21-year-old student at UGA. The second is from a self-published website by a guy named Simon Ager, and the third is just a blog hosted on Google's free Blogger service. The four Google Scholar results you mentioned have already been addressed: The only ones with a non-trivial mention of Toki Pona are the essays in German and Spanish, both of which are self-published online by their authors and not printed in any sort of journal, academic or otherwise. I don't speak Japanese, but the Japanese article only mentions Toki Pona once outside of footnotes, as part of a list of artificial languages. I cannot determine whether this article is self-published or not, but the reference is clearly trivial either way. The Russian article in the Google Scholar results is also trivial reference, as Toki Pona is part of a long list of artificial languages and is not given even one word of discussion (note the article even mistakenly lists it as two languages, Toki and Pona).

Finally, there is not a course offered in Toki Pona at MIT. The activity described in the link you provided is clearly stated to be a free, non-credit activity session with no advance sign-up required, held only once on 20 January 2004, lasting for one hour. The instructor is not an MIT professor, but rather the former president of the student Esperanto Club. This is not, by any stretch of the phrase, a "course offered in the langauge at MIT". -- Schaefer (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per the arguments given by Schaefer and Krimpet. Maybe this will be notable someday. At any rate, it doesn't seem to belong in the article namespace. A greatly reduced version or some other record of it in the project namespace might be appropriate (since there was a WP in it). - Aagtbdfoua 23:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I arrived at this discussion inclined to keep, but I agree that Wikipedia should not be a means for disseminating knowledge of what is still a mute lili (tiny) phenomenon. People searching for info about Toki Pona can turn to the "official website," Omniglot, etc. It does not yet seem an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. The fact that some Wikipedians are Toki Pona enthusiasts does not change this. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the mere fact that there are several hundreds or even thousands people scattered all over the globe (so it's not a closed group) out there who know about Toki Pona and perhaps want to know more about it, should be reason enough to keep the article. If it really get's deleted, we will have to delete Wenedyk and Loituma Girl and many other articles with no 3rd party sources for the same reason. With this argument, you could delete perhaps 10% to 20% of Wikipedia because those information could as well be retrieved from some official sites. In addition, the official website of Toki Pona only gives prescriptive information about the grammar and usage of the language, but a Wiki article presents meta-information about it. With the deletion, Wikipedia will lose information, that (quite obviously) lots of people were interested in. Toki Pona cannot be compared with something like a "private conlang", which would indeed be unsuitable for an encyclopedia. — N-true 01:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

With respect, none of the sources I checked online claimed that more than a few hundred Toki Pona speakers currently exist. The question here is not whether the topic is interesting -- I, for one, am interested, and am glad the deletion discussion happened to lead me to it. But as to whether it is appropriate to include the topic in Wikipedia -- yet -- I believe the answer is no. Note that no one is calling for the topic to be purged from the realm of human knowledge, nor are they stating that there's something wrong with your or my being interested in the topic. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete I'm not sure about the notability of it...it seems non notable, and the references are terrible, but I have an inkling that it might just have something. Hence the weak delete G1ggy! _{Review me!} 07:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of verifiability through reliable sources. Nobody can say it wasn't given adequate time to improve. Congrats on having the single most odd illustration I've ever seen in Wikipedia (the "body parts" guide). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:12, 8 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 16:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alinian

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

A band that makes no claim passing WP:BAND. Weregerbil 04:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Bradybd 06:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete . Non-notable band ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per failing The Rules. tomasz. 10:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity and spam. Unreferenced and full of dupe links to the band's website. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 16:43, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Traub

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

No claims of notability, seems like an ad for her books, nothing but a CV. Corvus cornix 04:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As is, just short of speedy-eligible (G11). There are potential sources for even a stub, though, including some reviews of her book. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Tepid keep for now: This is a bizarre nomination. No claims of notability, says Corvus, who yet appears to concede in the same sentence that the subject has created books, plural. Now, I don't think every book is necessarily of any significance (I think of the wasting of forests on astrology, "self-help" and suchlike drivel), but the very start of this admittedly ghastly article links to (or if you prefer advertises) this page about her book. The book isn't one that I'd immediately want to buy (not that this should be an issue), but the description does say (after my addition of links): Introduction: Les Blank. Foreword and Afterword: Larry Harvey. Epilogue: Lawrence Ferlinghetti. Contribution: Leonard Nimoy. So even if the book's of little or no interest to you or me, it does seem to be noteworthy. Ergo, its creator has some notability. Yes, the article is indeed wretched. The creator of the article is new; let's not rush to WP:BITE. -- Hoary 04:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • One is not notable merely for having written books. They must have some sort of third party sources noting that the books have some sort of notability of their own. Corvus cornix 23:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, true. That a book has bits added by Blank and Ferlinghetti, as well as the increasingly renowned photographer Nimoy, makes it stand out from the pack. Is it reviewed? Well, the "Burning Man" is such a big thing in the blogosphere (yawn) that it's hard for me to use Google quickly to see if it's reviewed or remarked upon anywhere significant. I do note that it gets a page at Johns Hopkins: admittedly just a signing session at the/a campus bookstore, but again not the kind of thing that (I hope!) is accorded to books like The Seven Secrets of Women from Venus and Men from Uranus Who Moved My Cheese. -- Hoary 23:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Hesitant keep: This article needs to be seriously cleaned up - but I think that the subject is notable. Bradybd 04:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• OK, thanks for the feedback -- changes have been made. ... added at 05:46, 30 May 2007 by User:Gamble07
  • More changes are needed. Please either provide evidence for the assertions marked as needing evidence, or delete those assertions. -- Hoary 23:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as the article is still a bit of a mess but works as an article now, and notability seems sufficiently clear. --Dhartung | Talk 10:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep agree with dhartung, it is a bit of a mess... but notability seems established.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:56, 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. Sr13 01:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flashturbation

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

Slang dicdef. No reliable sources, and it has been tagged with 3 cleanup tags for months, to no avail. There is no reason to believe that this article will ever be more than an unverifiable dictionary definition. *** Crotalus *** 03:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as simple neologism CitiCat 03:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up while waiting for your page to load one day. YechielMan 03:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article that contains neologism should be deleted. Daniel 5127 03:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Lord Sesshomaru
• Delete, one sees this in web design circles, but there's hardly more to say about it even if it's reliably sourceable. Get those Jakob Nielsen digs in elsewhere. --Dhartung | Talk 04:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. One of the moost interesting words I've ever heard. But still completely unverifiable. Someguy1221 04:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I found a non-reliable source dated of 2000. [29] Yet article seems to be neologism. Carlosguitar 06:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. -- The Anome 06:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete yet another WP:NEO. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as cringeworthy made-up word whose own usage is listed by its glossary as "Slang term seldom used among web desigers.^[sic] " kind of speaks for itself. tomasz. 10:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NEO, belongs on UrbanDictionary. —MrSomeone ^{( tlk • cntrb )} 23:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it, recreate it, then delete it again, just to be sure. JJL 00:47, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PL Kyodan

PL Kyodan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Speedy Delete - Mass interwiki spam in Udmurt Wikipedia, Slovenian Wikipedia(deleted), Chinese Wikipedia(deleted), Serbian Wikipedia(deleted), Chechen Wikipedia, Dutch Wikipedia(deleted), Bavarian Wikipedia(deleted), Bosnian Wikipedia(deleted), Azerbaijani Wikipedia, Kirghiz Wikipedia, Asturian Wikipedia(deleted) Buginese Wikipedia, Croatian Wikipedia, Greek Wikipedia(deleted), Welsh Wikipedia(deleted), Cornish Wikipedia(deleted), Icelandic Wikipedia(deleted), Norwegian Wikipedia(deleted), Haitian Wikipedia, Galego Wikipedia(deleted), Scottish Wikipedia(deleted), Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia(deleted), Uzbek Wikipedia (deleted). The spammer (User:Makoto5) dumps Russian content in Udmurt, Chechen and Chuvash Wikipedia; English is dumped in Scottish Wikipedia; French is dumped in Haitian Wikipedia; Malaysian is dumped in Buginese Wikipedia; Turkish is dumped in Azerbaijani, Uzbek, and Turkmen Wikipedia; German is dumped in Bavarian; Italian is dumped in Sicilian, Lombard, Ligurian Wikis.......and so on. He also assumes that Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian,Serbo-croatian and Slovenian are all the same language. This reminds me of the "Zergeisterung" spam a few months a ago which dumped non-native language content into every interwiki edition at that time.

There is also Copyright Breaches from other websites such as http://web.perfect-liberty.or.jp/history.html and http://web.perfect-liberty.or.jp/21-prec.html

-- Per Angusta, 03:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but they have an entry on Encyclopaedia Britannica [30]. This would seem to be a user misconduct issue rather than an AfD issue, though I'm leaning towards deletion so that neutral editors can start it from scratch. cab 03:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete G3 (vandal) per the nom. If he's doing it like this, as far as I'm concerned, it's vandalism. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Vote retracted, I abstain. This is out of my realm and I need to chill. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• The articles on other language Wikipedias are a problem for those Wikipedias to deal with as they see fit. For us, the problem with this article is a matter of cleanup, not deletion, given that even a cursory search for sources finds that this religion is widely documented. ISBN 0684188635, for example, documents its "special affection for golf courses". (Administrators might want to look at Special:Undelete/Perfect Liberty at this point.) The Religious Empire: The Growth and Danger of Tax-exempt Property in the United States discusses the church on pages 191–192. ISBN 1873410808 gives some statistics on page 197. Indeed, much of the "History" section of this article is verifiable as-is from page 202 of ISBN 0700716173. Keep. Uncle G 03:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. This is a religion or at least a branch of a religion. It has an article in Encyclopedia Britannica. The alleged spammer did not create this article, so revert the article to a non-copyright-violating version and then deal with this article through normal editing. --Metropolitan90 04:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You're right. Time for me to pop a chill pill. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but revert to a non-copyvio prior version, and deal with the interwiki vandal administratively. --Dhartung | Talk 04:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and edit it. I don't understand why this was brought to AfD at all. Nick mallory 06:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Why has Makoto5 not even gotten a message on his talk page? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Xe has on some of the projects where it is relevant, such as cy:Sgwrs Defnyddiwr:Makoto5. But here all that xe did was help to write an article that looked like this. That's a verifiable article on a notable subject written in English on the English Wikipedia. The editor who violated copyright (which I have just reverted back past) was Koppany (talk · contribs). Uncle G 10:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Google scholar has 33 hit for peer reviewed journal entries on this subject. Also if people believe in some religion then that itself makes it notable. Heliumballoon 10:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep I apologize if my addings were considered a copyright violation. I cited some phrases from the Perfect Liberty site, but I think it was not a copyvio. The article itself is about a religion that really exists, having millions of followers and might be interesting for many. The article should be deleted only in Wikis where its langauge is not appropriate, for example Chechen, but the others should be kept and considered as a stub. PL Kyodan articles are not commercial spam at all. --Koppany 12:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• CommentActually Per Angusta is wrong about it being deleted at the norwegian wiki, it still exists though it is listed for deletion by an anon, my guess is it might be the same person who masslisted it for deletion on all wikis. AndersL 00:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to Book Norse (Norsk Bokmal). -- Per Angusta, 04:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that, doesnt make it more correct though.--AndersL 03:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I found several Wikipedias such as Alemanic, Bavarian, Icelandic, Ripuarian, and some more, where the article exists but is a mere babble, resp. in some foreign language. They're almost all listed for deletion, or a rewrite. Mostes are likely to be deleted soon, even if a local wiki user, Koppany, occashionally removed "delete" templates. --88.76.195.94 10:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Important, widely known modern religion in Japan, operates schools including frequent high-school baseball competitor PL Gakuen Fg2 11:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I simply don't understand what Per Angusta wants. I checked his/her edits and it seems to me she/he created a wiki account with the only purpose of delete this article. Very strange behavior indeed. If User Makoto5 did mess in other Wikis (here did not) is up to the community and admins of the wikis in question, I guess they are intelligent enough to have a decison on their own what to do with Makoto5's edits. --Koppany 12:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with having an alternate account as long as it is not used for vote-stacking etc. My dominant purpose for creating this account is not for deleting this article. I find it more stranger that User:Makoto5 does not even have an account on Japanese Wikipedia. -- Per Angusta, 01:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The English article can be kept. However the other interwiki articles which were not written in the native language ought to be deleted. Nevertheless, User:Makoto5 should given a warning to stop him using the English article as a launch-pad for further aggressive interwiki religious-cult spamming. -- Per Angusta, 23:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: That's correct, this time I fully agree with you. --Koppany 04:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: looks less like an encyclopedia article, more like a leaflet that the outfit produces and distributes. Nothing is independently sourced. (Yet the outfit really does exist.) -- Hoary 14:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• keep please this religion is widely known and should be covered yuckfoo 01:53, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Port Central

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

Not notable. (And yes, I have been a resident for almost a decade. It's not notable.) ajdlinux 10:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as it's a shopping center. The article doesn't even claim it's a large shopping center. CitiCat 02:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as shopping centre w/no assertion of notability. Unless we can find an interesting report about how ajdlinux has been living in it for 10 years... ;-) tomasz. 09:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • He he... I meant the town of course :) ajdlinux 10:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:50, 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 speedy delete as spam (G11). Sr13 05:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 828 Entertainment

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

Non-notable production company, has been deleted by an admin and speedy-nommed by two non admins, but User:Stephen deleted the speedy deletion nom twice, so here we are. This is spam. Corvus cornix 02:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete G11 and prevent recreation. It's pretty clear we'll never see a neutral point of view. YechielMan 03:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as of 2007 this company fails on Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Unsure if we can to use WP:CSD. Carlosguitar 04:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Notability means nothing if the article is spam. An assertion of notability only protects an article from an A7 speedy. If other categories are still applicable, then the article should still be speediable under that category. This is a G11 speedy candidate as SPAM. DarkAudit 04:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Not to be nasty, but if the company deserved a wikipedia article, surely it could pay for it's own hosting (i.e. not through Lycos). Bradybd 04:57, 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, repost Herostratus 02:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Product

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

Contested prod - and the article was already previously deleted after its first AfD. The article did not pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines in the past, and I do not see how it can pass them now. It might be a good idea to protect the page from recreation should it become an issue in the future. Ali ^(t)_(c) 02:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I don't think it meets WP:MUSIC at this time but could in the future. I would not salt it. JodyB _talk 02:26, 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 keep since it's a procedural nomination and consensus is unanimous. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 00:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Brookstein

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

Technical nomination. Someone claiming to be Steve Brookstein, using an IP address, took offense at this article and some comments I put on the talk page (which I incidentally regret), and blanked out his page. I have a watch on this article. The page itself is not very good, lacks sources, and was subject to quite a few changes by editors who inserted fairly POV remarks, often without adequate sourcing. "Steve" posted comments on my talk page here to the effect, and I therefore nominate this for deletion. No vote from me. Ohconfucius 01:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep he's had a UK #1 single, a UK #1 album, not to mention winning X Factor. Probably needs tidying up, but its existence isn't in doubt. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but improve article urgently (I regret that I don't have the subject-matter knowledge to do so). Advise Steve Brookstein of OTRS procedure for article subjects with BLP concerns. Newyorkbrad 02:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've removed the bit about the Four Vandals hoax, which although linked doesn't actually lead to any WP:RS confirmation of the story, plus a few other bits, but most of the rest is sourced; it's the negative tone that's probably the problem. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I have to agree with Eliminator and the article is sourced. --Ozgod 02:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Not liking the article as it stands right now is not reason enough to delete it altogether. --Hnsampat 04:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - also agree with Eliminator; subject is notable --Heliumballoon 10:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Definitely notable. Maxamegalon2000 12:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't see why an article of a singer who had number 1's in UK be deleted.--JForget 13:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean. Subject is notable enough. ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 14:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but the page definitely needs improvement. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - definitely meets WP:MUSIC, but as above, the article needs work. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets our WP:MUSIC guideline, but remove any content which does not strictly adhere to WP:A and WP:BLP policy. Burntsauce 22:10, 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 all. IronGargoyle 23:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tour Generación RBD

Tour Generación RBD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I'm sure that we have a criterion that individual tours by bands, no matter how notable, don't merit individual articles, hence this nomination. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. The tour did have a DVD made of it, which is notable, but has a separate article Tour Generación RBD en Vivo (DVD) anyway. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Tour Generación 2006 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Tour Celestial 2007 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete While I can't find a specific policy, I can't see how a concert tour is notable in and of itself, unless there a specific reason that makes it more memorable than otherwise (i.e. world record setting) CitiCat 03:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No apparent outside coverage that would make this tour notable beyond the number of tickets sold. I would be so bold as to suggest that without significant outside coverage, a single concert tour is inherently non-notable with regard to having it's own article. DarkAudit 16:11, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HunterStory

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

Non-notable Flash game. No sources. Prod removed. --- RockMFR 01:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as completely non-notable. In fact, despite the length of the article, it probably still fails CSD:A7 EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Completely non-notable, I think this article fails CSD:A7. Daniel 5127 02:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Reads like an instruction manual almost. --† Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 06:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as far-too-detailed description of non-notable personalised version of well-known game. Also Wiki ain't an instruction guide per Dysepsion. tomasz. 15:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Large communities, particularly on websites pertaining to the main game, do find this notable. The fact that this is the most famous parody of a widely popular game should keep it notable as a parody.--Ultima66 01:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unfortunately, it doesn't matter whether it meets other communities' notability standards. According to the Wikipedia community's standards for notability, this game is non-notable unless you can show some reliable sources to prove otherwise. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:55, 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. Sr13 01:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ewife

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

Neologism. Google turns up practically nothing, but the article's existed since October 2005, so brought to AfD. eLiminatorJR ^eTalk 01:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• eDelete as neologism. YechielMan 03:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• eRase. Simply not notable. (I have it on good authority, though, that the 114th Congress will have to take up the matter of e-civil unions after a contested Supreme Court ruling.) --Dhartung | Talk 04:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• VERY VERY STRONG DELETE Lv100, AS INACCURATE: THERE IS NO WOMAN PLAYING MMORPG. LOL just joking, but it is obvious neologism and unattributed article. Carlosguitar 07:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• eDelete another eNeologisms. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• eDelete for the usual eReasons. tomasz. 09:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• pwn (translation:Delete) per lack of sourcing, as well as being a non-notable neologism. Cheers, Lanky (TALK) 13:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, if for no other reason than because people are having WAY too much fun on this deletion discussion, with all the "e-puns" and what-not. (Just kidding...seriously, though, it's a neologism, so be off with it!) --Hnsampat 15:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, God made Urban Dictionary for articles like this one. ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 16:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• BOOM Headshot or in other words delete. Wildthing61476 19:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• eDivorce from existence as a neologism. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per eNeo —MrSomeone ^{( tlk • cntrb )} 23:10, 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. Sr13 03:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kaworu Watashiya

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

This article and the companion article on the book, do not assert notability nor provide references to support notability. I'm just not sure myself so it's here. JodyB _talk 01:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [the story depends on the notability of the author and vice versa]:

Nymphet (manga) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) JodyB _talk 01:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP ON BOTH ARTICLES Of course the novel and author are notable enough. The manga is currently the center of some controversy on whether it should be released in the United States and Seven Seas Entertainment is going to retailers telling them about it. Did you even check the referenes at Nymphet (manga)? And it's not a crime to give the author of the manga a stub; they are at least notable for the creation of this manga. And on top of that, the manga is becoming an anime in two months, and it's common for WP:Anime to create new articles on new anime. This is a joke right?--十八 01:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The subject does not meet WP:Notability requirements. While having a volume of published work the article fails to assert or establish any awards, praise, or impact their body of work has had. --Ozgod 02:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Do you even realize how many anime/manga that are in this encyclopedia that don't meet the requirments of "awards, praise, or impact their body of work has had"? WP:Anime was not only created to facilitate anime and manga pages, but it's there to create new pages as well, and this series' manga version is being translate into English! If that's not notable enough, then dare I saw about half of the articles under WP:Anime should be deleted then. And if you're just talking about the manga creator, if the manga page is kept, then wouldn't it be good form to create an article for the creator of the material, or did Wikipedia's standards change and now it's not okay to make a given article entirely free of red links?--十八 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  I am looking at the article (Kaworu Watashiya) from a standpoint of a biography of a living person - WP:BLP. The article does not establish the importance of the author other than to list a body of their work that is mostly red-linked. I should have been more clear on which one I was voting to Delete. I do not have enough knowledge of anime or manga to cast a decision on Nymphet (manga)

  So then what you are saying that even if the article on the manga doesn't get deleted, and the author does, then we should just delink to author's name in the Nymphet (manga) article and just say "Oh, well, this manga is notable, but the author isn't, so she doesn't get a page; don't worry about linking to the author in the future either because the article will just get deleted then." I say that if the manga article is kept, then that alone should justify the notabity of the author. And having stubs on Wikipedia doesn't go against policy. The author's page was just created yesterday. I was not aware that on Wikipedia all pages on living people had to be well-done a day after they were created.--十八 04:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Nymphet (manga) - we do not have clear guidelines for comic/manga notability, but we can make a judgment call on a case-by-case basis. Having a manga collected into tankōbon, licensed in the USA, as well as adapted into an anime, makes it notable - a large volume of manga gets released in Japan every month, most never get adapted or licensed, and some may not even get collected. The manga also has an entry on ANN, the definite community source for anime and manga information. I'm not sure about the article for the author, so no comment on that part. If the notability of the manga establishes the notability of the author, then also keep Kaworu Watashiya --Darkbane ^talk 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep This manga, and its writer, is now the subject of intense scrutiny in the anime world, with front page news feeds on animenewsnetwork, animeonline and animeondvd.com. Definately notable. Kyaa the Catlord 05:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep on both. I don't know much about manga and the manga scene, but it's going to be a broadcasted anime. Considering how much money and time is put into making an animated show.. that's a pretty good indication of notability. -- Ned Scott 06:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for both. The manga being collected into tankōbon, its presence in the US, and being released as an anime definitely make it notable. By extension, the author becomes notable. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)