Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< September 9 September 11 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lin Kuei

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

Adding proper template, which was not included when AfD page was created by nominator RookZERO. I have no opinion on the AfD iself. --Finngall talk 18:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete on the basis of a total lack of notability. No source outside wikipedia (reliable or not) has been cited and no notability has been asserted for this article. In addition, the claims are unverifiable and almost certainly false. (RookZERO 20:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

  • Delete. Totally at odds with everything I know of that subject, admits to being unverifiable, and is not relevant or interesting as a subject in and of itself (the it being the false belief). --136.223.3.130 20:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lacks notability. I can't find anything out about this, besides that it's a name associated with Mortal Kombat (a game) which the disambiguation link states this article is not about. --Skywolf talk/contribs 03:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 18:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tia Bella

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 00:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Passes WP:N, which supersedes WP:PORNBIO. She was worthy enough for Doc Johnson, a multi-millionaire (in the $300m a year range), to model a sex toy after her orifices. So she definitely has a niche there. Pardon the pun. ;-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 00:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, right. Where does it mention modelling sex toys at WP:N? I would have thought there'd be porn stars more worthy of the honour; she's only made 28 movies. I think Johnson needs to re-evaluate his award criteria. Epbr123 21:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
      • This clearly falls under someone creating something "independent of the subject", in a unique sort of way. Johnson is capable of doing whatever he pleases. As the saying goes, money talks... and other stuff walks. And besides, we're not here to opine about Johnson's criteria, we're here to report on it. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 23:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
        • If you are arguing this is some kind of award, the award needs to be notable. Plus, we don't know the reason Johnson chose her; it might have been because she was the cheapest pornstar he could find. If you're saying this is a form of independent coverage, Johnson wouldn't be independent of Tia, as Tia would be working for Johnson. I suppose she may be notable if only a few people had sex toys modelled on them, but there seems to be quite a few. Anyway, I'm glad you're willing to discuss this sensibly. Epbr123 23:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, she does also satisfy criteria #3 of WP:PORNBIO by being in a niche, in that a product was modeled after her orifices. And, yes, having a product modeled after you for a sex toy is a niche, which has been satisfied by prolific performers such as Jenna Jameson, Sunrise Adams, Jenteal and Lexington Steele. Obviously, if this is contested, it may be worthy of further discussion. But as it stands right now, I can see this also falling under an exception to notability guidelines. From WP:PORNBIO: "exceptions should be recognized in individual discussions". At the present time, I believe there to be an exception, since neither PORNBIO or N specify anything for or against toys being modeled after a person. Probably a more germane place to discuss this would be the talk page for the guidelines, or even the porn project. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 00:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
            • I think this is a borderline case, so we'll have to agree to differ. Epbr123 00:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Joe Beaudoin Jr.. Further, she was on the cover of one very well-known magazine a the peak of her career and was featured in at least one other that can be confirmed. She hasn't become any less notable since her last nomination which was kept with significant consensus. This article was nominated for deletion by the same editor back in March. All of the notability concerns were addressed then and the article has received reasonable attention since then with regular cleanups and small additions. LaMenta3 01:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Being on the cover of a porn mag isn't in the criteria for any notability guideline. Epbr123 21:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Joe Beaudoin Jr.; she most definitely passes WP:N because of the reasons stated above. Also, I don't believe consensus has changed significantly since Epbr123 last nominated this article for deletion, in March 2007. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. LaMenta3 02:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • keep - unlike most afd's has both references, and assertions of notability already in it. --Rocksanddirt 20:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • One source doesn't mention her, one is imdb and one shows someone made a doll of her. Epbr123 21:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. We've already gone through this; nothing has changed. Clearly fills a niche and thus is notable via WP:PORNBIO, is easily recognizable and although hasn't been in many films, many are notable. WP:V, WP:IAR, and P.S., artificial vagina. Xihr 23:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Which of her films are notable? Epbr123 23:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Sorry to have to assume bad faith here, but what the fuck gives? This was unanimously kept about 6 months ago after being nominated for deletion by the exact same person. The subject still meets and exceeds WP:PORNBIO as much as she did the first time 'round. Burntsauce 23:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, my faith's been bad again. Which WP:PORNBIO criteria does she pass? Epbr123 23:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • DELETE Having your vagina and anus immortalized in plastic as notability? I can almost agree with that, but there's nothing else in this article that's sourceable. The only actual reference for the article information is IMDB and contains a fraction of what's presented. I'd accept the artificial vagina as putting her over, if there was anything showing she was remotely near passing. I don't think 2 covers and 4 pictorials in third-tier, vanilla porn mags is that impressive. Horrorshowj 08:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per Joe Beaudoin Jr.'s arguments and someone finding a source for the article information, which removes the BLP problem. Needs work, but that's not a valid reason for AfD. I have to agree that being selected by one of the largest sex toy manufacturers in the world for a signature toy is noteworthy. Move for WP:SNOW Horrorshowj 22:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Procedural keep. AfD is not a lottery you keep trying until you hit the jackpot. If there must be an AfD, at least adduce some novel reasons like a change in policy or new sources indicating her notability or some falseness on the part of the article. --136.223.3.130 20:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Question and comments. Why do all but 2 sentences of the article's prose match the Tia's Vivid blog entry word for word? [1] Vivid doesn't say they got them from Wikipedia. Also, having a penis, vagina, or even an entire doll based on a current porn star has been done for years. Is it really that distinctive? • Gene93k 16:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • This is clearly an issue that should be brought on the attention of the article's talk page, and not at AfD, for further discussion. As for the issue of distinction, this is also an issue that should be discuss on the talk page, or even the appropriate project prior to AfD. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 18:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
      • They clearly got it from us. Take a look lower on the Vivid blog, and you'll see a data for the blog post - December 2006. Our article dates back to 2005. You'll notice that this revision of December 2006 looks even more like the Vivid blog post than either the current revision or the original revision. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
      • The "distinction" of a sex toy is the key assertion of notability and it saved the day in the first AfD. It is material to this AfD. The sex toy is porn-related merchandizing and so WP:PORNBIO still applies and still needs to be satisfied. • Gene93k 21:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep please. She's beautiful and her films are a cut above the norm. Brjatlick 21:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Overwhelming consensus to keep. Maxim(talk) 01:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of State Highways in Kentucky (1001-2000)

List of State Highways in Kentucky (1001-2000) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod. Simply a list of red-linked images and pages with very little context, fairly unlikely that any of these images or pages are going to be created. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is simply a state highway list split because of size. It is highly likely that the pages will be created- WP:KYSH. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, index list of state highways. The U.S. roads project has a lot on its plate on the moment (and nobody specializing in Kentucky), hence the large amount of red links. —Scott5114↗ 23:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. There is simply no way to provide a complete list of routes in Kentucky without splitting it by the thousand. Otherwise, we end up with a massive page that leaves dial-up (and possibly even high-speed) users struggling to view and edit the page. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • My point is, there isn't anything to show - yes, I know it's a list, but the articles should be created first before the lists are created. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. The U.S. Roads project doesn't have anyone specializing in Kentucky yet, so a lot of these might take a while. This is the best way to sort them -- and even if there's not enough info to create an article on each highway, info on the individual highways can be added to the list itself. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The point of the list is to show what articles need to be created. Saying they should all be created first is ridiculous and misunderstands how projects go about tackling huge subjects. Nick mallory 00:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Articles already exist and are being created, and its unclear just how the nominator "knows" that it is "fairly unlikely" that these articles and images will be created. Based on my highway article experience, a list of this type is the ideal recordkeeping location for what does and does not exist and a catalyst for creation of the missing articles. Alansohn 03:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Question: Does Kentucky really have highway numbers going into the thousands? Are they all signed with those route numbers? Does a higher route number imply that the road is part of a secondary road system? I haven't checked on the answer to this question, but personally I'm hesitant to keep articles about secondary road systems, like county roads. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, they're (mostly) signed state highways posted into the thousands. Not sure about it being part of a secondary system.—Scott5114↗ 04:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • They are not part of a secondary system in the same manner that other states have, such as Tennessee. They are full-fledged state highways. But as a practical matter, four-digit roads are less important than one-, two- and three-digit roads. Realkyhick 19:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete My eyes! Unfortunately, it appears that consensus dictates that all of these highways are notable, and deserve their own article. This is, of course, utter nonsense. They are not notable. Consensus is also that lists are valid as a repository for redlinks, so that we know what articles need to be created. (Does that mean we can delete them when they're all blue links??) Thus, the list guidelines permits this. This is also nonsense. Delete. i said 04:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Do you promote deletion of all 9,000 U.S. Road articles? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
      • As a whole, yes. Yes yes yes. I assume there are some notable ones, but I haven't come across any. i said 05:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Are you aware that this includes about 15 GA class articles and 3 class FA articles? Do you consider Interstate 95 and U.S. Route 66 notable? Are you aware that there are over 20 related WikiProjects to highways? Are you aware of the outcome of the last attempts to delete every single highway off the wiki? Finally, are you aware of the many reasons to keep highways WT:HWY? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
          • I did say some were notable. The amout of WikiProjects does not make something worthwhile, it just means there is a large amount of editors who love roads, and will defend to the death the right of these articles to exist. I do not see, at a cursory glance at the precedents page, any attempt to remove large amounts of articles. And as for WT:HWY, I see a sparsely populated talk page with nothing at all that convinces me that virtually every single road in existance deserves its own article. i said 05:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Worthless WikiProjects would get sent to MFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota State Highway 127. Also note [2]. As for WT:HWY apparently it got archived... I mean Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways/Archive 1, section 11. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
              • I didn't say the WikiProjects were worthless. And I agree strongly with the "non useful" comment. I'm very surprised that was removed. And those arguments do not convince me in the slightest. i said 06:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
                • OK guys, you have each stated an opinion, and it doesnt seem to be going anywhere, please try to stay on topic, this article has nothing to do with the other 9,000 roads in question. thanks. !paradigm! 19:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)!paradigm!
                  • Whether you believe that roads should be included in Wikipedia does not matter at this point, what matters is whether they are considered to be notable for Wikipedia. If you wish to change this (as apparently the user directly above me does), the discussion needs to go elsewhere. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
                    • Not really. AfDs don't only deal with notability. And why does the discuss on whether or not this is notable need to go elswhere? In fact, I was under the impression that this is the exact place for it to go. i said 22:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
(Indent reset) What Nyttend said. I couldn't have said it better. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per the fact that this is full of pointless non notable random roads that really dont need to be famious for the reason that they are in kentucky and nothing else, this, a wiki page does not make. !paradigm! 18:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep because, despite the previous two comments, these are notable, "pointful" roads as determined by standing consensus. I'm not accusing the nominator of trying to make a point, but the last two votes are definitely attempts to change our notability standards, especially the one that says "of course these are notable according to consensus, but they aren't notable anyway." Wikipedia is run by consensus. I can't imagine how any informed attempt to delete articles that are obviously notable according to our notability standards can be in line without our community standards. Nyttend 22:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
How are they notable? Has each road individually been significantly covered by reliable sources? i said 00:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
No, but they are each capable of being covered by reliable sources. (Just like the rest of Wikipedia- roads are not finished yet. ) --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Reliable does not equal notable. i said 04:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
They are notable because they are important to the region as modes of transportation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, we don't demand that every single holder of statewide or provincewide political office have multiple reliable sources to be considered notable. Nyttend 14:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Rschen— Important also does not equal notable. Nyttend— Just because others do it does not mean these don't have to. i said 00:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, several other people disagree with you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

←Obviously. I'm just stating my interpretation of the guideline. As always, it comes down to inclusionism ideals vs deletionist. i said 00:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. However, I'm arguing based upon the specific policy of Wikipedia:Notability (people), which speaks of the essentially inherent notability of "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." In short, my argument is that your interpretation is different from a major example of consensus-made policy. Nyttend 18:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - State highways are notable and this list shows which topics need articles. Wikipedia is a never ending project and it takes time for every notable topic to have an article. --Oakshade 23:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This list is available to sort out articles and potential articles. If a notability problem's an issue - couldn't one just remove the links? master sonT - C 03:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I could. However, that would result in an empty list. I would be reverted, we would discuss on the talk page, it would go nowhere, we would AfD/RfC/RfM, and in all probability (barring sensible notability interpretation or guideline change) we would end up here again. i said 04:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem with Kentucky is that they just assign the next available number to each road, so KY 2764 might be a one-lane old alignment of KY 4 or it might be an eight-lane freeway. Louisiana seems to be the only other state that does this. The old alignments don't need separate articles; the freeways do. Keep, and possibly clean up; I'd be willing to help clean it up. --NE2 12:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - if you want the images created, all you had to do was ask: WP:USRD/S/R. --Holderca1 13:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep While it may be a red-link farm to some, this list and all articles, red-link or not, are notable because they are vital parts of the state's transportation infrastructure. Wikipedia is inconsistent, and that means red-link farms are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes we say delete because they aren't useful, but for this case, they are in fact useful. It takes time to complete/improve a topic as huge as this one, and deletion should not be a way to stall that process. The reason why the list is in its current format is because of bandwidth issues for dial-up and possibly broadband users as well. —O (说 • 喝) 17:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep this list is important, red links or not. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 01:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Notable by established precedent; only different from other states' lists in that it is split into parts due to size. Realkyhick 19:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kitty Jung

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 23:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lindsay Younce

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

Non-notable "actress" who appeared in one religious film in 2004 and has since disappeared. Dudleydooright 00:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete if that's the entirety of her career, then she's definitely non-notable. ELIMINATORJR 06:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Appearing in one non-notable film isn't notable.Horrorshowj 17:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't find anything to suggest she's at all notable. Accounting4Taste 22:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Just one role for an obscure film really doesn't seem enough. Is the bulk of the article even verifiable? --136.223.3.130 20:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Maxim(talk) 01:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] N+

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR, WP:V. Unreleased independent game, I suspect it may gain some notability after release but until then I don't believe it needs an article. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 23:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • nom del - As above. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 23:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to N (game). This appears to be mildly notable and true, as evidenced by the pre alpha review. However, crystalball and notability concerns make me want this merged and redirected. i said 05:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
A merge would probably be better, and N+ could probably fall under the N article even after release. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 06:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Unless it's notable by itself. i said 06:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Thin Arthur 08:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per I OZOO (What?) 16:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per CRYSTAL. Marlith T/C 22:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was merge and redirect. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom Got an A.K.

Freedom Got an A.K. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No calims of notability per WP:CSD#A7. If it not applicable, this is the only article from the group, the others were speedy deleted or deleted per prod. This one was not deleted due to the particullary administrator didn't like the idea. Tasco 0 22:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. I don't know what you mean by "the only article from the group" -- the article on the group still exists, as do the articles on their albums. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, I missed the part "single". What I tried to say is that is the only article about a single of the group. Wich means, the other singles (articles) were deleted. Thanks for poiting that out.--Tasco 0 01:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable song that never charted. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to album. Was a chart single, but may not be notable enough for its own page. If any more verifiable content can be found for the song, then it can be spun back off into its own page. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Not notable, but it's a single, so a small mention could be included. i said 05:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • A redirect would be pointless, since the search will target the article about the group and album.--Tasco 0 19:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
      • What? Redirect it to the artist page. i said 22:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This was #7 on Billboard's "Hot Rap Singles" chart.[3]P4k 22:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • That information can be merged in the group's article.--Tasco 0 22:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per P4k. Hit single = notability. Precious Roy 09:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Again, that information can be merged in the group's article. This article is worthless, when you just can read the charts in a talbe within the group's and album article.--Tasco 0 17:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
      • The article's lack of content is not a valid reason for deletion. It is a verifiable hit single and is therefore notable. Precious Roy 04:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
        • We already have 2 million articles... All the charts can be merged in the group's article, just like I said. There's not need to keep this article when it can be merged.--Tasco 0 17:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
          • See WP:ATA. Calling for the deletion of an article (ok, stub) that clearly meets notability requirements merely because you feel there are too many articles on Wikipedia is not a valid argument. Precious Roy 04:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
            • I did not say that as an argument to delete this article. What I did say as an argument is that the article it's not necessary when the information of charts can be merged into the group's article.--Tasco 0 17:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
              • Nowhere does it say an article has to be "necessary" to be on Wikipedia. Precious Roy 17:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
                • But there are certain criterias for deletion.--Tasco 0 17:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • And which one would apply to this article? Please be specific. Precious Roy 21:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
                    • I already named it in the nomination.--Tasco 0 22:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
                      • You say no claims of notability. It's a hit single and THAT is a claim of notability. Precious Roy 22:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
                        • Oh yes, because you added the charts information after I nominated the article. Anyways, now that I see it now, I think the best option would be merge the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasco 0 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
                          • Which you only just noticed, despite the fact that the fourth person to weigh in here (less than a day after your nom) is the one who dug up the information, and you responded to him. Precious Roy 14:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect with the album. The article is short, and worthless. -Saint Ryan 01:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment An article's brevity is not a valid reason for deletion. That's why they have all those different stub templates. Precious Roy 02:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as having no context.-Wafulz 23:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QuickAudio

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

Newish piece of software with no claim to notability. I'd have speedied if there was a criterion that matched. — Coren (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ruabon rugby sevens

Ruabon rugby sevens (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The club does not play at a notable level of rugby, and there is nothing in the article that could be seen as an assertion of notability. PeeJay 22:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The article doesn't even make it clear if they play at any level of rugby, let alone a notable one. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Even the article admits the lack of notability. --Skywolf talk/contribs 03:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miguel Alvarado

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

Not notable. Claims to be a 'leading fashion designer', but a quick Google search returns only his Wikipedia entry, MySpace profile and some other self promoting web-pages. I believe he is not in any way a notable fashion designer. Efektimies 22:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Nothing asserting notability, neither does a google search. His website doesn't inspire much confidence either. i said 05:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per i !paradigm! 19:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not Delete Miguel has inspired many other hispanic latinos/hispanics within it's diverse culture and his work has been published in many universitys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.196.191 (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not Delete I agree with comment above I have learn from his previous work in school and have seen his work and has made an impact in local, national communitys accross the US and Mexico. Just because his work is starting to be noticed in the internet or google does not mean he does not deserve to be here and noticed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilo950 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC) — Kilo95 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete Couldn't find any independant sources on Google. Epbr123 17:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latin American military in the 1990s

Latin American military in the 1990s (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Was tagged speedy as an essay, which is not a speedy criteria - could be copyvio but I can't find a source - anyway, doesn't read llike an article, the topic is probably encyclopedic but will have to be rewritten from scratch. Carlossuarez46 22:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Without being able to look at any of the references, this looks entirely like original research. i said 05:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nomination. Possibly a copyvio but without a doubt this is original research. Burntsauce 21:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete probably not a copyvio, probably not original research, but it looks like someone's term paper that got a gold star from the teacher. "This article will look at the reasons why the military in most of Latin America still retain substantial power, and suggest what this augurs for the likely projection of the problem..." I'm afraid that the bibliography at the end isn't very impressive. Learn what a footnote is... [1] Mandsford 00:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This could definitely has the makings of a respectable article, and the subject certainly is encyclopedic. The referencing and bibliography issues is really just one of wikifying and general improvement. I am worried that this is a copyvio, but I suspect one could just ask the creator - it seems unlikely that anyone but the original author would care enough to post it here. We shouldn't be insulted by sloppy seconds... it's all Free. --136.223.3.130 20:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hype Hop

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

Protologism, no demonstration of notability. The Anome 22:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete unsourced, almost fails WP:NEO. Sasha Callahan 02:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable, not verified by reliable sources etc. i said 04:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research, not verifiable, probably made up, the only references I could find are MySpace, Urban Dictionary and a blog. Melsaran (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No reliable coverage found on Google. Epbr123 17:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henry L. Stimson Center

Henry L. Stimson Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete basically unsourced article about a nn think tank, fails WP:CORP Carlossuarez46 22:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - as per nom as he has such a way with words! :) --WebHamster 01:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and I'll clean it up and source it. The article was started just sixteen hours ago and nominated for deletion only two hours later. A brief Google search shows that in 2005 Michael Krepon gave evidence before the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations where he was described as "Co-founder, The Henry L. Stimson Center". It occurs to me that people reading that testimony would want to know what the Center was about, and an encyclopedia article is merited. Moreover since Mr Krepon has submitted testimony to that important committee we should at least give him a redirect pointing to his work at the Center. A similar principle applies to Ms Victoria K. Holt, a Senior Associate at the Center who in 2005 submitted testimony to a subcommittee of the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs (which was at that time known by its alternative name of "House Committee on International Relations") --Tony Sidaway 11:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, The Stimson Center is referenced in secondary sources such as The Economist[4] (second to last paragraph), CNN [5], the BBC [6], Washington Post [7] (middle of article) and work of the Stimson is mentioned at University of Virginia website among others.[8] It also seen as a viable place to intern by a number of universities including Harvard.[9] Beyond media and academia, Stimson is also recognized by its work in government studies, including having a senior associate on the Iraq Study Group. [10] While this article is short, and does not go into its role and place in Washington, I would consider this a stub that needs additions and edits, rather than a promotion that needs to be deleted.--Huskybear
    Yes, early days yet but I've just found several references to the Stimson Center, quoting comments by Michael Krepon, co-founder and head of the Center's South Asia program, in major Pakistani and Indian mainstream press and media, and have added three of them to the article. These guys are big players in the peacemaking business, in the subcontinent at least. --Tony Sidaway 16:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    The citations provided by Huskybear are mere mentions of the group or its members - none are the significant coverage expected by WP:N or WP:CORP: "incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". Carlossuarez46 18:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    These are mere examples of weekly coverage of the subject's work. Participation in the Iraq Study Group is certainly of note, but I am not claiming it alone as a reason. It is consistently in the news, providing expert commentary, again, the above are examples. Search a given source and the Stimson and you will yield more results. It is not merely incidental, its consistent. Huskybear 18:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean. The article does give the impression of being an advocacy piece for the center's projects. DGG (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tales of an Empire

  ATTENTION!

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

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

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Tales of an Empire (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Declined PROD. Appears to be an article about a future work of fiction from a non-notable author; may constitute an original work since I don't see any references elsewhere to this work or the author. - Fordan (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

First hit. Also it has been mentioned a couple of times at www.SDCClan.nl. It isn't fully noticed, because it is originally Dutch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcharon (talk • contribs) 16:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment www.SDCClan.nl doesn't seem to exist, either the webpage, or even a domain registration per whois.domain-registry.nl. Putting quotes around "Tales of an Empire" gets you a lot less hits. The one you seem to refer to is a single mention on a forum, generally not considered to be a reliable source for establishing notability. (And where does Star Wars play into this? Nothing in the article seems to suggest it.) - Fordan (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed, the page should be deleted. There are no references or sources about the article anywhere except for some Dutch forum which is probably written by the author himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.63.159.38 (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2007
  • I agree too. Delete the article, it clearly falls under the policy dictating what Wikipedia is not meant for. The only reference is indeed, on some Dutch forum where the author himself probably just mentioned the name himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.193.2.1 (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2007
  • Delete. Definitely a WP:CRYSTAL issue. Copyright may also be a concern - people licensing their stuff under GFDL-compatible things generally don't leave in a (C) mark... --136.223.3.130 20:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago Red

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

I was thinking of trying to fix and clean up this article on a blues musician, but it appears there simply aren't enough sources to work from that I can find. So... nominated for deletion for non-notability by WP standards. If someone can find the sources I'll happily withdraw this to build the page out. Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 21:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Don't want to overdo the policy, but fails WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:VERI, WP:COI. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC, with only one CD (apparently self-released) and sporadic live appearances. This article started out as a straight paste of [11] and has been reworded only slightly; but it was created by User:Chicagored, who also, I presume, wrote that Web page, so I guess it isn't a copyvio. Deor 00:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete as I've heard of him, but that's not much to go on. Gets 100o's of Ghits under stage name, but 18 under his birth name. I'm too busy to work on it this week. Bearian 01:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No significant coverage found on Google. Epbr123 17:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Cousins

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

Non-notable, unreferenced. If anything, the product these two techies developed should have an article. Google shows nothing on Cousins. Panoptical 21:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete as citations provided do not establish notability due to only trivial mentions of Barry. While she has written and published a few papers and essays, these are not enough to establish notability per WP:BIO and WP:PROF. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jane Barry

Jane Barry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Sounds like a great person, but not a notable one. She talks at various trouble spots and helps out, protests all the right things, and has 2 books: 1 unavailable at Amazon, another ranked at #3,726,750 in sales - what's that 1 copy per year? Carlossuarez46 21:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Most of Barry's writing appears to have been distributed through Non-governmental Organisations' networks - UAF says over 3,000 print copies have been distributed and an unknown number of .pdf downloads. Book appears (from website references) to have been translated into a number of languages Robin.schofield 19:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article has been improved to make clearer Jane Barry's notable status, e.g. commentary on her human rights writing by external parties from Internet resources. The formatting of the entry has also been improved to make an easier stub for other people to add to. Robin.schofield 22:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I can't even find her name on some of those pages cited. Has her work been discussed in the mainstream media? So far I lean towards Delete. MarkBul 00:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no reason to delete this. In the field she was in she is well known and respected. MrMarmite 21:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Making unsubstantiated assertions does not help us. Please add references from independent sources to the article so we can judge them. MarkBul 00:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Week delete. She appears to be engaged in useful activities, but the sources included in the commentary section are simple listings of her 2005 book, with brief descriptions of its contents that could just be parroting a blurb from the organization that published it. I'm open to seeing more sources and reevaluating my opinion, but what's in the article now seems to me to fail WP:BIO, since no independent sources dealing with the person or her activities are cited and the books themselves aren't notable enough to establish her notability as an author. Deor 00:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - although I originally tagged this as a speedy "assume good faith" echoed in my head, subject of course to relevant independent and relative sources. If they aren't found by the end of this AFD I'll most likely vote delete. As it stands the article is borderline with the bulk of it being on the wrong side :( --WebHamster 01:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Eah. Just squeaks by on notability. i said 05:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Written citations are not metrics to measure the worth of individuals who work in developing countries and conflict zones. Their value is measured in the power of disseminating their messages through verbal narratives and community engagement. Jane Barry is also a leading feminist not in the western sense of being concerned about glass ceilings but ensuring women have the capacity to build roofs over their heads and secure their future in uncertain environments. In this way Jane Barry is creating a new paradigm for the feminist movement in the 21st century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.61.244 (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

— 83.105.61.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WebHamster 09:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately soapboxing like this won't do your cause much good and can actually be counter-productive in these debates. Wikipedia is based on the foundation of verification. Citations may or may not be the best of ways to achieve notability but "rules is rules" and there must be some semblance of neutrality to rule out WP:POV. Citations achieve this with an acceptable ability. Either way an AFD is not the place to discuss rule or criteria changes. The simple fact of the matter is that all claims have to be verified using laid down guidelines. It's the same for Jeffery Dahmer as it is for Mother Theresa. --WebHamster 11:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Jane Barry is not only a trailblazer in the field of NGO-military relations in conflict zones, but also an influential practitioner. Many relief workers--such as myself--who worked with her in Bosnia or West Africa learned a great deal from her regarding humanitarian practices and the moral conundrum of emergency relief. Her impact reaches well beyond her written work and has influenced a generation of relief professionals. Ddetorres 14:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
— Ddetorres (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WebHamster 09:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. That's great. Do you know of any sources that would confirm the information in the sections "Early career," "Humanitarian work," and "Policy work and women's rights"?
  • Comment. I know the San Francisco Chronicle published an interview with her in 1991 or 1992 on her witnessing Yeltsin's stand in Moscow. Alas, the Chronicles online archives only go back to 1995. Ddetorres 19:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Deor 14:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I've added some more what I would consider to be minor references, but I have no idea if they are enough to establish notability, probably not :( --WebHamster 16:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Entries from the San Francisco Examiner interviewing Barry have been added. Commentary on Barry's writing and notability by Women in Black has been added Robin.schofield 10:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Surely someone who has demonstrably done such positive work and dedicated a tremendous amount of effort doing so in some of the most needy areas of the world should be kept here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasheed8 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

— Rasheed8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WebHamster 09:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Views on this article appear genuinely divided because Jane Barry is notable in quite a specialised field. However, it is clear her work is very influential in women's human rights thinking - sources have been further updated to show impact of her writing on other authors, e.g. Anna Jeffreys from Save the Children.Robin.schofield 18:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Entries from the San Francisco Examiner interviewing Barry have been added. Commentary on Barry's writing and notability by Women in Black has been added. Robin.schofield 10:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep, original prodder withdrew deletion request (see last entry). NawlinWiki 19:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dimitris Spanoulis

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

Greek basketball player. The article was prodded, and for some reason, an anon user (dynamic IPs) keeps removing the prod and posting personal attacks on admins. Since deleted prod notices really should not be reposted, I'm posting the article for discussion here. No opinion from me. NawlinWiki 21:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I live in Greece myself. I don't know if you have ever heard of Vassilis Spanoulis who played for the Rockets last season and currently represents Greece in Eurobasket 2007. He currently plays for a team i haven't heard of. In addition, if you check the external references many of them refer to Vassilis Spanoulis and not Dimitris since there isn't really much information around about Dimitris Spanoulis. You can also tell that he's not that known because of the fact that there aren't any articles on wikipedia for the teams he's played for. Cheers.Of course he was not drafted and i strongly believe the rewards he's been attributed are untrue. Cheers. Sergiogr 21:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

sergiogr should be blocked and warned not to do this

First of all he marked this article for deletion without following ANY of the guidelines. For example he PURPOSELY marked that the player had never played in the top Greek pro league. THAT WAS A LIE.

He purposely marked the player was on a made up team. THAT WAS A LIE. He then purposely made to where not being on a current A1 team made you a non pro player. THAT WAS A LIE.

In fact he was on an A1 team JUST LAST YEAR and several times in the past. He made it out to where he was in a league difference based on professionalism, NOT TRUE. This is based on LEAGUE STANDINGS. As a person claiming to be Greek he KNOWS this. More LIES and more wiki deletion VIOLATIONS by him. He made it to where there could be "no evidence found of his team and proof of him being on it."

BLATANT LIE. Right ON the article was proof. MORE deletion violations by this disgrace to wiki.

There were so many BLATANT lies and violations of wiki deletion policy.

He then continued policy violations by making FALSE reports of vandalism and getting users BLOCKED. He numerous times made FALSE reports of "vandalism" and "harrasing" and "personal attacks" getting ANYONE blocked that tried to add to the article, improve it, or point out the false accusations made in his "legit deletion request."

This ridiculous JOKE of a supposed "dedicated wiki contributor" then had the audacity to start reporting ME ME for "abuse" just because I had a IP within a range of certain addresses and was blocked time and time again and blocked and sent frankly VERY RUDE messages by mods and admin telling me I was warned and etc then blocking me when I said look this ain't me.

I did a 2 minute search on Google and confirmed everything on that page. I also note this complete fool sergiogr claimed that if you were to keep this article all players from "A2 would have to be added." Yeah THIS THIS is a legit reason for deletion?

Is this guy serious? No wait are the mods that caused all this trouble and blocked who knows how many users serious? A lot of mods and admin need to have their butts reported on this. How lazy do you people get? Did you even spend 5 seconds looking at this complete nut sergiogr?

Never mind that in FACT he IS an A1 player. He's a free agent and played A1 previously 3 years. So I guess then using sergiogr's imaginary standard ALL NBA players that are retired or free agents should be deleted then right?

I hope EVERY person blocked because of this colossal idiot sergiogr and honestly downright LAZY mods give people a hell full on this. I know Matea is NOT happy about it either as he got the SAME crap.

Personally I think sergiogr and every mod that fell for this nonsense should be freaking ashamed. I mean did any of you look at sergiogr's creations.................ok THIS guy is putting other player templates on case for deletion? MY GOD look at his two, if you delete Spanoulis then you better damn well deleted these two he made and KEEP THEM OFF. The Spanoulis one is light years better than his.

Damn I am mad, all freaking day could not edit because of this loser. But no you lazy fool mods just believed this fool and did whatever he said.

Whomever was hijacking these IP's sure had reason to, I am royally pissed just brushing with this incompetence.

BTW, I notice A LOT of the European player pages have recently been deleted. Went back and checked that. Milos Vujanic for instance. SAME thing a bunch of LIES about the article that it was fake etc no one checked no one did their job just deleted it...........imagine that imagine

BTW these players have connections to Panathinaikos basketball team and sergiogr is a fan of Aris rival team. You know I just think I might open up a can on some of the admin involved in this and put all over the talk pages of anyone and everyone how pathetically LAME some of you are. Not worthy of your posts at all, ruining wiki with this BS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.31 (talk • contribs)

Please remain civil and refrain from making personal attacks. It doesn't help anything, and only makes everyone more upset. Thanks. --Miskwito 22:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm unclear on what the basis for deleting the article is. The article is certainly poorly-cited (there need to be inline citations), especially since it's about a living person. But I don't really see any rationale being given for deleting the article. Sergiogr's comments seem to suggest it's due to him being non-notable, but I don't really know enough to say whether he is or not. --Miskwito 22:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - No opinion either way, but I thought I'd just say that this AFD is a definite for my watchlist :) --WebHamster 01:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


Right, let's talk serious. First off, perhaps i am not the one who has been lying. And i am not a fan of Aris BC which isn't even a serious rival of Panathinaikos. But why would this matter? He DOES NOT play for Panathinaikos BC! He's just the brother of a current player of Panathinaikos. No vandalism huh? What are those on my talk page? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergiogr&oldid=157010514 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergiogr&oldid=156996025 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergiogr&oldid=156994209 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergiogr&oldid=156987073#You_stupid_ass_piece_of_shit as well as those comments on Dimitris Spanoulis article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimitris_Spanoulis&action=history (edit summaries by unregistered user). And don't tell me you don't have anything to do about all these. Plus the fact that he proposed articles i have contributed to and created for deletion and changed the dates on the deletion tag to have them deleted as fast as possible. What's more the fact that he isn't registered makes things more clear indicating that you are afraid to show yourself because you will be getting blocked. Enough said. I am not willing to talk more about this series of events that have taken place. As far as the reasons for deletion are concerned i don't have anything to add than that Dimitris Spanoulis is not <<famous>> to be in Wikipedia.His brother is but not him. Last cleanup looked good by the way. Thanks Sergiogr 14:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


I forgot to mention about the external references many of which have nothing to do with Dimitris Spanoulis like Official HEBA Site

Official Hellenic Basketball Federation Site A1 League at Sportime magazine (Greek)Sergiogr 14:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I had a lot of trouble yesterday logging in. I registered because I couldn't even log in. Normally I just read pages, with an occasional edit. I have the Hughes Net Satellite system so it is very hard to log on with a user name. I see by some comments made here some people do not understand that. Anyway it seems to be a real common problem here that all of us Hughes users get blocked. This is really a pain in the rear.

Basically, we get blocked just because some people know how to switch the IP addresses. I guess hackers and vandals use the Hughes just for this reason? Strange really it costs me $120 a month and there are 3 higher packages than the one I have.

Anyway, I kept getting messages yesterday and kept being told I vandalized things. YAWN. This really is a big problem here that it seems you just get blocked without any real look.

So anyway I had to finally figure out what was causing this problem yesterday and it came to the Spanoulis article here and an article on a basketball player named Holden. It turns out it stems from the user sergiogr.

Well I guess what happened was sergiogr didn't count on the person that probably wrote this article would be able to cause all that nonsense. Sergiogr clearly was trying to make some point to this person for whatever reason and it backfired on them. The article is not deletion worthy IMHO. I wonder if sergiogr is one of the wiki vandals that does everything they can to get things deleted and gets away with it.

I looked over this seeing what was behind this as seeing I and I see here others were blocked because of this. And yes sergiogr many people are being assigned these same IP numbers. Hughes has about 10 million users FYI.

So I looked over this, to see if sergiogr is being honest or if he is acting like a rogue here, which should be discussed with him to kindly not do in the future because it gets other people blocked.

Well it does seem Dimitris Spanoulis is definitely an important basketball player in Greece and a professional. And it seems this is cited in the article already.

Example: sergiogr claims that this player has made up accomplishments. His explanation is simply that he has serious doubts they are true. This seems a bit weak doesn't it?

Okay let's look, it claims he was "led in scoring average with Xanthi BC during the 2006-07 basketball season, with a scoring average of 27.4 points per game. As a result he was voted to the Greek League All-Domestic Team, the Greek League First Team, and he was named the league's Domestic Player of The Year, Guard of The Year and Player of The Year.[1]"

Now click on link 1 and you get this page,

http://www.eurobasket.com/GRE/d2.asp

On this very page in top right corner it confirms he played on that same team and led the league in scoring with 27.4 points per game. Scroll down a ways and after all the leaders and some player rosters it looks like it has the yearly awards listed and sure enough matches exactly what is in this article. The article has direct links to this.

Sergiogr seems to be making things up here.

Now, this contention of the A2 division. I know nothing about these foreign basketball leagues honestly. I did some checking around. Turns our sergiogr is way off base.

The second division of Greece is a pro league. It is part of the Greek pro league. The second division simply means the team finished in the bottom of the first league or never won the 2nd league to move to the first league. In other words it is inferior as he claims but it's the same league. I think he is claiming this is like an NBDL league or something and that's clearly wrong. It's the second division of the pro league, where the teams that are losing are currently held at. Best way it makes sense from what I have looked at is, if the NBA used this method the Chicago Bulls would have been in the second division after all their titles because they came back with a bad record. The team does NOT suddenly become non-pro and players non-pro. Sergiogr seems to be trying to manipulate this.

Now this is stated ALREADY here at wikipedia look at this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esake

and this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1_Ethniki

As you can see his FIRST team is an A1 team. Doesn't even jive one iota with sergiogr's claims.

Now look at this,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1_Ethniki_2006-07

it clearly states here the A1 teams that have a bad year are put back in A2 and the A2 team that wins is put back in the A1. In other words either every edit made to all this Greek pro basketball is wrong or sergiogr is being a you know what. Notice also it says Makedonikos was in the A1 and went back to A2. This article also has Spanoulis playing with Makedonikos when it was A1 as I also found out.

This I found also the article,

http://217.13.116.51/ulebcup/noticia.jsp?temporada=E04&jornada=13&id=670

"They grew playing classic brotherly one-on-one battles in the playgrounds of Larissa, Greece. Together, they faced the early death of their father, a tragedy that cost both of them, but also made them stronger for overcoming their loss. All along, Vassilis and Dimitris Spanoulis lived with the same dream: to play professional basketball at the highest level possible. On Tuesday, both will take their friendly rivalry one competitive step higher as they face each other in the ULEB Cup quarterfinals, Vassilis playing for Maroussi and Dimitris for Makedonikos. Younger brother Vassilis is currently the second leading scorer in the ULEB Cup for Maroussi, with 14.1 points per game, while big brother Dimitris has been a big help off the bench with 6 points on average for Makedonikos. "Both of us are professional and definitely we want to help our teams continue in this competition," Dimitris says. "There is a great opportunity ahead of us and we will give our best to make it happen, even if it's necessary to upset your own brother."

Vassilis and Dimitris never played together in the senior men's team of Larissa, Gymnastikos, a steady member of the second division in Greece. The only time they were on the same squad was eight years ago, playing for a small team in Larissa, Keravnos. Vassilis remembers getting his hands on the keys to city's largest gym to practice with his brother for hours and hours. "Both of us were starters," recalls Vassilis. "Same size, 1.92 meters, same position, point or shooting guard depending on the games, but mostly the same desire. We hated losing a game and both of us were great fighters."

All the private competition paid off first for Vassilis, 23, who made the jump to Maroussi in Athens when still a teeneager. When the younger Spanoulis left his city to join Maroussi in Athens, back in the summer of 2001, Dimitris started his pro career on Larissa's second division team, staying there until the end of 2003-04 season, when he moved to Makedonikos at age 26.

Dimitris Spanoulis Dimitris in action "Even if I made the great step of moving to the first division three years before my brother, I can definitely say that Dimitris, who is now starting for Makedonikos in his first season, is very happy and proud of me," Vassilis said. "When he still played for Larissa, he used to come and visit me in Athens during the Christmas and Easter vacations. Now, as we play in different cities, we call each other and talk about basketball and analyze what exactly we need to improve. I would say a bit of everything, since improvement never stops."

The culmination of all their practice together came last summer, when Vassilis Spanoulis represented his country at the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens as a member of the Greek men's basketball team. Earlier in the summer, Vassilis was selected in the second round of the 2004 NBA draft by the Dallas Mavericks, who later moved his rights to the Houston Rockets. Vassilis found out he was drafted when the phone rang during yet another individual morning practice in Larissa.

"For me, like for many many basketball players, the NBA is a dream, but the fact is that many players have been drafted by NBA teams, but never played," he said. "In my mind, the most important thing is to give it a try." Dimitri hopes that his brother gets that opportunity and wishes him the best when it comes. "I find Vassilis's desire to go there as something positive and I am sure he will be all right," older brother Dimitris says. "Having playing time is a big deal, so that's what I want for my brother, to go there and have a role in a team. It would be great for his career."

Meanwhile, both players are concentrated on the mattter at hand, the ULEB Cup quarterfinals battle the can put either team - and either brother - a step closer to continental glory.

"I am sure that Makedonikos will fight us with all its strength," Vassilis says, "but Maroussi has great quality as a team and our goal is to go as far as we can in the ULEB Cup, including the final. We know our mission is very tough and we have to overcome any obstacle."

Kostas Sotiriou, Athens"


So Dimitris and Vassilis competed in the ULEB Cup. That means Makedonikos was an A1 team. I searched this ULEB Cup is the 2nd highest basketball in Europe only Euroleague is higher. ULEB Cup is higher than Greek A1.

Also sergiogr claims that only Vassilis is worthy of an article not the brother. Well here they are on same level in ULEB Cup, there are former and future NBA players in ULEB Cup teams as I found, with listings on wikipedia.

Here with wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroCup

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ULEB

Now, sergiogr claims the team he was currently on did not exist and was probably made up and that there is no evidence of its existence anywhere.

Wow, this is almost sad he actually put this up for deletion with this as a citation.

http://www.beobasket.co.yu/eng/vest.jsp?id=9182

"DIMITRIS SPANOULIS SIGNED FOR MENT

August 29, 2007

The brother of famous Greek player Vasilis, DIMITRIS SPANOULIS signed contract with top A2 Greek team, MENT from Thessaloniki. Spanoulis played great last year for Xhanthi in A2 league."

And then this:

http://www.eurobasket.com/team.asp?Cntry=GRE&Team=365

Funny but right here we have copies of the team roster with Dimitris Spanoulis listed on it, and also a picture of Dimitris.

This team doesn't exist? It isn't part of the Greek Hellenic Basketball association? Well apparently all these European websites and other wikipedia pages here are wrong and only sergiogr is right.

Keep in mind all the wiki pages say the exact opposite of sergiogr's claims. You know it really is very odd he had users blocked for having an issue with his own breaking of site policies.


Look, I could go on and on, I found all of this JUST from wikipedia and JUST from the links given on the Spanoulis article. All I can say is this is quite frustrating to be on a netwrok that is getting blocked because you have completely ridiculous people like sergiogr doing whatever they can to ruin things here for others.

One last thing I see he now asserts here his reason is because the player is not well known. Well if he is not well known why are there articles about him on European websites like this one about him and his brother? This article doesn't even come from Greece. Ok sergiogr please no more of this stuff I do not like constantly being blocked from here and yes it is true I looked it happened because someone went crazy and all that BUT it happened because YOU wrongly and I might add going against site policy for deletion came after their article. In other words, YOU really caused it.

Wiki Is Mine 12:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what you have just mentioned is completely true and proven. I can easily accept a behavior like this of yours but you would be furious like i had been after all these vandalism my personal pages have undergone due to the fact that i was proposing this article for deletion. But even so, those users against the deletion of the article should have replied on the talk page of Dimitris Spanoulis where i created an entry about a potential deletion. Also, I NEVER stated that the team he's currently playing for does not exist, i just said that there was no article about it on wikipedia. I never offended anyone even if i was offended many many times. As far as you calling me a wiki vandal i wouldn't really agree .So to put this to an end, i withdraw my request that this article be deleted. But only because of the fact you have written in such a way. And please next time avoid unregistered edits. Many thanks and apologies for the whole situation. Sergiogr 19:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Bryan

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

otherwise nn councilman of mid-sized city has scandal, kills self. Newsy, sort-of; encyclopedic, no. Carlossuarez46 21:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • DELETE If he wasn't notable prior to death he's hardly likely to be notable after death. Newsworthy yes; but not encylopaedic. B1atv 21:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:N --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep was one of the most wanted articles Zginder 22:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I doubt that this John Bryan is the one referred to in all of the articles that link here. For example, I doubt that he was the designer on the 1948 Oliver Twist film. Cheers, CP 23:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Potential vandalism is not a delete reason, or we should delete all school articles and Rik Waller. Fram 12:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas and Friends - Season 12

Thomas and Friends - Season 12 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There is very little information on what Season 12 is going to be about. At any rate, it is only attracting hoards of vandals, and the creator had no insentive to do good, so it needs deleting. CBFan 20:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. I wanted to go speedy on content, but it has a note about Pierce Brosnan narrating. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Change vote to keep based on precedent. My unspoken concerns about crystalballery aren't there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Though they should put that information in the current Thomas and Friends article, since Season 12 hasn't happened yet. Mandsford 21:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (Surprising response from a long-standing member of WP:THOMAS!) This is, unfortunately, an annual event. Season 11 has just started broadcasting and (responsible) editors are adding information concerning each episode as it is aired. Unfortunately, these Thomas pages attract a very high level of poor-quality editing (ie, effectively, vandalism) from unregistered users, most of whom are no doubt extremely young and keen to add their bit. The Season 11 page is currently semi-protected to minimise these problems. The Season 12 page could usefully be retained, also semi-protected, with this snippet of information about Pierce Bosnan (which can be cited, by the way), as it will need to be created sometime next year anyway. The reason for suggesting this course of action is that WP:THOMAS members have 'been here before', and it will avoid a lot of hassle for everyone. Rest assured that if this page is deleted, some user will re-create it in the very near future, and this will keep on happening... -- EdJogg 22:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment -- Citation for Pierce Brosnan has been added (source HIT Entertainment Press Release). This is also referenced elsewhere, particularly at Pierce Brosnan and Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends. -- EdJogg 22:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I dont' think a page attracting vandels is reason enough to delete it. When term papers are due, are we supposed to delete Mark Twain, Albert Enstein, etc.? Notability has been established. I don't believe the reason for the prod is valid and as such, I vote to keep. Turlo Lomon 11:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Season 12 will happen, and is in itself notable per precedent (not that I would watch this show). This page serves as a place holder in the mean time. Alternatively, this page might also be redirected/merged to the main article in the meantime until more is known, like was done for Lost (Season 4), but I think keeping it the way it is is better. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Sgeureka. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Keep for all reasons stated above.--Gloriamarie 11:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, especially in light of the copyright problems, which are not addressed by any of the keep arguments. One entry not being from the website does not make the rest of the material not a copyright violation. --Coredesat 07:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jargon of the Neal Boortz Show

Jargon of the Neal Boortz Show (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

As you might expect by the name of the article, the only source to publish jargon of the Neal Boortz Show is the Neal Boortz Show. Wikipedia does not have "experts" to judge whether something is important and leaves that up to independent relialbe sources. Jargon of the Neal Boortz Show has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the Neal Boortz Show to develop an attributable article on the topic. The topic fails WP:N. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete It's taken verbatim off of his website, so Wikipedia doesn't really need to host this. I'm not much in to jargon for radio shows, comic strips, and anything else which is consumed daily, becuase if you're a fan, you'll figure it out. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh for more than a few minutes, do you need Wikipedia to explain "megadittoes"? Mandsford 21:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No RS, crufty, and a direct C/P from here, presenting copyvio problems. A blurb/mention with some examples in the main article about the show is more than sufficient. Further, a lot of the items on the list are not original to Boortz anyway. LaMenta3 21:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Thanks for the heads up Jreferee. Obviously I'm going to vote keep since I created it. However, please allow me a few moments to explain why and ask some questions. 1) The entries were in the main article but since the article is trying to achieve GA status, it was suggested that it be spun off in it's own article similar to another GA article and how it handles it (see Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show as the example). 2) Contrary to what Mandsford says, it is not taken verbatim. The entry is new and has not been given time to be developed and improved upon. Some entries are verbatim, but are sourced as such. Given time, this will be improved. 3) As far as sources, please see #2. This article has not been given the time to be developed with further sources gathered. One entry is not from Boortz, and the others, in time will be further sourced as well. Just to meet criteria for the GA, as mentioned in #1, it was speedily built to remove the entries from the main article, but would continue to be developed and improved upon thus providing more of a complete picture of the main article (Neal Boortz). 4) It was mentioned that this is not needed, however, as pointed out in #1, another GA article does this very same thing and yet it's considered a well covered article. I sometimes become confused as to why some editors in Wiki allow the same thing in one place, however, other editors will not allow the same thing in another place. Granted I'm still new and learning, but this seems inconsistent and confusing. 5) A response to LaMenta...the article is not saying these are unique to Boortz, but over the years he has popularized them and introduced many other commentators with the terms thus increasing the usage. 6) Last point/question, if every article that is created is this quickly deleted, how are they supposed to be developed and improved upon? Though it may sting a bit to have this deleted, I can walk away from this and not make it an issue, but still I would like to know why the quick decision to delete. If you all could answer the questions above, I would be obliged. I was going to further develop and source the article, but now I'm a bit gun shy because to do so then have you delete it would be in vain. Kind regards --Maniwar (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete What is notable about this subject? Is each entry going to be referenced? And no, the guy's own web page is not suitable for reference. Is the jargon used on Boortz' radio show discussed in newspapers or magazines? The object of Wikipedia is not to say everything about everything. This is pure fanboy stuff. MarkBul 05:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Without passing too much of a judgement on the artistic merits of these utterances (they have none) or the wittiness thereof (they have none), I honestly do not see any value in their presence as an article. Aficionados can apparently find them in the utterers own homepage, which appears to be the major source of the article. The rest of us could not care less, I'm willing to wager. --Agamemnon2 06:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia really doesn't need to duplicate a list of insider jargon found on the website of some obscure show. This might even be a copyright violation. JIP | Talk 08:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment this is not "some obscure show". It is a highly rated radio show and the main article is certainly notable. Given some time, I am certain that secondary sources could be found (many object to these witty utterances and I remember reading about these objections). That being said, I can see the way this prod vote is going, so I won't waste my time with a "Keep" vote. I would suggest that it be moved to Maniwar's user space so he can work on improving it. Ursasapien (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I do have some concerns about how useful this is in Wikipedia and just duplicating Boortz's site. I think Maniwar did an excellent job summarizing in the main article, so his/her success there decreases the need for this article. However, if external sources can be found.. I say give it a chance. Morphh (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Morphh. --Wynler | Talk 14:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Morphh. --Jerm (Talk/ Contrib) 00:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. With a very few exceptions, these terms are not notable. They are mostly unsourced, and the main source we've got is a list of jargon on the Boortz website. The comparison to Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show is not entirely valid: Limbaugh is much better known and the material in that article is all sourced at least to a show in which he uttered the term. However even that article has serious problems in that the definitions of the terms are all original research. Without 3rd-party sourcs for these terms this will have the same problems. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The definitions of these terms are not original research, as the terms are defined by the author himself. It would be great to trace back to the first use of these terms in the transcripts of the "Boortz Show" but if all that is required is an example of his using the term, we could source nearly every term by examining any given week of transcripts. Neal uses all these terms a lot. Ursasapien (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment per the article, Boortz is the #6th talk show host in America; he is considered one of the "Most Powerful & Influential People in Georgia" and has been given a NAB Marconi Radio Awards as well as a "Georgia Radio Hall of Fame 2007 Career Achievement Award" would highly refute the claim that it's non notable. Just because Will Beback has not heard of him, does not dispel the truth. When this article was started and nominated for deletion, it was because there were ony two sources, however, as you can see, this article now has fifteen sources and growing. Hopefully this will dispel the concern. --Maniwar (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. I'm a huge Boortz fan! However, many of these words are jargon from other topics as well. Even if they were unique, it can be mentioned in the main article as part of a section, or a section itself about the show. It clearly lacks notability to be included in it's own article and on the top it's not encyclopedic content. --Skywolf talk/contribs 03:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Severus Snape per here and on the talk page. --Coredesat 07:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tobias Snape and Eileen Prince

Instead of being merged as non-notable, consensus at the talk page is to delete and redirect. Non-notable plot recitation.Judgesurreal777 20:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Strongly Agree: delete and redirect. As noted in the talk page, Tobias Snape and Eileen Prince do not satisfy the Notability Criteria; their only appearances in the books are by reference and as an extremely brief unexplained vision that is part of a jumble. What little there was to say about them has been added to the Severus Snape page, and nothing else on the page is either Notable or relevant. Redirect to Severus Snape. Magidin 20:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - if you delete an article, you cannot then insert the code on the deleted page for it to redirect to Snape's article; so from a technical standpoint, notwithstanding the consensus at the talk page, delete and redirect is impossible. Perhaps everyone means to blank the page and redirect - in other words just redirect? --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 09:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Right now, Eileen Prince and Tobias Snape redirect to Tobias Snape and Eileen Prince. Those two should redirect to Severus Snape instead, and Tobias Snape and Eileen Prince should be deleted (in my opinion). It is highly unlikely someone would type the full name directly anyway. Magidin 13:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh OK I think I see. So delete Tobias Snape and Eileen Prince and redirect Tobias Snape and Eileen Prince to Severus Snape instead of to Tobias Snape and Eileen Prince. I think I got it. Those individual article re-redirects would be necessary after the candidate article is deleted, because they would then have nowhere to go. Gotcha. Just wanted to clear that up - if the candidate article on the couple is deleted, then it cannot then be set up to redirect back to Severus Snape because by definition it is gone; but the other "child" articles can and should be re-redirected. Thanks for the clarification of the intent. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep due to additional outside sources being provided. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shaggy Flores

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

Extensive and apparently autobiographical article about a slam poet. Article provides no outside references, and I haven't yet found any independent sources to show notability. Previously speedied once. --Finngall talk 20:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Outside independent references are provided at the bottom of the page. This article is in compliance with existing Wiki articles on Slam or Nuyorican poets. Material provide aside from the short bio is material that was created outside of the source by independent contributors. Please remove from deletion status as the information provided is correct and not web advertising. In addition, how is this page any different from existing Caridad de la Luz and Tego Calderon pages which are posted on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.135.249 (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Author/subject (under the above IP) has added some outside references, but also has been trying to delete his old comments from the article talk page. --Finngall talk 22:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Fingall, those comments were accidently deleted when I went to edit my statement. I am new to wikipedia and I'm sorry for not following the protocol. However, this still doesn't change the fact that outside references, as stated above by you, have been provided for this posting therefore fulfilling your earlier request for deletion. Please remove your deletion comment as wikipedia requirements have been fulfilled. In addition, you never answered the question on how this page is different from existing pages on the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.135.249 (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The references provided - college newspapers and an "open forum" web site - don't make for much on the Wikipedia notability scale. Unless some better references are added, I'll stay with Delete. Not every working musician is notable, and nor is every poet. MarkBul 00:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • KeepThe references provided are from outside independent sources. College newspapers are credible sources of information and establish place and credibility of the material being listed on the article. In addition, Academic articles are provided from nationally recognized scholars to substantiate the work being cited. In regards to comments such as "Not every working musician is notable, and nor is every poet" that may ring true in some cases but not every writer/poet is nationally recognized. The article's references and materials can substantiate this. Unless MarkBul is an expert on nationally recognized Nuyorican poets and writers, I would stick with material that I know.____Zulu1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.135.249 (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment per WP:RS "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." College newspapers written and edited by college kids are not mainstream newspapers. And please do not go personal - it does not aid this discusssion. MarkBul 05:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Author has provided sources such as peer-reviewed material from journals and books from the academia. The college newspapers quoted demonstrate place and time mentioned in the article. Comments made by MarkBul such as "Not all Musicians or poets are notable" are personal and have no place in this discussion. It is not up to him but the contributor to demonstrate wether the material covered is notable. If the sources listed collaborate what is written in the article then why are we giving this contributor such a difficult time when the article fulfills wiki's criteria for submission? This contribution is no different then existing material on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.204.97.18 (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep He's an important figure in a major poetry movement. The page needs work, but we should have it. futurebird 15:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete as there are no reliable sources which discuss this term specifically, so there article subsequently fails both WP:N and WP:V. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Democrat In Name Only

AfDs for this article:
*Votes for deletion/Republican/Democrat In Name Only*
Articles for deletion/Democrat In Name Only Articles for deletion/Democrat In Name Only (3rd nomination) Articles for deletion/Democrat In Name Only (4th nomination)
Democrat In Name Only (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There is not enough reliable source material to write an attributable article on the topic "Democrat In Name Only". The article mostly is a BLP problem magnet and the problems noted by the AfD #2 nominator have not been addressed in the past two years and those raised in AfD#1 have not been addressed in the past three years. The topic better suited for coverage in Party switching in the United States and Factions in the Democratic Party (United States). While those with knowledge of current or potential government policies might be aware of the term, no reliable source has deemed it fit to be addressed in their publication to any material degree. There is no reason Wikipedia should either. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete What a mess. Looks like POV OR to me. And RINO is short for dinosaur? MarkBul 20:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, or at least trim significantly. One of the lists is almost completely unsourced. This is an encyclopedia, an article about Democrat In Name Only should be about the history and usage of the term. This article gives undue weight to people who have been called the term. That's like having the article Cheapskate focus on people thought to be cheap. Burzmali 20:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Move Merge to Conservative Democrat A term that's only used on blogs and webpages is basically someone's inside joke. As with something like "Feminazi", it's not notable until it's got some independent print or television sources. However, despite the dumb name, it's a good article about Democrats who lean to the right. DINO, RINO, hell if I know. Mandsford 21:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • That would be merge, right? — goethean ॐ 21:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You're right... I should have realized that there would already be an article by that name, and the factual part of this is suitable for a merger. Mandsford 12:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This concept has certainly been the topic of reliable sources. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. Some of these are better than others, but I think they're all worthy of citation in some capacity. A few of those are sources from blogs, but those blogs are affiliated with major news or political organizations, such as the New York Times. Clear keeper in my opinion. Croctotheface 21:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Looking into your sources, there seems to be a significant lack of anyone addressing the term in question:
[1] - Uses the term to describe someone, that's notable for Wikitionary, not Wikipedia
[2] and [3] - Reference the term as part of a quote, that's notable for Wikinews or Wikiquote, not Wikipedia
[4] - Directly references the concept of DINOs and RINOs, but seems that it uses as a shortened form of "a democrat who often crosses party listens". Once again good to back up a Wikitionary entry, but it doesn't establish the notability of the term
[5] - Uses the term as an insult to Henry Cuellar, once again Wikitionary, not Wikipedia
[6] and [7] - Confirm that the term is used (although the claim is clearly hearsay), but does not establish notability
[8] - like [5] quotes the term being used as an insult
Overall, it looks like a derogatory term used to refer to a Democrat that votes like a Republican. I don't know if it make sense when applied to a concept, but Notability is not inherited. Burzmali 23:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
"Democrat in Name Only" is not a neologism; it's a phrase. Guidelines relating to neologisms don't apply. This article is about a concept and a phrase used to describe the concept. As it exists now, the article clearly goes well beyond defining the phrase and describing its usage, which is the job of a dictionary. My eight links show that the phrase is in common usage, including major publications. When there is an article on a candidate for president using the phrase, that is an article about the phrase. I'm sure the one I linked is not the only one. Besides, if Friedman (unit), which is a neologism, survived two AfDs despite much less robust sourcing, I can't see how that precedent could be reconciled with deleting this article. I'll also say now that I don't intend to turn this discussion into a back-and-forth between the two of us. I feel like I've said what I have to say. Aside from the replies I'm going to put in this post, I've said what I have to say about the topic and will leave it to others to decide the validity. Croctotheface 00:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You are correct, "Democrat in Name Only" isn't a neologism, it is simply a phrase someone came up with based on RINO, and nothing more. Like "bleeding heart liberal", "Massachusetts liberal" or "compassionate conservative" it is only used to disparage the subject. Unlike "Massachusetts liberal" no one has ever written about the term "Democrat in Name Only", they only write to call someone it, or report someone being called it. Can you find any articles that discuss the term itself? Burzmali 02:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced I have to. Your previous argument seemed to be based on the idea that this is a neologism (though you did not describe it exactly as one) and therefore requires very specific kinds of sources. I would argue that an article about someone calling someone else a DINO is an article about both the phrase and the concept. It establishes notability. For the record, I'm sympathetic to the "the article sucks" arguments below, but I don't think that sucky articles should be deleted simply because they suck. Even if they haven't been improved significantly, it doesn't mean that they can't be. Your "disparage the subject" argument seems to assume that there should be a different standard for pejorative terms than others. I don't see why that should be. Croctotheface 19:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The term "hack journalist" is also very popular in the press, as are "miserable failure", "well-dressed gentleman", and "five time winner". The term must be notable independently of usage to warrant an article. Just because Paris Hilton (and the press around her) likes to say "That's Hot", doesn't mean that we should have an article about it. Burzmali 19:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This is going to be my last reply, since I don't think some sort of extended back and forth is likely to change the nature of the discussion in a significant way. It might be fun for us, but it doesn't serve much of a purpose. One of your arguments had been that there did not exist appropriate sources for the article. I argued in response that there did indeed exist sources on the topic that featured the phrase prominently. These sources, I argued, establish the notability of both the topic and the phrase. You now seem to have abandoned the "lack of sources" argument and are instead running a different argument: something like, "There exist phrases X and Y that do not have articles. Therefore, Democrat in Name Only should be deleted." My response to this new argument is that the cases you give are not similar. Some of these other phrases you refer to are so common and so generic (hack journalist, well-dressed gentleman) that readers are not likely to be served by an article on them. In other words, if a reader knows what the words "hack", "journalist", and so forth mean, they know basically all there is to know about the phrase. Indeed, if you argue that "Democrat in Name Only" is a phrase like these, then you seem to be reversing your old position completely--no longer is this a non-notable phrase that is just the providence of a handful of bloggers. Now, you seem to be saying that it is such a common phrase that there is no point in trying to have an article about it. Considering that we DO have an article about it, even if that article could use improvement, that seems to belie the notion that there is nothing to say about the topic or the phrase. I think a much better, more direct parallel is Republican in Name Only, which most certainly does have an article. How is that not the best parallel case? Croctotheface 23:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete On first glance it's poorly writen, and to me it seems like it's just about the democratic party Yamakiri on Firefox 22:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unfairly singles out Democrats who take stances on social issues that the party used to solidly support. 75.32.38.191 00:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
note user is unregistered. Also, this argument is unrellated to the notability of the phrase. --YbborTalk 00:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Doesn't matter if user is unregistered. Even if he or she is voting differently than I (I voted merge, 75.32 is voting delete) the vote counts. Wikipedia has a special technology that detects if you use your logoff powers for evil. Mandsford 12:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the phrase has wide currency and a notable history, although I would like to see it end up more like RINO which sources claims of a politician being a RINO, rather than just listing socially conservative democrats like DINO does. --YbborTalk 00:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Never mind. The more I think about it, the more the article seems like a piece of crap. I'm netural. --YbborTalk 01:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as used in WP:RS per Croctotheface; also commonly used on DailyKos. As my user page indicates, I am a Democrat, and I don't think it's biased. It can be fixed. Bearian 01:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: needs work, but the term has currency. MoveOn uses it. Whether or not people think it is an ill-defined topic or unfairly targets dems or monkeys or gypsies is immaterial.--Hraefen Talk 05:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    A small challenge, can you find any articles that work for DINO as [this article] works for Massachusetts liberal. While two such articles would be ideal, even one would mean this article is worth keeping. Burzmali 11:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think it can be fixed.Seventhofnine 03:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep but fix. StaticElectric 16:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as the article fails WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charter School of the Dunes

Charter School of the Dunes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school. Only fact listed is that it has 35 teachers. Also, does not have third-party or independent sources that deal with this specific school. Panoptical 20:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. • Lawrence Cohen 16:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Carlossuarez46 18:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, because news references were easily found on a search engine and added to article. I urge someone to use these new references to expand the article accordingly. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moonlight motel

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

Non-notable comic strip. The Evil Spartan 20:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • delete Non notable, poor formating Yamakiri on Firefox 22:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. JIP | Talk 08:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete While I usually run from using ghits as a consideration, I can't help but note that "Moonlight Motel" + "Nathan James" results in only one return: this very article. I also note that this article is the product of a single purpose account. Victoriagirl 17:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 14:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sarikakeov

Appears to be a hoax: if not, it certainly doesn't pass the muster of WP:RS. All lists on google: [20] are coincidentally next to someone's email address. At very best, WP:OR qualifies. The Evil Spartan 20:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and add WP:V. There seems to be no way of verifying this.--Sethacus 20:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per above --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Yamakiri on Firefox 22:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 07:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram 13:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moutaz Mohamed Haddara

Moutaz Mohamed Haddara (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable biography The Evil Spartan 19:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, you'd think that if he were such an early blogger there would be sources given to show his notability. Nyttend 20:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:N unsourced, and I googled it but nothing notable was found.--Sandahl 04:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I found the blog [haddara.blogspot.com], but "one of the prominent" seems like an overstatement. I don't see enough notability to warrant an entry. — Zerida 20:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to parasitic twin. ELIMINATORJR 22:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islaam Maged

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

Fails WP:BIO - notable only for their medical condition. (Might be worth a mention on the disease page). Contested prod. Fabrictramp 13:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Parasitic twin which already contains a few sentences about this. Maralia 15:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Contains no pictures.Pictures help the reader understand what they are reading." User:Coolgirly88 7:40, August 30 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolgirly88 (talk • contribs) 10:42, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TKD::Talk 08:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Maralia, although she's no longer alive, her sister heavily discussed in the article is, so BLP1E seems to apply. Carlossuarez46 19:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Further information needed. I would only support this article if "Islaam" was recognised as a person under Egyptian law. Was there a birth certificate? Was there a death certificate? If not, then she was an appendage of Manar Maged and not deserving of an article. Perhaps the subject of the article should be Manar, and her battle for life? WWGB 11:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Parasitic twin which already contains appropriate level of information on this case. Espresso Addict 17:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TKD::Talk 19:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Nothing that passes WP:MUSIC here. ELIMINATORJR 21:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grumpy Man DJs

Grumpy Man DJs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability of this group is not clear. Sancho 08:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Google reveals no reliable secondary sources. Their least tenuous claim to fame is that they hosted a club night that Portishead played at once. Fails WP:N 3tmx 08:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Going from their press page plus the items added on Talk:Grumpy Man DJs it seems like there are sufficient secondary sources to verify the basic facts. William Pietri 10:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Well that they exist; the BBC listings are BBC bristol i.e. local and Venue magazine is a local magazine. Wouldn't say that necesssarily makes them notable 3tmx 22:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Crazytales talk/desk 19:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Notablility means more than a mention on a BBC review article. Not even close. MarkBul 20:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Filter freq

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

Vanity article Jvhertum 08:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


  • Delete Google doesn't appear to provide any reliable secondary sources to support notablity. Does having your record played by a few big name DJs make you notable? (even if it did it would still need to be proved that they had played the records)

3tmx 09:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak delete or stubbify. Article is certainly promotional as is, and most of the copy should go. Chart-toppers would be a reasonable claim to notability. But like 3tmx, I can't find any sources to verify most of this. The albums do seem to exist, but not knowing the house scene, I can't tell whether they are big hits or vanity releases. William Pietri 10:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think i'd tend to say that having your record played by a big dj doesn't make you notable . I'm into electro/house and I've never heard of him. 22:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3tmx (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I'm pretty sure this person is non notable. He may become notable in the future but he's not now so i'd still say delete and if he does . I did a search of music blog sites (i.e. people talking about new music they're into- often obscure underground stuff) - and nothing. 3tmx 22:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment the person who added this article obviously did not fully understand the submission guidelines, like myself, because we are new to the site. certain parts of this article should be modified to be more in line with wikipedia criteria, but should not be deleted entirely. FIlter Freq is a very notable artist in house music with over 20 vinyl released distrubted by everyone from sole unliimted to unique uk in 2005/2006 and his label Kontrast Recordings is notable aswell with some of the most popular artists in house music on the label. You can view the websites for more info www.filterfreq.com and www.kontrastrecordings.com - many far less notable musicians are listed here. From what I understand, maybe a stub article would work aswell. google - "filter freq" kontrast without the brackets for more info on chartings, where his music is sold, forums talking obaut his music, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernova21 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Since you are more familiar with the scene, could you dig up some more evidence of this? Generally we don't give forums much weight, as they aren't reliable sources. For example: Who's the Billboard of the House world? What magazines cover it best, and where do they say that Filter Freq is a notable artist? Remember that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (from WP:V), so it's not enough for what we write to be true. Readers must be able to verify for themselves that it's true. William Pietri 12:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment My nomination for deletion is not based on notability as much as the fact that is pure self promotion, posted by the subject's record label or the subject himself. Wording like "to critical acclaim & play from DJs like..." make this article read like yer typical dance industry press release, in fact it is probably copied from just such a press release. IMO the article could stay if significantly trimmed. Jvhertum 12:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Crazytales talk/desk 19:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Two Google searches turned up less than 15 hits. Whatever he's doing, no one seems to be talking about it on the web. I understand not getting written up in the NY Times, but I'd expect some Intergoogle love. MarkBul 20:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Chart "hit" is from an unimportant website instead of recognized souce like Billboard or even an established dance music magazine. Precious Roy 09:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Maxim(talk) 01:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tower 1 Dolmen City Karachi

Tower 1 Dolmen City Karachi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Future building without asserted notability. Sasha Callahan 19:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. Speculative, non-notable article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywolf (talk • contribs) 03:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seth Patinkin

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

Non-notable self-bio. Wrote a couple of non-notable papers, was involved in a couple of non-notable startup companies, was mentioned in a school newsletter, sued a local politician. The bulk of the article is unsourced. Deprodded by anon. Weregerbil 19:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - autobiography, WP:COATRACK article. Author already has created an attack page several times against the mayor of his city, whom he is currently suing. The Evil Spartan 20:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom & ↑. Did someone say "non-notable". --Evb-wiki 21:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. - TexMurphy 22:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Edit I think the connection with John Forbes Nash is interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.96.125 (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Add Information what is this guy's connection with Mandy Patinkin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.96.125 (talk)
  • Some Citations Here are some more citations re: this subject:
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.10.243 (talk)

  • Note that users 75.146.96.125 and 24.136.10.243 has no contributions outside this subject. - TexMurphy 11:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A vanity page if there ever was one. Not every Princeton graduate student who works with Nash thereby becomes notable. Nor does one get notability by filing patents or helping found companies, unless they become notable, which is certainly not shown here. Nor by writing papers asserted to be celebrated but, according to Web of Science, cited by nobody at all. Perhaps the lawsuit is important, but he isnt necessarily important for filing it. DGG (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - See arguments for deletion above. Dragonmage65 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonmage65 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advancing hairline

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

This page appears to have been created as a way to disparage Sean Hannity and Andrew Napolitano.[26] I deleted the BLP material, and the page now largely duplicates receding hairline information in Baldness. Delete and redirect to Baldness seems the way to go on this one. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete and redirect to baldness per nom. Article serves no purpose, with or without the disparaging BLP info. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect, WP:SNOW. Weregerbil 20:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I kinda like the Fox shout-outs. Will their hairlines and eyebrows merge eventually? :) You do need examples, after all. MarkBul 20:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete with no redirect. I see no evidence on google that anyone uses this as a term for baldness, and actually quite the opposite. Someguy1221 21:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The idiomatic phrase is "receding hairline". Advancing is the other direction. —David Eppstein 04:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete without redirect. Orphan anyway. Thin Arthur 08:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect per nom. Some student might use the term. Bearian 01:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete without redirect. Dicdef of a slang term. Urban dictionary is that way. BTW, this isn't slang for balding, it's slang for getting a hair transplant, so if a redirect is left, shouldn't it go to Hair transplantation instead of Baldness? --barneca (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 19:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Cerrell

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

Notability not asserted/unreferenced Spryde 18:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete unless sourced, and also needs to be checked for copyvio--though not found on Google. (I suspect that's why it's unsourced.) It asserts important PR role in political campaigns, and, a little more concretely, chairmanship of numerous nonprofit organisations in LA, and awards from professional societies, and being a Distinguished Visiting Professor in Political Science at Pepperdine University. some of this should be possible to document--all I can find quickly is that he is a member of the P.U. Board of Visitors, listed as Joseph R Perrell -- so at least he can be shown to exist.DGG (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete notability to come. --Gavin Collins 11:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centre for Prosecuting Islamic Republic officials for their crimes against People

Centre for Prosecuting Islamic Republic officials for their crimes against People (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Very nonnotable attempt. No verifiable sources can be found. Mukadderat 18:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable, unverifiable. Has been tagged for not having any sources since 2006. The man who runs the alleged organization might be notable, but there's no sources cited for him in his Wikipedia article other than his own website, so notability would be a real issue. There's no reason for trying to merge this into the man's article, as the name is so clumsy and probably a bad translation of the Farsi anyway. No one will be searching for this term. It's more of a description than a name. And the article on this "organization"'s director might not survive on Wikipedia much longer if it is subject to any scrutiny on WP:V and WP:RS. OfficeGirl 19:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete (possibly CSD#A7). Google does not return any useable results for the name [27]. → AA (talk) — 19:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Ali Javadi. No sources, no links, not indication of notability. Mandsford 21:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - No assertion of notability. Perhaps it should be speedied? The Behnam 01:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per the non-notable argument.Bless sins 05:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 19:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shepley Bulfinch

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

Delete nn firm, fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 18:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, no assertion of notability Accounting4Taste 18:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 13:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable firm. Keb25 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as fails notability guidelines WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins 11:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I've added a few facts but really this article should be expanded upon by architecture enthusiasts like myself or other experts in the field of architecture and design. I am not a regular Wikipedia user but if other firms of similar caliber and notabability (NBBJ) can be included so should Shepley Bulfinch, 12 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.146.4.3 (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Is anyone actually reviewing the article and references? This company has won two significant awards, in addition to coverage in magazines. This should more then meet the notability guidelines. Turlo Lomon 09:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I don't see what the issue is with this particular entry? The article should be expanded to include a more comprehensive list more notable clients, history, media coverage and projects. Looks like edits have been made since the article was first flagged. The legacy and impact of this firm is hard to calculate but if it was significant enough to win an AIA Firm Award than it certainly makes the cut. The AIA Firm Award is the highest honor an architecture firm can recieve. I will help expand the article to include more notable projects, awards and media coverage. Thanks for flagging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archicritic (talk • contribs) 00:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Being (Harry Potter)

This article has no real world information, and as such is only a repetition of story and trivia from books by J.K. Rowling. As the books and their plots/characters are covered in their respective articles, this article is totally duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 18:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

but judges you forgot one thing THIS IS PART OF THE HARRY POTTER UNIVERSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it is not a repetion of trivia or facts

so i think this article should staylegaiamaster will warp your reality 19:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

But legaia, that's not a criteria to keep it. You see, Wikipedia is made of of topics that can be intelligently discussed, and this topic, while interesting, does not have enough of that to sustain a conversation, and thus, should be part of a larger universe article. Judgesurreal777 20:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Harry Potter: it's a significant enough topic in the series that it deserves a sentence or two of mention in another article, but surely not enough to merit an article of its own. Nyttend 20:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is pure fanboy creation - Wikipedia is not a compendium of all possible topics. MarkBul 20:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's my opinion that this would do better in a wiki that is more appropriate to Harry Potter. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge Pretty much useless, may be of some use, either delete or merge alittle into Harry Potter Yamakiri on Firefox 22:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable fan creation fictional concept; Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. --Coredesat 22:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment This was not made up in school one day; it's from a legit book written by Rowling. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay, so it's not a fan creation, but it's still not notable. --Coredesat 00:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It's pure reposting of content from Fantastic Beasts, no real-world significance stated, nor is it possible that it could be found. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:FICT. Axem Titanium 04:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, the information to the real-life book Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, where it is from. If it's already there, delete. Neville Longbottom 14:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and move the info to Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them as user Neville Longbottom suggested. Lord Opeth 23:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 20:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crescent Group

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

Although, the content of the article suggests that this group is a very large conglomerate, it does not explicitly state the notability or worth of the subject to be an article on Wikipedia. The article has been tagged to be expanded since its early stages, and also has been tagged as an advert/spam for just linking to multiple articles without much explanation - other than the purported fact that this group has many industries covered. No references are cited, except for the corporate link and some propaganda-type links for the names of executives. In short, it is not an article at all. Emana 18:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete All links are self-generated, no references, doesn't assert notability. Accounting4Taste 18:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heather Tookes

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

New article, asserts some minor notability, but how much? How notable are Assistant Professors? ELIMINATORJR 18:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep She is a budding researcher at a top University whose research is continuing to win awards.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment "Budding researcher" means nothing around here - that's crystal-balling. Is she writing books? Being discussed in the media? Leading a particular school of thought? MarkBul 20:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think she passes on WP:PROF criteria #6. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not close, as far as I can see. Awards for papers written as a Ph.D student are nice for getting you a job after graduation, but unless you're extrordinary, they mean little in the real world. I see no signs that her work as a grad student was earth-shaking. Just another college prof, unless someone comes up with something else. MarkBul 20:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tony raises compelling arguments, but I'm still not thinking that this is sufficient for notability requirements. No prejudice to recreation if/when she does cross the line. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 23:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. A best student paper award and an industry grant are not enough, and her research publications are too new to have had a significant impact. —David Eppstein 23:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly a promising person, but at this point not even close to being notable. --Crusio 23:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete One single peer-reviewed forthcoming paper even in a very good journal is not notability. Far from it. An obvious beginner, in spite of a careful attempt to have as impressive an article as could be done given the facts of it. DGG (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Sherman Junior High School

General Sherman Junior High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article reads like an advert for a non-notable school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B1atv (talk • contribs)

  • Delete Completely non-notable. Accounting4Taste 18:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Schools should have relevant, verifiable sources - this school does not assert notability in any way. Ali (t)(c) 21:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nn school. Eusebeus 05:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allie DiMeco

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

Prod was removed, so I'm sending it to AfD instead. This article is about a minor character in a TV show. It has no references despite being tagged for some time. Also, BLP concerns were raised in regards to her being a minor with her school listed. ^demon[omg plz] 18:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC) 18:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Article is about the actor, not the character she portrays. The name of her school seems to have been removed. DCEdwards1966 18:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As main contributor to the article, I'm currently working on finding actual references. Since she lacks an official website, and the information on there is strictly from word of mouth, the only source is Nickelodeon. Besides being "just" a minor character, she's also a noted actress in many Broadway plays, and has starred in many commercials. I will admit to putting the school in per request of many people, but it was promptly removed when BLP came into play. I don't believe it should be deleted. It's highly monitored and yet it may have been tagged for a while, references will be provided soon. -- Tommy Boy ♪ ♪ 18:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • keep - The premise for this nomination is wrong. She is not a minor character she is an actress who plays the character. She is currently playing a regular role in a television series on a major broadcaster. There are more than 50,000 Google hits for her and also hits on Google News search. The article is in need of development but she is clearly notable. B1atv 19:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think she barely meets WP:BIO standards for entertainers, in that she has a significant, regular role in a notable television series. As for the BLP issue, I would suggest an admin delete the name of the school from the edit history (or request oversight, if necessary), but that's no reason to delete the whole article.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 22:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep notable actress. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 21:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Why delete it? She's been in some small things, but she is notable to some extent. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but I strongly endorse a history delete or oversight of any edit that contains the name of her school. There is no encyclopedic purpose to keeping that information that overrides the serious privacy and safety concerns inherent in listing the school she attends. Maybe information on her current school can be included in the article when she both turns 18 and graduates from that school. szyslak 22:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete all, with the exception of Da Drought 3. Da Drought 3 has had some controversy and seems to have garnered some media coverage that might merit an article. If you disagree, you can take this to deletion review or re-nominate. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Da Drought 3

Da Drought 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete a mixtape, a bunch of this artist's mixtapes were deleted before after this and this discussions. I am also nominating:

There is no asserted notability for any of these albums. Carlossuarez46 18:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all See also this, this, this, this, and this. Unlike an album, these can never expand to include background, production, themes, sales, certifications, a wide range of reviews etc. All they can ever be is a track list. Spellcast 19:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all Spellcast said it all - can't be expanded. MarkBul 20:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I would at least keep Dedication 2 and consider keeping Da Drought 3. Dedication 2 mentions/contains links to several professional reviews in the article, so I can't see why it couldn't be expanded using them as sources. Da Drought 3 is on shakier ground, but it was still reviewed by Pitchfork (link in the article), by Village Voice blogger Tom Breihan,[28] and by Stylus Magazine,[29] nominated for an award by Ozone magazine,[30] and mentioned in an MTV interview.[31] There's probably more information about these mixtapes in XXL, The Source, etc., but all I know how to do is research by google.--P4k 00:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Also "Da Drought 3" was reviewed by the Boston Globe (July 10 2007, page SID8) and "Dedication 2" is mentioned in All Music Guide's profile of Lil Wayne. Keep for both of these.P4k 21:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 19:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brooke West

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

This person is not notable per WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Valrith 00:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Dlabtot 02:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as obvious db-nonsense. ELIMINATORJR 18:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PKC Snails

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

Zero google hits. It's possible that this is just hopelessly non-notable, but looking at some the text I'm inclined to think it's a hoax. PC78 18:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. Gogo Dodo 18:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Twas My Cure and Joseph Stanley

Twas My Cure (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
Joseph Stanley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Essentially a garage band -- self-published EP and one "forthcoming" self-published album -- no references, no citations Accounting4Taste 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete both as failing WP:MUSIC. Articles by Twasmycure (talk · contribs) - naturally. -- Y not? 18:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lance Buck Paul Smith

Lance Buck Paul Smith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
Understanding Train of Thought (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Combined nomination for a NN biography & book. Article makes the claim that he is author of a "best selling book" titled Understanding: Train of Thought. However, this book is published by AuthorHouse which is a self-published, print-on-demand publisher. The person has only 10 Google hits[32] and the book only 9[33]. Authors fails WP:BIO and the book fails WP:BK. Prod was contested without comment. -- JLaTondre 17:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Self-publication doesn't confer notability. Accounting4Taste 18:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per nom and above. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 20:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete both as the notability is not asserted.--JForget 00:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait and see if the book is still remembered in a year or so. It's too recent in my opinion to know if its notable or not. of course, I'm just another IP address here.--190.74.124.4 02:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball... -- Kl4m Talk Contrib 01:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The book is within the scope of WikiProject Books WP:BK and the biography is within the scope of WikiProject Biography WP:BIO. Dragon390 17:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
^^Above account is a SPA/sockpuppet in case it wasn't obvious. See contribs. -- Kl4m Talk Contrib 01:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete both per well researched nomination. The first, an unreferenced article, fails WP:BIO. The second fails WP:BK, despite Dragon390's claim. Both are products of single purpose accounts. Victoriagirl 18:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TiVo Community Forum

TiVo Community Forum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable web forum, deletion is agreed to based on discussion occuring at the talk page. Lumbergh 17:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Clearly most of the material in the article is unencyclopedic - it's basically in-jokes, vanity, and other trivia. However, once all that is cut out, the subject of the article may in fact meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. A brief websearch indicates that it is quite a popular forum, and many searches relating to TiVo turn up hits for the forum; but I don't see at this point that it meets WP:WEB, so I'll recommend deletion. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • delete Non notable, about the satalite television accessory, if they need help, just google it. Yamakiri on Firefox 22:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Well intentioned, but does not appear to meet article inclusion guidelines at this time.--Kubigula (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barratt Waugh

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

Contested speedy. British singer, questionable notability but there is some claim there so not really a speedy candidate. I have no opinion. Pascal.Tesson 17:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep I respectfully disagree with the previous user's comment about the article subject's "questionable notability." While perhaps not as well known as some other artists in the pop/rock genre, it is my opinion that Mr. Waugh's prior affiliation with a major record label, as well as his continued work in songwriting and vocal performance, qualifies him as sufficiently notable to warrant at least a "stub" entry. Such an entry would allow other users familiar with his work to expand the article to include listings of the artist's past and present compact disc recordings, concerts, and other pertinent data. PrometheusA1 18:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The question here is: is there sufficient coverage of Mr. Waugh's career in reliable third-party sources to warrant an article? Pascal.Tesson 19:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not a speedy but a suitable candidate for deletion based on not being notable enough, SqueakBox 19:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Using his own website as the basis for the article is a definite no-no, I'm afraid. If he is notable, then magazines, newspapers, feature writers, will have written profiles about him. I find a few references to him in Google Archive[34], of which a couple may be about him rather than just mention him in passing. Unfortunately, these are all subscription sites. There is a review(?) of a performance as a support act for Lulu on the BBC website.[35] (scroll down). He apparently had a charted 'hit' on the UK Singles Top 75 in 2003 ('Skip A Beat' reached no. 56 for one week in week 30/2003)[36], which - perhaps - just meets WP:BIO Criteria for musicians... 2.? My feeling is that here's a guy who has not quite yet hit the big time. Maybe he will and that will be the time to write an article about him. --Malcolmxl5 23:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete for largely unknown and non-notable singer/singwriter. This is a tougher call than I originally thought, but I don't see how we can justify this article. Any article that only cites a myspace.com personal homepage should set the alarm bells ringing right away per "blatant advertising" (Speedy Deletion policy, G11) and "No assertion of importance/significance" (Speedy deletion policy, A7). A Lexis-Nexis search did not produce "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per notability policy. In fact, in two of the three articles that briefly mentions Waugh, X-Factor's judge Simon Cowell calls Waugh's singing "distinctly average." Does a "distinctly average" subject with no other publicly verifiable dissenting opinions deserve its own encyclopedia article? Probably not. We need more objective evidence. Hence, weak delete. Sorry, J Readings 23:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Response I still think the article should be kept, but clearly I've been outvoted. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but I have to say that I'm really disappointed. With articles/associated references ranging from Slinger to Gareth (Sojourn) to Scott_Savol, I think this one is on par. To those who want "objective evidence," take a look at the articles linked above (the first and second are examples of random, apparently non-notable things that have articles), and the third also cites a personal Web sites as the primary reference. There's clearly a large grey area between non-notable and notable, and I'm frankly disappointed that I took the time to contribute in the first place since others apparently think it's pointless. PrometheusA1 23:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • First of all, note that AFD is not a !vote, it's a discussion. WP:MUSIC aims to cut down on the grey area of notability as much as possible. In addition, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument for keeping an article. If you feel other articles don't meet the notability criteria outlined in WP:MUSIC, feel free to nominate them for deletion. shoy 16:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was closed delete per WP:SNOW.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wickedtickle.com

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

Nonnotable website, no sources cited to show notability, "300 members". NawlinWiki 17:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


OK, so how do you go about satisfying your need to see "notability"? We're consistently a top search hit in Google fore anything entertainment based in this region. We're approaching 300 members in less than a year, which is saying something for the entertainment niche in this area. We've got several million hits in 1.5 years. We've been reviewed by this area's most notable entertainment writer, Robert trudeau. We've been asked by this region's civic leaders and music community to represent Ark-La-Tex music and it's long and storied history to the world. We've worked with the James Burton (guitarist for Elvis Presley) International Guitar Festival. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WickedTickle (talk • contribs) 17:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC) — WickedTickle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


Also, we work with some of the the biggest names in this area, including the Red River Revel, Tipitina's and James Burton, all of which are also listed in Wikipedia. We're also consistently the #1 listing in Gooigle for "ArkLaTex Entertainment". —Preceding unsigned comment added by WickedTickle (talk • contribs) 17:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC) — WickedTickle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete as per nom. I cant see anything notable in this (yet). Maybe some sources could prove me wrong? Marcus22 18:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Blog entries of the nature cited don't confer notability AFAIK. Accounting4Taste 18:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails to meet WP:WEB criteria. -- The Anome 18:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • DELETE as WP:SPAM with a heaping side order of WP:COI, fails WP:WEB. Not notable. OfficeGirl 19:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete spam, spam, spam . Sasha Callahan 19:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very much spam and COI. Article author needs to read both WP:N and WP:COI. If he can satisfy WP:N, it might be savable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Spam. Per nom. Yamakiri on Firefox 22:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as pure WP:SPAM. On a side note, the creator's username has been blocked due to being spammy as well. shoy 23:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - SNOWBALL. As per rest; NN, COI, OR etc... Why don't admins clean this away faster when there's such an obvious consensus? Spawn Man 02:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Creep (Comics)

The Creep (Comics) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prodded this article about a comic book on 8/14 with the reason: "No reliable sources establishing notability. Article also has biased, advertising tone." Prod removed on 8/16; defense on Talk page consisted of "There are lots of articles about comic series; this article is within the scope of WikiProject:Comics; the tone will eventually be fixed." The problems with the tone are obvious and nobody's made any attempt at improvement since the article was tagged in January (or since it was prodded). I couldn't find any reliable information on Google to show this is a notable comic, but "The Creep" is not the easiest search term to target. Propaniac 17:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment While struggling to figure out why my AFD wasn't posting correctly, I noticed that The Creep (comics) redirects to a list of minor Judge Dredd characters; that seems to be a different Creep. Propaniac 17:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment it is. I suspect it might be better removing the redirect and turning it into a disambiguation page. (Emperor 17:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC))
  • Weak keep this does exist and was published in the Dark Horse Presents anthology (#56-64) [37] and is mentioned as one of his works on reliable sites [38] so it must be a solid contribution to his oeuvre. From what I can see it'd be worth leaving in for now - the big problem is that it needs a major clean up as it is an unencyclopedic style. The world might not end if this was deleted but I think it has potential to be a solid article about part of a notable artist's work for big comic publishing company. (Emperor 18:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC))
  • Keep incorporating Emperors links. Artw 22:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rainbow Sandals

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

Following a request for assistance with NPOV vios at the help desk, I looked into the history of this article and discovered that aside from spam links the only source it ever had is the official company website. It did claim to be one of the three best-selling brands of sandals in the US, but I can't find support for that at the website, which is predominantly for selling shoes. Googling Rainbow Sandals, Inc didn't help me. As it stands, the article is not encyclopedic, and I do not find any sources to substantiate the rather weak claim of notability it did have. There's no question the shoes have fame, but fame is not necessarily encyclopedic. Moonriddengirl 17:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. The article doesn't seem to assert notability per se and I agree with Moonriddengirl, fame isn't necessarily encyclopedic. Accounting4Taste 18:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Although I suspect the subject might meet notability with about 140 Hits on Google News Archives, I cannot find an independent, verifiable source. I have not seen a version of the article, now just a stub, that reads like an encyclopedia article. Perhaps if someone can come up with verifiable sources they can recreate the article in an encyclopedic form. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, as no evidence of notability has emerged. Merger with Barloworld is an uncertain option as Melles Griot was sold and the current relationship with Barloworld is unclear.--Kubigula (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Melles Griot

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

Notability not established due to lack of independent coverage (WP:CORP). PROD contested with comment: "Removed deletion proposal. Company is (was) noteworthy." That's not much of an argument. I would also be fine with a merger to their former parent company, Barloworld Scientific, just that I do not see anything worth merging. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. No, company is not (was not) noteworthy. Might be worth a line in the parent company but no need to merge. Accounting4Taste 18:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 13:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable company. Keb25 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Prominent photonics/optical company. A2Kafir 20:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Fg2 09:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep' if material can be found. I think they're notable having seen their catalogs in the past and knowing the use of their products, but that needs to be shown. Otherwise, merge is probably the best solution. DGG (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I think we can take for granted that the company exists, has issued catalogs, and that their products are used (otherwise their existence would be rather temporary I think). But that is far from notability. --B. Wolterding 16:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins 16:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and rewrite. It is a notable firm, but it is a horrible article. Any company if you dig enough into the trade literature can be set to demonstrate notability, and prove it... • Lawrence Cohen 18:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 16:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evan Kalentzis

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

This article should probably be nominated for CSD though I don't know if it meets that criteria for sure. It's some non notable individual bio written likely by conflict of interest parties which seems obvious due to it's tone. I see no reason this atricle should exist. This individual seems to be some non notable soccer player from a quasi notable organization. Total lack of sources and google yields 1 result matching this person specifically. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Nokia 9000 Communicator. Whether and what to merge is, as always, an editorial decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nokia 9110 Communicator

Nokia 9110 Communicator (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod which claims that this phone made Nokia the largest manufactuer of PDAs in the world. The article carries no references to substantiate this claim, doesn't carry this claim itself, and doesn't even identify the phone as a PDA. With a brief introduction, a list of "specifications" and a linkfarm, it's just an advertisement. Mikeblas 15:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Is every product released by every vendor in every business worthy of a Wikipedia page? It's hard to imagine a notability standard that low. MarkBul 16:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable product by a major manufacturer. A systematic listing of products selling by the millions is WP:PAPER reasonable. "Specifications" (why the scare quotes?) is factual information, and you know what to do with link farms. Weregerbil 20:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Even if we stipulate that cataloging large-selling products in WikiPeida is reasonable per WP:PAPER, there are many other rreasons to not do it and is not necessary. Sometimes, quotes are just quotes. Here, they're around a direct quotation from this article, which uses "specifications" instead of "features" or "capabilities". -- Mikeblas 16:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
      • What would some of those many reasons be? Several independent sources for the product are already shown, satisfying WP:N. Here we have a problem though: more sources showing notability could easily be added, but the creator of this AfD is already critiquing the article for being a link farm. Is there a policy reason for deleting this article? So far we seem to have mostly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Weregerbil 10:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wiki is not a user's guide.--JForget 00:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge - This phone is notable for, if nothing else, for being Nokia's flagship model. I understand where this AfD is coming from. When this phone was lauched, there were no GSM networks in the USA. In Europe, however it received the same kind of hype that the Apple iPhone is now getting in the US. (A GSM phone by the way :-) I do think we should do a lot of merging of phone articles. This article could be merged to Nokia 9210, with whom it shares its packing, but differs in software and processor. I have however proposed merging to Nokia 9000, with the same operating system, (GEOS and processor architecture, i386. -- Petri Krohn 23:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Not one of our finest articles, but it is mercifully brief, and gets the basics across quickly in a readable style. There are some truly annoying catalog-style articles in Wikipedia but this is not one of them. The availability of open source software for this platform should increase the article's value to our readers. I'm uneasy about some of the external links because they appear to be personal sites. Maybe they could be replaced with some generic comment in the article stating that certain utilities for the 9110 might be found by a web search. If the article were rewritten to be more encyclopedic I'd change my vote to a full Keep. EdJohnston 00:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. Instead of deleting the article it should be merged with Nokia 9000 Communicator, like some of the other Nokia phone articles. —TigerK 69 01:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge Not notable enough compared to iphone/original treo. Mbisanz 01:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nokia E62

Nokia E62 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Just another cellphone with no specific claim to notability. This product did nothing to change the industry or influence the market in a lasting way, and is just another incremental product. Only reference is a review, and references other than reviews are likely not available. Since reviews are not substantial, this subject does not meet the requirements for notability. Mikeblas 15:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Just another product - no particular notability. Wikipedia is not a directory, and it is not spam. MarkBul 16:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable product.--JForget 00:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree that the reviews given are not substantial coverage; they just re-iterate the technical specifications, and don't give context information that might be used to write a good encyclopedia article on the topic. By the way, with reviews are not substantial, you seem to refer to some precedent, could you give me a hint? --B. Wolterding 14:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has been a pretty popular phone in the US market, and even if right now this page looks more like a placeholder, having it there will encourage others to contribute to the page. Even in its current state, it contains useful technical specifications that have been gathered from a number of sources and amended by a number of people. Avernet 18:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Popular and useful are distinct from notable. If you expect it might become a notable topic later, it would be better first to write an article about a larger topic (say Nokia mobile phones or Nokia Eseries) and then expand details if notability is established for the individual phones. (I'm not quite convinced about the notability of Nokia Eseries either.) --B. Wolterding 18:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liar (band)

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Google search for Liar +metalcore +band shows no hits except the article itself. "Record label" is apparently run by the band themselves... Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 15:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. No verifiable claim to notability. -- Mikeblas 15:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not close to notability. MarkBul 16:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Definitely a non-notable band. Although I was entertained by the line, "Liar has a mission and cannot be stopped; the band is a weapon and a statement." At least the editor took an unbiased approach to the subject matter. --Cyrus Andiron 16:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -- can't find any references in mainstream reliable sources, therefore fails to meet WP:MUSIC criteria. -- The Anome 18:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and the notability is not asserted and there are no sources.JForget 00:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Although I would like to point out that some labels run by bands can become very successful :-). Seraphim Whipp 21:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although I've been unable to find good references (as I said on the talk page this is because of my relative unfamiliarity with the subject, the most influential part of their career being before such widespread 'net use and my inability to read any language other than English) the band are notable, just notable in a very underground genre and with a generic name that hampers research. For the record, I'm pretty certain GSR has nothing to do with Liar aside from releasing their records, they're based in the Netherlands and Liar are from Belgium. In any case the band's most well-known and influential material was on Genet and Goodlife, probably the two largest European hardcore labels. An archipelgo 18:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Content already merged to List of Latin phrases (A–E).--Kubigula (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E.g. vs. i.e.

E.g. vs. i.e. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. There are no sources, and this article seems to constitute unpublished synthesis of material - it doesn't seem like an actual encyclopedic topic. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete not encyclopedic to compare these two. Have an article on each, by all means, and mention the confusion there if there are sources and it is a problem (was for me, once). Lundse 15:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, i.e. get rid of it. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Clarityfiend 17:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cf. List of Latin abbreviations; Q.E.D. --Dhartung | Talk 18:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • DELETE Original research. Agree with Lundse.OfficeGirl 19:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Although a lot of people need to read this article, delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. shoy 19:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite. Or merge with List of Latin abbreviations. — Omegatron 01:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article contains no erroneous information and is a helpful resource clarifying a commonly misunderstood disparity. Who is victimized by it's being here? More good is done by allowing it to exist (which benefits all readers of Wikipedia) than by deleting it (which benefits at most the 3 or 4 tight-ass wikipedia Nazis who removed it, who can somehow look themselves in the mirror and HONESTLY BELIEVE that deleting this article for the sole purpose of "playing by the rules" is actually MORE important than allowing a perfectly valid (and greatly needed) nugget of information to reach millions of confused readers. Anyone who feels that way has no place editing an online information resource to begin with, and should further consider getting a life, a job, and removing the nub of carrot that's plugged up in their sphinky-hole. --Dick Rutherfords
    • Comment Noone is "hurt" by this being here. But it just does not belong in an encyclopedia. This is a howto, a manual, a textbook excerpt, whatever you want to call it. Should this be on the web, easily accesible for all who need it - yes. Does this mean it should necesarrily be on wikipedia - no. We can't have anything here, so we need to have some rules regarding inclusion - for now, this means non-encyclopedic content is out. Your personal attacks on those who do not share your opinion almost had me convinced, though... :-) Lundse 06:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks, I was especially proud of my ability to use the terms "Nazi" and "sphinky-hole" in the same blurb. I was also proud of the fact that I sauced my drawers at the '92 Emmys and had to clumsily excuse myself and do the "crab sidestep" all the way to the men's restroom in the middle of Michael Richards' acceptance speech. Were it not for the fact that I always carry a spare pair of briefs in my purse, I'd have been up shnyte crick that night. Shnyte crick for real, my brothers. -D. Rutherfalds
  • Keepthe article is quite useful I see no reason for deletion--Shimonnyman 06:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge as a footnote to List of Latin abbreviations. JIP | Talk 08:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well said Lundse. Actualy, I think JIP's suggestion is possibly the best now at this point if anyone wishes to do that.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. And I agree that this would be a good compromise. Lundse 08:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per JIP et al. Bearian 01:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. I think it's useful for a Manual of Style or a grammar guideline, but not its own page. 24.177.128.131 19:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • KeepVery useful for a lot of people.Tatoeba 23:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per JIP. HOWTOs should be moved to wikibook. Carlosguitar 23:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per JIP. A comparison between two often-confused expressions isn't really encyclopaedic, but the note on how they are often confused can be added has already been added to List of Latin phrases (A–E). Melsaran (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per JIP. This is useful information, no need to delete completely. 167.206.53.130 13:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious delete. The page contains no information beyond "e.g. means for example and i.e. means that is", which is obvious; and the bit about comma usage, which is unsourced, but it would be worthwhile to find a source and add it to the existing article on Latin abbreviations per JIP. --Quuxplusone 06:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it should be kept. It is of some value. PJD 15 September 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.164.0 (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This belongs in a style guide, not an encyclopedia. No redirect necessary, as no one would ever search for this term. --barneca (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. For all the reasons listed above. Just make a note under the entries for i.e. and e.g. in the List of common Latin phrases article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.185.163 (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Its a lesson, not an article. Mbisanz 01:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global Panel Foundation

Global Panel Foundation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization, citations rely heavily on corporate press releases and marketing material, minor/unreliable news outlets, and a foreign language book we can't verify. Conflict of Interest and self-promotion are probably involved. See this case. - Jehochman Talk 14:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because of the same reasons:

Prague Society for International Cooperation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Delete for the reasons I've stated. Wikipedia isn't a vanity press. - Jehochman Talk 14:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - on the surface, it looks impressive because of the number or refs, but a closer look confirms the comments by the nom. Genuine notability per our guidelines is lacking, and the extensive COI input appears, to me anyway, as a group who is trying to use Wikipedia to establish notability and credibility for themselves (in a sense that's a compliment to Wikipedia, that they feel we can give that to them, but that's beside the point). AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete both on non-notability. The quoted sources are unnacceptable and irrelevant to the en.WP as I demonstrated here. (I would also nominate on 'stubborness to keep this article COI, vain, bloated and unreferenced', but those are not valid reasons as pointed here by an admin). Note: as Marc S. Ellenbogen was being redirected to one of these two articles, maybe the original article should be reinstated and reevaluated on its subject's own merits. --maf (talk-cont) 16:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I would have nominated Marc S. Ellenbogen for deletion too. I think all three things are tied together. Unless some good references turn up, there's no way to create a proper article. - Jehochman Talk 16:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep for Prague and merge in the GPF I think the sources for the PSIC's notability in the early part of its history are reasonably strong. After about 2000 the evidence starts to decrease, and I have never figured out the exact relationship with the GPF. for the GPF the activities as given here would be notable, but the lack of any real sources despite search (I too gave it a try some time ago) indicates either great secrecy or that they are not quite as important as they think they are. Some of the deleted material on Ellenbogen should probably be merged in here also. I think there is enough for one article. DGG (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
In that case, shouldn't the article be MSE, to whom the two organizations trace back? --maf (talk-cont) 13:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 20:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Schmidlap

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

Methinks I smell a hoax. "Joe Schmidlap" is one of several "John Doe" names used to denote a random person, often in jest, the article creator's other contributions are not-as-funny-as-he-thinks vandalisms, and Google knows nothing about a composer named Schmidlap. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete obvious hoax. Ghits for his "first published work" return only the article.--Sethacus 16:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as an obvious hoax per AnonEMouse. -- The Anome 18:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax, per above. Also, can find nothing on "Mayfield Conservatory of Music" in Tennessee. OfficeGirl 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Tagged for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A1, hoax. shoy 20:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The reasons given for keeping have been effectively refuted, as funny as this sketch is. --Coredesat 07:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Albatross (Monty Python)

Albatross (Monty Python) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • Delete - The sketch is not independently notable and the notability of Monty Python is not inherited by every sketch that appeared on the show or in one of the films or records. Also fails WP:PLOT as being nothing but a description of various permutations of the sketch. Otto4711 13:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wikipedia is Not Paper, and we can afford the trivial disk space and bandwidth required to store these articles detailing some of the best, and most notable British comedy of the 20th century. I have tagged the article for Rescue so some (more) sources should be added shortly. I would also like to point out that this article's notability is no greater or lesser than any of the other sketches. References in popular culture may assist in the rescue of this article - Fosnez 14:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pointing at other articles in an attempt to justify this one, in other words WP:WAX, is not a compelling argument. However, in this instance I will agree with you that this sketch is no more notable than many other articles that were formerly housed in that category, for instance "Court Scene with Cardinal Richelieu," "Court Charades" and "Dennis Moore" (all deleted), "Erotic film" (deleted), "Conquistador Coffee Campaign" (deleted), "Johann Gambolputty" (deleted), "Mr. Hilter and the Minehead by-election" (deleted), "Medical Love Song" (deleted), "Silly Job Interview (deleted) and "Restaurant Abuse/Cannibalism" (deleted), not to mention the dozen or more that were deleted in response to being prodded. If the only thing that's notable about a sketch is that Monty Python performed it, it's not in and of itself notable. NOT:PAPER is not a free pass for an article that otherwise does not pass policies and guidelines. Otto4711 14:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Deletion is never the first step - Where are the merge requests? Where are the transwiki requests? Have the articles been tagged for improvement? This AfD should be closed because these steps have not been followed. Fosnez 20:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:FICTION is a guideline. There is absolutely no requirement that any of these things you mention be done prior to an AFD and I have to question whether your comment here is made in good faith. Otto4711 21:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTINHERITED which you have used in your nom is not even a guideline - its an essay! Also, on precisely what grounds are you accusing me of not commenting in good faith? Fosnez 23:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Subjective judgement of notability can be difficult, but in this case don't see how an editor's description of the sketch serves an encyclopedic interest. Certainly every hint of life is drained out of the sketch was drained out by the matter-of-fact recitation. The only way I'd say keep is if the article was about what people have written about the sketch. "This is the part I like" just isn't encyclopedic. MarkBul 14:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless some sources for its independent notability comes to the rescue. But we should have a "notable sketches" article under Python and this could be included... Lundse 15:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep due to widespread popularity of Monty Python and interest in their sketches. There is obviously no consensus on these articles so perhaps a compromise would be something like Notable Monty Python sketches? Also, as a note to Otto, I know we disagree in a lot of these discussions, so just to give you a little clarification of why I usually tend to favor keeping articles that are not hoaxes (I did recently "vote" to delete the Insane Pro Wrestling hoax, so I actually do NOT always "vote" to keep), one of the major motivating factors for me wanting to keep and merge is ""Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales, Slashdot Interview (28 July 2004) That section that I italicized from the founder of this site is inspiring and seems a worthy endevour and I fear that if we keep deleting stuff largely out of IDON'TLIKEIT reasoning, we're falling short of that objective. Anyway, I hope that just clarifies somewhat where I'm coming from on this discussions. Have a great day! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a difference between knowledge and information. The White Pages is information but we would not list the contents of the White Pages on Wikipedia. You also really need to understand the difference between WP:ILIKEIT concerns and concerns that are related to actual Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I happen to be a big Monty Python fan. Love the TV show, love the movies. But my personal likes and dislikes, and your personal likes and dislikes, are not the basis for whether an article on an individual sketch from an individual film or episode passes the relevant policies and guidelines. Popularity is not notability. Interest in is not notability. "Not a hoax" is not in and of itself a reason to keep an article. Existence is not notability. If you're going to continue to participate in AFD, I would strongly encourage you to read through the various policies and guidelines a few times so that when you see an argument grounded in policy and guidelines you'll understand where the argument is coming from and when you believe an article should be kept you're able to present an argument that is grounded in policy and guidelines. Otto4711 15:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I read through various policies and guidelines numerous times, and I'm not convinced that those I participate in violate any of them. The fact that there's usually at least a few other keeps in the ones I participate in, suggests that others agree. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment As stated, I support at notable sketches article. But I think an article for each is overkill, and I don't really believe we can put enough truly encyclopedic material in them... I too would love all information to be freely available, but not all of it should be here, just the encyclopedia stuff :-) Lundse 15:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
But we are in a position to do more than what any other encyclopedia can! :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely. But that does not mean we should :-) But maybe the wikimedia foundation in general should? All I am saying is, lets not put it under an "encyclopedia" title when it is not encyclopedic, lets move stuff like this to humorpedia or whatever pops up and is appropriate. That said, I do believe we should have more "weird" stuff then a paper encyclopedia, as per policy - this is just going to far in my opinion. Lundse 18:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Unlike every other tv show, MP info seems to be organized by sketch. This is a problem since many sketches are not, obviously, notable. Why not reorganize and write articles for each episode? Minor sketches can then be listed with brief detail, and notability of each episode is not in question. The most important sketches (like Dead Parrot) can be summarized in an episode page and may also have their own article. I'm rather surprised there's not a summary of each episode; this would just require expansion of List of Monty Python's Flying Circus episodes. This may not be the right place to discuss such an organizational change, but if we were to do so I would !vote to simply merge this article into its episode. bikeable (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Just as with sketches, it is not appropriate to include mere plot summaries for episodes, per WP:EPISODE. Such detail articles should only be included if there is sufficient secondary coverage for the individual episode or sketch, allowing to expand the article beyond a plot summary. --B. Wolterding 16:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep or, better, Move or Redirect to a notable sketches page as per Lundse. It is a notable sketch. But that is hard point to prove. Marcus22 18:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability is established by the existence of reliable sources that are substantially about the subject. Otto4711 19:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I fully accept that that is how notability is established here. Hence why I said it is a hard point to prove. Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that this is a notable sketch. Marcus22 20:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but preferably merge into a Notable Monty Python sketches article. -- The Anome 18:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge I think that's notable, and it's part of a famous British comedy, mabey merge it. It's not that useless. Yamakiri on Firefox 22:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • And the sources that back up your claim of notability for the individual sketch are...? Otto4711 23:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and do not merge Does not have secondary sources to establish notability. Merging into Notable Monty Python sketches is a bad idea because it will be a list with an ill-defined scope. That article will either be a list subjectively defining "notable" and there's no real way to determine what's in or out, or it will be based on WP:N and be a collection of sketches that have Wikipedia articles, which would be better served as a category and wouldn't save an article from deletion. Jay32183 03:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Once again, this is a very funny sketch (I know people who shout "albatross" at all kinds of occasions, which probably says more about me than anything else...), but there's no evidence of independent notability outside of the show. The sources as provided in the article aren't substantially about the sketch, and a great many of the arguments in favour of keeping the article here are themselves Pythonesque. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Wouldn't the use in popular culture allow the use of Ignore all rules in this case? I also have been privy to "Albatross?" (or is it "Albatross!") being shouted in public, and until reading the article I didn't know what it was all about (I had to go to youtube to watch the sketch) BTW, I am not invoking WP:ILIKEIT - Fosnez 14:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • To me, ignoring verifiability in favor of "use in popular culture" seems highly questionable in an encyclopedia. --B. Wolterding 15:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentI think we can all verify that this exists, but can't use you youtube as a source. Popular culture references are already common on wikipedia and also many paper encyclopedias Fosnez 20:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Its existence is not the only thing that needs to be verified, WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. Also, a good deal of the pop culture articles are being deleted, which weakens the already bad argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Jay32183 21:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • There isn't significant coverage. Simply mentioning something isn't sufficient to establish notability. Jay32183 18:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Good examples for trivial coverage. The second one mentions the sketch in one word, the first one in one paragraph - which is a plot summary. --B. Wolterding 18:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Design for All

Design for All (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article has been previously speedied twice before, prod now contested. Very little in the article about the initiative but an awful lot of WP:SOAP about what they are trying to achieve. No independent references/citations/sources at all. Search term is too generic for an accurate ghit assessment WebHamster 13:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete seems to be saying something about handicap accessability (or not, it's hard to tell) but written in a confused semi-nonsense style. If I had to guess, I'd say it's some kid's homework assignment or similar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not a valid deletion argument. Wl219 16:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as no independent sources provided as evidence of notability per WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins 14:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and then consider a redirect to Universal design. This is an important topic, but this particular page is a one-organization approach. bikeable (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I de-prodded it. Needing cleanup shouldn't be a basis for deletion. The term is in wide usage and the initiative can be sourced. Wl219 16:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete sourced only from it's eponymous website: seems like spam written in bureaucratese and I still can't fathom what it is trying to say. Anyway, not notable from significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:CORP and WP:N. Carlossuarez46 18:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and clean-up --Haemo 18:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appetizing

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

No evidence, and only a dictionary defintion anyway Jon513 13:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Per WP:NOT#DICT. 1redrun Talk 13:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, valid slang term, also "appy".[39]text Usually heard in "appetizing store" or "appy table". At worst merge with deli. --Dhartung | Talk 18:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is not a dictionary. --Shuki 21:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 04:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Jewish cuisine. IZAK 03:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The article has no sources. Only sourced facts should be merged. With no sources ... that is nothing to merge. GRBerry 03:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC) A source has been added. GRBerry 16:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and put sources.--יודל 12:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I visited this AfD with the full intention of voting delete, until I read the NYTimes reference. I would suggest moving to Appetizing store, however - it smacks less of dicdef that way.--DLandTALK 13:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - not dicitionary.Vice regent 16:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per factual errors. SefringleTalk 05:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • transwiki Even if this is a real term and not a neologism, it belongs on Wikitionary. Mbisanz 01:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I added a second reference from the NYT. Agree that the article should be moved to 'Appetizing store.' I'm not aware of policy on what constitutes a dictionary definition. EdJohnston 01:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete besides that this is not a dictionary, there is little on the topic that is not OR. It does not even belong to "Jewish cuisine" because it was more of a New York City phenomena. It really belong to "New York Cuisine" or as a section on an article on NYC smoked salmon--Jayrav 17:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC). Look at New York Cuisine, there is a section on Eastern European Jewish cuisine (of NY) that mentions the old time deli and bagel store. It belongs as 2 lines at that point with the references. --Jayrav 17:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Also most were not specifically kosher- the term is still used in NYC to refer to the section of a large supermarket called the "appetizing dept" that sells anything from fish smokehouses including crab, shrimp, or even Italian cheeses. --Jayrav 17:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vipromwiki

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

I prodded on Friday. Over the weekend, my prod has been removed by the creator (and replaced) 3 times, so I'm assuming contested. Original reason: "A not presently notable specialist wiki that appears to have just started up. The only hits are for it's own page, which is currently down, but the Google cache suggests there isn't much there at the moment." The site is back up, but requires registering by email with the admins to access any content. Doesn't appear to have too many articles though. Kateshortforbob 12:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Asserts no notability, cites no sources. Mystache 12:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mystache, and the bafflegab doesn't make it any easier to penetrate to the lack of notable content. Accounting4Taste 18:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, I only had to look at the fancy banner to decide this was blatant advertising. JIP | Talk 08:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not delete, I was looking for a site like this one. I asked the account and the send me it. It is important notify the existence of other community dealing with other issues...[[User:JivenP]] 17:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Owen Kratz

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

Not notable person, WP is not a directory of working people, unless notable. I can find a few PR and business profile references but nothing other than that. Spryde 12:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Response:

Kratz is chairman of Helix Energy, a major company in the offshore oil and gas industry. Helix has a current market value of $3.8 billion, and an enterprise value (market value + debt) of $4.9 billion. Helix common stock is included in the Dow Jones U.S. Oil & Gas Index, the NYSE COMPOSITE INDEX, the NYSE ENERGY SECTOR INDEX, and the S&P 1000 INDEX, among others.

Kratz has been interviewed on national business television a number of times, an example being a Sept. 5, 2005 interview on CNBC.

A Factiva search reveals that Kratz was referenced or interviewed in Helix or oil and gas industry related articles in the LA Times in Jan 2006, the Houston Chronicle in Jan 2006, Offshore Magazine in May 2006, and the Dallas Morning News in October 2006.

On a final note, in 1999 Kratz and his boat, the Joss, placed first in the "The Big Boat Series," a prominent San Francisco Regatta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxmyx (talk • contribs) 13:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - That may all be. However none of that is mentioned in the article much less is referenced there. Feel free to add referenced content to the article, then it might asert notability. In it's current state however it doesn't say anything but state he's the chairman and when and how he got the be chairman. 1redrun Talk 13:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Of all the sources you listed, the Houston Chronicle is the one I am inimately familiar with. Every piece on the Chronicles site was a post from PR Newswire or a company listing. None of them were interviews by the paper itself. Offshore Magazine mostly had PR pieces + the one actual article was about Helix Energy developing a technique with quotes from Kratz, not about Kratz himself. As for the LA Times, I cannot find any pieces online about him. Everything about this screams PR piece including the rebuttal above. I have no ties to this article but hate to see PR fodder be included into Wikipedia. Spryde 13:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Any references would need to be about the man, not just mentioning him. Lee Iaccocca is notable - the CEO of the nation's largest popcorn producer is not necessarily notable, regardless of his company's capitalization. Success in business does not equal Wikipedia notability. MarkBul 16:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Individual lacks notability .--JForget 00:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 14:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, non-notable bio. Keb25 14:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think "working people" -- presumably meaning businesspeople -- are notable if presidents or CEOs of large corporations. It might be best to first establish the notability of the company, but the information given above would seem enough to do it. DGG (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as non-notable. --Haemo 18:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spectacular Times

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

A non-notable series of pamphlets, perhaps an issue with WP:SOAPBOX. Jmlk17 11:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. asserts no notability. Mystache 13:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Apparently notable enough to be archived in .pdf form, though I don't recall seeing this. Pamphlets of this sort used to be fairly common, particularly on college campuses, with messages ranging from revolution to religion. Maybe this can be merged into an article about that type of medium. Mandsford 21:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, please. I started the page, so obviously I think it serves a useful purpose. Notability is obviously a bit subjective, but many issues of /ST/ (seem to) have been in print continuously since they were first published. (And there are an awful lot of pages on WP about things which seem to me to be somewhat less notable; eg: Crispin Bonham Carter; List of characters in the Harry Potter books.) As to soapbox: well, yes, I'm sympathetic to the viewpoint of /ST/; but is the article insufficiently NPOV? Or is the issue that my sympathy makes me overestimate /ST/'s notability? --- One other thing is that there are (a few) links to the page. Omicron18 16:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:N establishes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aren't good reasons to keep an article. If you feel that other articles don't meet the notability guidelines, feel free to nominate them for deletion. shoy 16:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems notable enough to exist for at least 7 years and isn't overly focused on a single person's accomplishments Mbisanz 01:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This material is so strange one is tempted to vote 'Keep.' However the article completely lacks third-party commentary to establish the notability of these pamphlets. Being mentioned in a web bibliography isn't enough. The pamphlets appear to be self-published, or perhaps not published at all in any conventional sense. 'The Skeleton Key' with ISBN 0907837018 is listed on Amazon, but with 'Spectacular Times' listed as the publisher, which doesn't overcome the air of self-publication. EdJohnston 01:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • (me again): Fair enough re WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (And I should perhaps 'fess up that I converted the issues on archive.org to PDFs.) But: you can buy /ST/ from AK Press, Re-Pressed distribution, and various other alternative outlets; and /ST/ is discussed in the Ford bibliography, which the article cites. Omicron18 20 Sep 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.102 (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
A conventional publisher provides a degree of editorial scrutiny that gives us more confidence in the value of the work. That is one reason why we allow citation of edited publications like newspapers and magazines but always try to avoid personal web sites. See WP:SELFPUB. If you know of any published articles that comment on Larry Law's work it would help. WP:N asks for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Inclusion in a bibliography seems like only a weak claim of importance. EdJohnston 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge with Mesopotamian mythology.--Kubigula (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sherida

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Sherida (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Sheridan Stage School Articles for deletion/Sheridan Ure
Sherida (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A predecessor goddess, unknown outside of Wikipedia, with few sources to be found. Jmlk17 11:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete - Definitely not notable. ScarianTalk 11:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article does cite a reference. Just because it can't be found online does not mean it's nn. 1redrun Talk 13:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I find very few references online, the only reference seems to be the same book listed in this article. If this article can't be expanded beyond just the assertion that the goddess existed, then it's not a Wikipedia article. If another reference - online or off - can be sited, then it's a keeper. MarkBul 16:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as bad faith nom. What do Sheridan Stage School and Sheridan Ure have to do with this AfD? I would submit Sherida is per se notable as the consort of the Sumerian sun god and a goddess in her own right.[40] [41] Wl219 16:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • They all start with the same seven letters, and hence show up in Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherida; the fact that they show up there is an automatic function of the Mediawiki software, and has nothing to do with the nominator. And even if it did, so what? That hardly constitutes basis to accuse the nominator of bad faith. cab 05:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keepper above and, also...Sherida is another name for Aya (goddess), a notable goddess with a small article in the Encyclopedia Mythica.--Sethacus 17:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge a mention of the fact that she was the consort of Utu into an appropriate place in Mesopotamian mythology. There are sources that support her existence [42] [43], but there does not seem enough out there to support a separate article. Deor 18:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Mesopotamian mythology per Deor. References do exist for this goddess, but there's not enough on her to warrant a separate article in my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I was going to suggest a merge, but didn't know what to. Change vote to merge per above.--Sethacus 20:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless a better source can be found. Michael Jordon's 'Encyclopedia of Gods' gets bad reviews from several Amazon readers, claiming it tries to cover too much, has little information, contains errors, and is more like a dictionary. WP rules encourage us to avoid using encyclopedias as sources. EdJohnston 02:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was Call it a speedy deletion under A7 or a snowball delete, doesn't matter either way. Guy (Help!) 19:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blindsight (band)

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

Not a notifiable group - has not yet released anything Quantpole 10:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete no assertion of notability, fails WP:MUSIC. --Bongwarrior 11:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Bongwarrior. Blair - Speak to me 11:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above and unsalvageable. ScarianTalk 11:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete typical garage band article. "Hoping to record..." etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A7 as non-notable band, no claims to notability are made. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nonadmin closure. The Evil Spartan 05:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overdose (band)

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

Completely fails this criteria even if the band had one member from Sepultura. Notability isn't inherited. This article also has no sources and doesn't establish it's own notability. Seraphim Whipp 10:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep if referenced - The aricle does not claim that they had a member from Sepultura, but rather shared an album with them. This fact, if referenced, makes them notable in my opinion. 1redrun Talk 11:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep referred to by the AMG as "Brazil's second most famous metal band". Passes WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Although sources are needed, this looks like to be a very notable band in Brazil.--JForget 00:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.202.83 (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bored in the USA

Bored in the USA (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This subject lacks information to improve it. It is not in a fit state at present nor will it be in the future. It fails WP:MUSIC. Seraphim Whipp 10:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. No hint why the album is notable. I would have recommended to merge it into the band article, but also notability of the band is questionable (one album, one EP, both on a quite small label). --B. Wolterding 11:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I say just merge it into the band article, and let the band sink or swim on its own as far as notability is concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.202.83 (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC, and lacks any third-party commentary to establish notability. Even if The Frustrators are eventually found to be notable an album article containing nothing but a tracklist does not seem worthwhile. EdJohnston 02:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was keep. --Coredesat 07:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wenyi Wang

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

Person charged for disorderly conduct and with no notable achievements since charges were dropped against her. Fails WP:BIO as having only had one coverage. Falun Gong journalist who acted in a premeditated fashion and in breach of journalist ethics, who was arrested for heckling the President of the People's Republic of China. Few will know/remember her name. Ohconfucius 10:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Your user page states that "I believe in freedom and democracy with a strong system of checks and balances to prevent governments from eroding civil liberties." Surely this is a crystal clear case of what you profess to believe? Journalistic ethics surely demand asking unelected dictators tough questions. If the problem is that few will know/remember her name then a Wikipedia article is a good place to remedy that situation. Although Wikipedia is of course usually blocked in China by the Chinese government. Funny that. There are THIRTEEN sources in this article, many of them on issues unrelated to the 'heckling' incident but regarding her opposition to 'organ harvesting'. There is no basis for deleting this article. Nick mallory 11:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep 13 references meeting WP:RS over more than a year period meets Cat 1 of WP:N . Has coverage for both the heckling incident and organ harvesting accusations. OP's disdain for article's subject appears to be primary reason for nomination. Horrorshowj 13:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Kindly refrain from casting aspertions on my motivations, It amounts to an ad hominem attack. FYI, I have been successfully cooperating with FG practitioners and others for the last month to improve a number of articles, and felt this would have met "normal" criteria for deleting. Thank you very much. Ohconfucius 03:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Actually the nominator is correct: WP:BLP1E. However it's a well researched article referring and citing to other notable things about her. 1redrun Talk 13:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep no reason to delete. WooyiTalk to me? 16:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep quite relevant, important historical fact that goes hand in hand with some other investigations, one of them being http://organharvestinvestigation.net/. It had a broad media coverage; it's an example of journalist showing courage; it's an example on how in the US free speech is still allowed; etc... --HappyInGeneral 15:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Coredesat 07:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rigor Mortis (band)

Rigor Mortis (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No independent reliable sources, notability is asserted only very weakly (people having once played in a notable band does not make every band they play in inherently notable). A discography that requires padding with demos is a dead giveaway. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - This article could definitely use some cleanup and references, but they appear to pass WP:MUSIC. They released one album (Rigor Mortis) on Capitol Records and another (Freaks) on Metal Blade Records, and one of their songs appeared on the soundtrack to The Decline of Western Civilization II: The Metal Years [44]. Also, two Rigor Mortis members were later involved with other notable bands (GWAR, Ministry). Granted, you wouldn't know it from reading the article, but the band is worth keeping. --Bongwarrior 10:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - As per above, especially on Capitol Records record release. ScarianTalk 14:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep pass point 5 of WP:MUSIC. Lugnuts 17:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per all. Certainly notable; meets WP:MUSIC. Article needs work, though. Precious Roy 09:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep info above clearly establishes notability. Note that any discography should include demos the band released before signing. Chubbles 21:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop the Draft

Stop the Draft (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I think we have to delete this article about a 1980 student organization as unverifiable. No sources have been given, although the article has been around for almost 2 years; and an expert review request to WikiProject Seattle turned up none either. Apart from a user's comment on the talk page, a local from Seattle, who remembers having heard about this organization on the radio back then, there's no evidence that the information is factually correct, and that the organization is notable. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 09:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - This is what I said 9 months ago, when I tagged for notability: I can't verify anything via Google, somewhat problematic since the org title is a pretty common phrase, but limiting to "Stop the Draft" + "University of Washington" + "petition" doesn't return much. It doesn't look promotional, but I have my doubts that a 65-member student org is notable (most aren't). - Aagtbdfoua 11:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Calling this a Non notable organisation is giving it too much status although, you know, as there is no draft and wasn't a draft in 1980 then I suppose you can say they were a startling success. Nick mallory 11:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per others --Childzy ¤ Talk 12:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable student organisation with (per the article) "over sixty-five active members" at its height, and it existed for a whopping 18 months. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Carter's bill was notable; this response was not Bigdaddy1981 22:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no verification. Gazpacho 02:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: this stuff about the U.W. is non-notable in itself, but do we have an article at all on the resistance to the revival of the Selective Service under Carter? - Jmabel | Talk 02:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I also notice that this is unreferenced, so it's not partiularly a useful starting point for such an article. - Jmabel | Talk 21:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is, at best, a non notable student organization. --Stormbay 17:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Balm. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Séan Balmy

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

Likely hoax. No sources cited. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 09:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy delete, G4 and A7 Guy (Help!) 10:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead on Arrival (band)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Dead on Arrival (band) Articles for deletion/Dead on Arrival (band) 2
Dead on Arrival (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article just went through an AfD, and the result was delete. It was deleted and created again barely 24 hours later. This band is not notable. faithless (speak) 09:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, G4, recreation of deleted material. This is essentially the deleted article, I think even word by word (maybe an admin might check). --B. Wolterding 09:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: Rick Ferrusi, deleted in same AfD, has been recreated too - I tagged it with CSD G4. --B. Wolterding 09:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Another note: The album article Alive and Kickin' has also been recreated by the same user. However, since this article never went through an AfD (it was deleted by CSD A7), I think it is not eligible for CSD G4. Can we discuss it here, or should I open another AfD? --B. Wolterding 10:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Saab_9-3. CitiCat ♫ 04:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ReAxs

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

Subject is unremarkable. Merely a tradename for a suspension that apparently behaves just like any other modern IRS. Greglocock 09:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. ScarianTalk 15:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Al-Misbar

Al-Misbar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a rambling promo article for a non-notable business directory marketed in Kuwait and company that distributes the directory and the man who founded the company. WP:SPAM No references given. Search of the article's name turns up references to unrelated Arabic-to-English dictionary and translation software. OfficeGirl 08:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete It is difficult to verify the contents of this article. A quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this article as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for failing WP:WEB, as notability unproven. --Gavin Collins 14:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete by JzG (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 14:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To-gur

To-gur (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I am concerned that this article is a hoax, as it cites no references and I have been unable to find any that corroborate its claims. Another possibility is, of course, that there exist alternate spellings to the ones used here, in which case it would be appreciated if anyone could track them down. JavaTenor 08:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete This article is most likely a hoax. A quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this article. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this article as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete WP:CSD#G1: utter twaddle. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pig Goggles

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

Neologism, unreferenced, and quite possibly original research. Any pig goggles out there? Marasmusine 08:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Per nom --Childzy ¤ Talk 08:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Some WP:NEO mixed with WP:HOAX and some WP:N topped of with WP:NPOV. 1redrun Talk 08:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - leaving out the quotation marks in your Google search would give pig goggles a fairer chance of getting hits, but nothing that applies to the article does come up anyway, so yes, it looks like someone having a laugh. Get rid of it. Lradrama 08:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep, non-admin. This belongs at RfD. Listed there, Copied over comments. --UsaSatsui 15:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gnooteekay

Zero real-world pickup for this supposed alternative name. Probably WP:MADEUP. Chris Cunningham 07:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - appears on Google, but only with 77 hits at the most and no proper decription. Definately non-noteable. The article looks like an experiment too. Lradrama 08:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn. the_undertow talk 23:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eien no Uta

Eien no Uta (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

"Nakashima Mika will be return again in the fall with a new single, titled 永遠の詩 (Eien no Uta), to be released on 2007.10.3.!!". Unencyclopedic pronouncement, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, no references. Delete unless cleaned up. - Mike Rosoft 07:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep, cleaned up and confirmed the release date from Sony Music's website. cab 08:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. cab 09:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • DELETE Still violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTINHERITED. The singer MIGHT be notable and the movie that is going to use the song as the theme song MIGHT be notable, but neither one of those facts confers notability on the as yet unreleased song. See also WP:SPAM. OfficeGirl 08:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yep, the notability comes from the news coverage already cited in the article. cab 09:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
      • But the citations link to articles that are not in English. How are we to verify that the coverage is substantially about the song, and not about the singer or the movie. I got all "????" when I opened the linked pages, but even then they appeared to be short articles. OfficeGirl 09:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
        • How are we to verify? By making sure this debate is seen by Japanese speakers, such as myself or people who watch the Japan deletion sorting page, where I've listed this article. As for your question mark issues, you may need to install a Japanese font and set your encoding to Shift JIS. cab 10:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Please set forth the name of the article, what the article says and the length of the article for each of the sources listed on the Talk page of the article. Also explain what entity is publishing the article (magazine, webzine, press release on company site, etc.) Thanks in advance for your help.OfficeGirl 10:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep – per WP:BAND#Albums. The notability of the artist is in no way questionable. She has had multiple #1 albums in Japan. WP:CRYSTAL deals with things which are not confirmed, not things which are yet to occur. This release is confirmed. Just 16,000 Ghits for her name and the song title in Japanese, including [45], from Mainichi Shimbun's online site. Neier 13:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, a few things. I am not arguing against the singer's notability, but we cannot confirm whether the album itself will become notable. WP:BAND#Albums states that we should not have an article that is little more than a track listing. And I suspect the references cited are more about the singer and less about the album than the Japanese speakers have let on. G-hits do not confer notability-- they can be just the result of a very good paid marketing program. I wouldn't oppose a MERGE to the singer at this time, with no prejudice against re-creation. And as for the Japanese-only sources-- wouldn't it be a great idea for the English speaking readers of Wikipedia to be able to verify what is being said here on English Wikipedia? Anyhow, I don't see proof that this can become more than a stub with the currently published information, and it may be a flop (that's where WP:CRYSTAL comes in). That means delete or merge and redirect to the singer. OfficeGirl 17:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Article has been cleaned up; I am withdrawing my nomination, but do not vote "keep" due to a lack of knowledge on this topic. - Mike Rosoft 14:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salty Nelson

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

Contested prod. The article presents no evidence that this is a term in widespread use. JavaTenor 07:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - google seems to agree, could be WP:HOAX --Childzy ¤ Talk 08:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as original prodder; no mention anywhere. Appears to be something made up in school one day — iridescent (talk to me!) 08:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - definately non-noteable - the only hit on Google is this very article. Lradrama 08:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:NFT. We already have a perfectly good slang term with teabagging. Wl219 09:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Iridescent. ScarianTalk 15:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Delete, seems afewuly farmiliar, mabey teabagging, and it's probably a hoax Yamakiri on Firefox 22:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Trebor 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crimson Fields

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

My concern is this game's notability. The article claims the game is popular, but there are no independent references provided to back this up. I can find plenty of directory entries [46] [47] and download sites but not much else. Marasmusine 07:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In my comment below, I list two sources. Please reconsider the second part of your argument for deletion, including the new information in your considerations. User:Krator (t c) 13:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - this game seems widespread throughout the internet, and from what I can see, it looks to have a variety of skins / styles via varying sites. Can we not just leave it a bit and see how the game progresses regarding popularity? Having said this however, I've never heard of or seen it till now. Lradrama 09:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral - The game has been around for some time. Most notably it has been ported to pocket pc devices. However the article does not provide any 3rd party coverage as required by WP:N. All the external links are sites offering the download of said game. My point: It's known to a certain extent however no sources are cited. 1redrun Talk 10:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Passes the Google test, and seems to have reasonable coverage in reliable sources, e.g. [48] [49]. Weak because it concerns a niche area, but keep nonetheless. User:Krator (t c) 13:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, only sources are its website. Fin©™ 10:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
What about the two links above? User:Krator (t c) 12:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was keep. Please defer merge/redirect related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GURPS Bio-Tech

GURPS Bio-Tech (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article about a set of gaming instructions does not contain context or sourced analysis, detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance to establish notability under WP:Fiction, nor has not received coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. --Gavin Collins 07:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, redirect and update in List of GURPS books - There is a review at RPGnet ([50]), which in terms of on-line RPG coverage is about as reliable as we're going to get. However, the entry on List of GURPS books is probably enough, with the addition of the Origins Award nomination reference and a ref to the above review for verification. (The list also needs publication dates and whatnot, but that's a different discussion.) Marasmusine 08:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of GURPS books: I'll do the merging of the essential data myself as soon as possible. (Once more, Gavin, you have seen that non-award-recipient, non-core books get redirected without problems, with or without an AfD debate: why don't you redirect them in the first place? And, this is not an article "about topics within a fictional universe", which WP:Fiction is about: this is about a real, possibly non-notable subject in this universe.)
(OT: Marasmusine, perhaps one could try to discuss, in the RPG WikiProject or somewhere, some specific guidelines for the notability of role-playing and boardgames, in view of the fact that they have a very different distribution and press coverage than, say, movies or novels?) --Goochelaar 12:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep — One of a handful of Origin award nominees makes it mildly notable in the industry. At worst it should be a redirect to List of GURPS books with a summary paragraph. — RJH (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The article says it was not a winner, but I suppose it was nominated. Incidently, are you or have you every worked for the publisher, Steve Jackson Games? --Gavin Collins 20:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    Please stop insinuating that anyone who opposes your deletion attempts must be an agent of the publishers. -- JHunterJ 21:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed, that was somewhat uncalled for, especially considering how mild his comment was in support of keeping the article. Please assume good faith. —Dark•Shikari[T] 00:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The reason I ask is that there is an article for J. Hunter Johnson who has worked for GURPS in the past. Could JHunterJ answer my question? (In good faith). --Gavin Collins 08:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    I already did, back when it was arguably relevant on the GURPS Monsters AfD. If you're going to initiate these discussions, please at least try to follow them. You were now insinuating that User:RJHall, not I, must work for the industry. Again, in good faith, please stop insinuating that anyone who disagrees with you must have an ulterior reason to do so. -- JHunterJ 11:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So I can take that to be a "Yes" then? --Gavin Collins 11:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It's on his userpage, so I would have to say yes. Turlo Lomon 12:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there's nothing on my userpage about RJHall. One more time: Gavin.collins asked here if User:RJHall ever worked for Steve Jackson Games, but then said the reason he asked about RJHall is because the J. Hunter Johnson article exists. There's a disconnect there. But even the first question is equivalent to "Incidently, Gavin.collins, are you or have you ever worked for an anti-RPG organization?" -- JHunterJ 13:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Bah, my fault. I got lost in all the discussion. I meant to say JHunterJ == J. Hunter Johnson. Turlo Lomon 14:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per RJHall. Origin Awards are not something just handed out. Even a nomination is significant. Turlo Lomon 12:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per above, by virtue of notability for the awards nominations.. • Lawrence Cohen 17:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of GURPS books. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per RJHall and award nominations. -- JHunterJ 23:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Just the award nominations show independant sources. Edward321 01:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of GURPS books. Narrow miss on notability, but the guidelines do say win. Percy Snoodle 13:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel that it is sufficiently notable (nominated for a major gaming award for starters), but it may also be better served by being in a master article. SamBC(talk) 10:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect. May have been nominated for an award, but I don't see any significant coverage in sources, so we can't really support an article. Mangojuicetalk 13:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please read Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Fancruft_and_Role_playing_games before commenting on this AfD - Fosnez 14:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was: Speedily deleted as blatant spam and copyright violation. - Mike Rosoft 08:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The Henderson International School"

"The Henderson International School" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Blatant advertising for non-notable school. WP:SPAM. Appears to be taken from school's website [51]. Note "Equal Opportunity Employer" blurb at end of article. I can't pinpoint exactly where they copied this, so I haven't officially listed it as copyvio. OfficeGirl 07:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Trebor 20:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acadomia

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

Non-notable company, per google search revealing no articles giving substantial coverage. Yes it is a traded company, but that's not enough to establish notability Advertisement listed by user who has no other edits. Violates WP:SPAM Completely unreferenced. OfficeGirl 07:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - per Nom --Childzy ¤ Talk 08:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no sources, no evidence of encyclopaedic notability, appears to fail guidelines in WP:CORP. WP:NOT a directory. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


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

[edit] Yuan Sheng

The result was delete -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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

non-notable airline pilot who claimed political asylum for being a member of Falun Gong and for trying to persuade airport staff to leave the CCP. Stripped of hits to Falun Gong related websites, Yuan Sheng scores 236 Ghits. There are hits to the original syndicated news story about the defection soon after he landed, but many of the hits are unrelated, or for namessakes. Ohconfucius 06:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - despite not giving it a fair chance in Google (you put quotation marks around the name and then listed a load of other jargon) this person still fails WP:BIO. Lradrama 09:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Those other jargon are narrowing terms, to remove websites which fall outside the bounds of WP:RS. Also putting the name in quotes is standard practise, otherwise you'd get everything with the word Yuan or Sheng anywhere on the page. cab 09:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. cab 09:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup by removing unverified information, or information sourced to Epoch Times et al. Taking out all the FLG websites still leaves you with a decent amount of coverage from real newspapers in Chinese or English, e.g. BBC Chinese[52], Orange County Register, [53], Ta Kung Pao (an HK newspaper) [54], etc. cab 02:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment whilst not exactly identical, the 3 sources above were about the same event, with slightly different angles, and would fall to be treated as "one coverage", thus failing WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 09:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Changing vote to delete per WP:BLP1E, etc. Ohconfucius was right, I jumped the gun when I saw even the BBC picked up his story and I figured it was important enough to generate ongoing coverage. But after searching a bit more, what's already in the article is all that WP:RS have to say about the man, and no journalist seems to have bothered to follow up on him. cab 10:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as having no credible assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Bonasso

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

Bio does not assert any notability, cites no sources, and is the target of several vandals. Crockspot 06:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Vintage Leaf Flag

This flag is a hoax. It is true the maple leaf symbol has been used in the uniforms of Canadian hockey players. However, in the books and materials that I own or have found, no proof was found for this specific flag to exist. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOT for things thought up in school one day. Clear hoax, nuke it already.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, definitely a hoax. Can't find any evidence this was ever an actual flag. --Coredesat 06:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. Only two internet references are by this author. While it's true that logos for Team Canada do use that leaf, as far as a I can tell, it was never on a flag. Otherwise, it would have appeared on List of Canadian flags and per the flag article, this was the original version of the flag. Smashville 06:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Per the author on the image page: "I created this myself. It is simply the vintage leaf used by the Canadian men's and women's national hockey team's since 2002 put onto the Canadian flag in place of the 11 point leaf. It should be in the articles List of Canadian Flags and Canadian Vintage Leaf Flag." If that isn't straightforward, I don't know what is... Smashville 06:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Hoaxes are not a CSD candidate, so that is why I couldn't just nuke it from orbit. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Smashville. Blair - Speak to me 06:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. You can't put one thing together with another thing and say that it's a third thing. The third thing never existed. Fails WP:V. Author, do not invent things for Wikipedia ever again, OK? --Dhartung | Talk 07:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy Delete as hoax--Childzy ¤ Talk 08:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Delete' Just the older Toronto Maple Leafs logo put on the flag; there's no such thing and it was never under consideration in the flag design (this draft flag shows only the modern design was considered). Hoax. Nate 08:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete invented thing, no reliable sources, unverifiable. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've simply added the article as an explanation of a flag that was created based on the leaf of the uniforms of Hockey Canada. It is not an official flag, but does exist giving an alternate (vintage) leaf design on a flag that is also found on pins, clothing etc. Canadian Ministry of Heritage is aware of the flag as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Likemike1 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

    • The original author has posted right here posting that this is a hoax...or at least, something made up, "This is not an official flag". Can we close this now? Smashville 13:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
      • The "not official flag" doesn't bother me at all, since we have articles on non-official flags related to Canada and other countries. However, the hoax part does. As for closing, I will let someone else do it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Smells like a hoax, no verifications, and the article is a complete mess.JForget 00:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I know we're supposed to wait 5 days, but when this is so clearly a hoax, can't we just delete it? Smashville 13:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • As I mentioned before, hoaxes are not a speedy deletion candidate. Patent nonsense is, but that is mostly "ajiwlkjdewhfjnhdkwifde." Plus, mind as well do it the right way instead of a longer speedy, DRV and all of that stuff. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 02:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert J White (headmaster)

Robert J White (headmaster) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

School headmasters are not inherently notable. I don't see anything particularly remarkable about this one. —Moondyne 05:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

He is notable as he was the school's first laid headmaster in its hundred and something year history. Talk to symode09's or How's my driving? 06:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I assume you mean lay. Most catholic colleges in modern times have made that transition from priestly brothers to lay and so there has to be one that is the first of the new order. I just don't see how that makes that individual notable. Does the last priest become notable also because he's the last? —Moondyne 06:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Tend to agree with Moondyne here - if he was notable outside the school context then this would be different. Orderinchaos 06:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
He has moved on to be a major role at christan brithers education australia (see http://www.loopaustralia.com/Director%20Announcement.pdf ) and, influences all the christian brother schools in australia 203.59.214.40 06:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC) (I am User:Symode09)
  • Delete As Orderinchaos. If he has done something notable then it would be a keep. Simply being headmaster, even the first one of a new school, is not inherently notable Recurring dreams 06:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Recurring dreams 06:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have made a reasonably thorough search for anything published about him by a reputable third-party source, and have come up with diddly-squat. Hesperian 06:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Luckily I have a copy of the press release (I could not find the original on their shitty site) http://www.loopaustralia.com/Director%20Announcement.pdf 203.59.214.40 07:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC) (USER:SYMODE09)
I received a request from the above user to reconsider my !vote. I have reconsidered. My !vote stands. A press release is not a reputable third-party source. The speil on White was almost certainly written by White himself as part of his candidacy statement. Even if it wasn't, it was written by someone with a vested interest in making White look good. Even if it wasn't, it was not published by a reputable publisher. And even if it had been, the amount of encyclopedic information it imparts is insufficient to justify an article on him. Hesperian 11:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no claim of notability in the article besides being a school headmaster, and that isn't nearly enough by itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--JForget 00:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Creator. though i had it speedied, which it wasnt. Twenty Years 14:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It had been speedied, on a db-author because of lack of notability. Symode09 seemed to think he could insert proper sources to establish that. Apparently he was wrong. At least this will bury it once and for all. --Golbez 13:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect. to Cramming. Nothing here can be usefully merged. First line is acceptable for Wiktionary if someone wants to put it there, but a transwiki shouldn't be necessary for one line. CitiCat ♫ 04:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mugging (mugging for exam)

Mugging (mugging for exam) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is about the term "mugging" as used in Singapore to refer to last-minute studying, which is better known in the United States as cramming. I submitted the article for WP:PROD, but the PROD tag was removed. The article looks more like a dictionary definition than an encyclopedia article, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Cram is a disambiguation page, and Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article about this studying process in general, so there is no clear target for a redirect (study skills seems to be closest, and it's not that close). I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 05:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Cramming certainly deserves an article, I would suggest creating a stub for that and merging this into it. Wl219 05:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - Rote learning is already listed on the disambiguation page; I think that is mildly sufficient. — xDanielx T/C 06:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but Merge with Cramming or Cram school. We defiantly need an article on is. There are questions that need to be answered, like the effectiveness of cramming, methods of cramming, effect on statistics of exams (etc) that should be added to the wiki (with sources of course) - Fosnez 07:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete for now. I wish we had a better article, say studying, than study skills, which is essentially a how-to. I think this could be a redirect, but I'm not thrilled with it -- maybe move to mugging (studying) or something similar first. --Dhartung | Talk 07:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Update - I created a short Cramming (memorization) article and updated the disambiguation page to add the article link. Though some of the information is trivial, I think this can definitely be expanded to a mid-sized article. I'd like to replace Mugging (mugging for exam) with a redirect, but I don't want to remove the AfD tag so I'll hold off. I hope this isn't too bold; if anyone disagrees with the arrangement please let me know. — xDanielx T/C 09:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There's no indication that anyone even uses the "mugging" term in this way. Back when I was in college, kids used that term for kissing. And I've heard it used to describe the act of taking other people's belongings while holding them at gunpoint in a dark alley. xDanielx's Cramming (memorization) article is everything we could want, and we have no verifiable reason to include the word mugging in it.OfficeGirl 10:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete yes this is a correct description of a British English usage of mugging, but it's a dictionary definition of a colloquialism, and as such does not belong here. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Or at least merge with Cramming as per Fosnez. I've certainly heard the term used in the UK. Seems valid to me. Marcus22 18:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and Merge This is just cramming, I'd put what isn't already there into cramming. As a high school student, I've never heard of that term, only cramming. Yamakiri on Firefox 22:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, merge, redirect. This is the exact same subject as the new cramming article, and cramming is a more common term. It is a distinct and widespread phenomenon that almost certainly has lots of sources, not just a dictionary definition. Wikidemo 04:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JIP | Talk 08:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry McAfee

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

I don't think this article should be here on Wikipedia. Harry McAfee isn't notable enough and seems to be a regular teacher or band director. Besides, he isn't even mentioned anywhere else. Astroview120mm 01:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Love the article, but not notable. — xDanielx T/C 06:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quotable, not notable. --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable bio --Childzy ¤ Talk 08:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Being the director of a high school band doesn't make you notable.--JForget 00:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adaptive Mutations in Bacteria: High Rate and Small Effects

Adaptive Mutations in Bacteria: High Rate and Small Effects (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is just a run-of-the-mill journal article that was published in a journal LAST MONTH. No assertion of notability. A journal article itself would have to cause a major stir for quite a while and be used as a major reference source for a long time after it was published in order to become notable. This brand-spanking-new journal article is not an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. Are we to have a new Wikipedia article for every article that a science journal publishes in every issue. I say DELETE. OfficeGirl 05:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. In general, it would be better to use scientific articles as sources for Wikipedia articles on the topics they describe than to make them the subjects of Wikipedia articles of their own. --Metropolitan90 05:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as an article about an article with no assertion of the topic article's importance, nor attribution of notability of the article. Having an interesting finding in an article is not by itself notability. Add the finding itself to the appropriate topic article and cite this as a source. (This is temptingly close to speedy except that it is not a type of topic that is speedy-eligible.) --Dhartung | Talk 07:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I can think of very few journal articles that might be notable enough to have an encyclopedia article just about them (only historic papers, and it takes more than a month to tell if a paper is historic!), and even then I doubt it would be a good idea. For example, Watson and Crick's first paper on DNA might be notable enough, but even then wouldn't it be better to discuss it as part of a more general article about the history of the discovery of DNA? (which is more or less the way it's already done for DNA, of course) --Itub 08:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion, create a bio article about the lead author, Lília Perfeito (aka L. Perfeito). She seems notable under the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The article received international attention [55], [56], [57], [58], [59] - probably hundreds of labs are busy trying to reproduce its results. Here is one scientific citation index that mentions the paper's importance (this goes to academic notability): [60]. It's true that WP doesn't generally have articles about journal articles per se, no matter their importance (altho there are a few under the category of genetics experiments). The findings are quite notable - it's more a question of WP article organization. Best wishes, Novickas 15:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like an article about the lead author would be well received, indeed, and a valuable addition to Wikipedia. I assume you are prepared to be bold and start it up right away!OfficeGirl 15:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Glad you agree! Problem with immediacy tho, I don't read Portugese and am short on time...Novickas 16:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You could put a note with the refernces you have found on the talk page of this article's originator, who speaks Portugese. I am sure he or she would be grateful for the guidance in properly covering the information he or she was trying to share with Wikipedia.OfficeGirl 17:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, done, at User talk:Galf. Novickas 21:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete in agreement with all of the above. Journal articles are not presumed notable, and this article makes no assertion otherwise. Certainly interesting, though. Someguy1221 21:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The information on this study (on my opinion) is quite interesting, at it shows bacteria adapt some 1000x faster than previosly thought. my original Idea was to incorporate this info into the bacteria article, but never couldn't quite figure out how. I'm not sure about the notability of the scientists involved, and picking one of them seemed rather unfair, so I lefts them bunched together with the study. The info is relevant IMO more even than the people who produced it. Galf 09:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
You might want to take a look as how Novickas put the information into the Escherichia coli article. Having a Wikipedia article about this journal article just isn't the way to go. But the lead scientist has a shot at passing WP:PROFTEST and that's all the notability you need, and that provides a more sure path for you to share this very interesting information. Thanks for your hard work on this.OfficeGirl 12:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
You might also want to try posting at the talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology for their suggestions. Novickas 13:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Individual journal articles shouldn't have their own entries unless they're notable in their own right. Per above, merge material into an appropriate article. --barneca (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. All of the nominator's points have been quickly and strongly refuted, and the debate has been unanimously sided towards keeping the article. The debate already has a snowball's chance in hell of producing a delete result, so I'm being bold and I'm closing it early. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] El Hormiguero

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

Subject is a non notable tv show from Spain. It fails Wikipedia:Television_episodes content guidelines. There are no google news results once you do a google search and strip out blogs, youtube/google video, wiki clones, and the tv network cuatro who hosts it, you find more references to Nicaragua than you do the TV show. It has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Lets apply WP:NF (I realize this is TV not film but some of the criteria should be similar).

1: The film (TV Show) is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
Widely distributed, nope, only airs in Spain. Youtube rebroadcasts dont count. Reviews by critics, cant find any see my google searching above.
2: The film (TV Show) is historically notable
Only began airing in 2006, nope not historically notable.
3: The film (TV Show) has received a major award for excellence
Nope cant find any awards.
4: The film (TV Show) was selected for preservation in a national archive.
Too early to tell if it will be. WP:NOT a Crystal Ball after all.
5: The film (TV Show) is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.
Highly unlikely.

 ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - How does it fail WP:Television Episode if it is not an Episode? I don't see any criteria about Television Series that it fails. And applying WP:NF to a television show is a bit of a bad call, since the standards are different. The359 05:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - To expand, a TV show shown throughout the whole of Spain would count, to me, as wide distrubition. Is it a requirement for it to be aired internationally to be notable? As for claiming it should be deleted for lacking historical notability, being taught in a college, for being preserved in a national archive...I think 90% of television fails those. The359 05:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Even AGF WP:NF is applicable (and I agree with The359 that it's not really), "widely distributed" does not mean international distribution. The show is broadcast on a major national Spanish network, that's as widely distributed as it needs to be. Wl219 05:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Applying WP:MOVIE to a TV show is an argument totally filled with fallacy. It's not a movie. You may as well apply WP:BASEBALL to it. It's a network show on a Spanish network. Of course you're going to have trouble finding English news links about it. However, if you search "El Hormiguero" and "Cuatro", you come up with almost 300,000 Google hits. Nevertheless, it is a nationally broadcast program in Spain and therefore notable. Not to mention, it's the 2,000,000th Wikipedia article. Now, I know that's not a keep reason...but, it should be noted. Smashville 05:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It airs on a national network in Spain, of course it's notable. It's not a youtube production made in someone's bedroom. The nomination is nonsensical. Nick mallory 05:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (from creator of article) - El Hormiguero is one of the biggest successes Cuatro has had since its inception, and it is trying to copy its success throughout its schedule. (See the references in the article) There are numerous Spanish reviews/articles about it (search google.es), and a content distribution agreement with YouTube would seem to qualify as distribution. Also, it doesn't make sense to apply the notability criteria for cinema to a television program. I understand that this being a possible candidate for the two millionth article has gotten this article quite a bit of publicity within Wikipedia, making it the ideal candidate for testing notability guidelines. (Jordanhill Railway Station was nominated for deletion as well, if I recall correctly) However, just because a subject is not known in the United States doesn't mean that it isn't notable. Zzxc 05:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Keep - No google news but 441,000 regular google (in quotes) but it means 'the anthill' in spanish so maybe a lot of those are not related to show. Wikipedia has many more less notable shows and movies with their own articles. Even future episodes of notable shows do. If those qualify surely this slightly un-notable qualifies. Just because it is not notable in your region doesn't mean it isn't en españa. --Henry W. Schmitt 05:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment (from creator of article) - There are no news hits for news.google.com, but there are results for news.google.es: [61] Again, this is a Spanish subject, so it doesn't make sense to look in United States news reports to establish its notability. Zzxc 05:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Thanks for the link I meant to look at Google España but didn't. This is further proof and doesn't help the nominator's argument. -Henry W. Schmitt 05:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think this argument would apply here. As others have already commented, just because a subject is relatively unknown among English-speakers should not - in fact, I'll go so far as to say "does not" - suggest that it is not notable. Algebra 05:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Raul654 05:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above. Notable in Spanish television. — xDanielx T/C 06:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep You should have tried a Lexis-Nexis search for non-English sources. I found a bunch of reasonably lengthy articles from El Pais and El Mundo. Zagalejo 06:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Addendum There are 90 Google news archives results for "El Hormiguero" + "Motos". This was just a lazy AFD. Zagalejo 07:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The comment on its distribution sounds like systemic bias to me; were it broadcast in a single country that spoke English that would not have been called into question. Atropos 06:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Seeing as it is neither a movie nor an individual episode, the notability guidelines cited do not apply. Even if you considered them to apply, considering it non-notable because it "only airs in Spain" is a sign of systematic bias against articles about non-English topics. Would you nominate a series for deletion because it "only airs in the US"? --Micpp 07:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. - auburnpilot talk 05:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prolifik Da Sick

Prolifik Da Sick (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsigned rap artist, article provides no evidence that he satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for musicians. Google search primarily turns up Myspace results. JavaTenor 03:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete A7 per nom, no notability of band established whatsoever, so tagged. My apologies to JavaTenor too -- I thought Twinkle had goofed up, so I finished the nom for you. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 03:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete or Regular delete, I don't care, just make it go away. Fails WP:MUSIC convincingly, and there is virtually no hope of finding any reliable sources. --Bongwarrior 04:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD A7. No notability established. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. --Coredesat 07:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gravity-well projector

Gravity-well projector (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about fictional technology with no assertion of real-world notability. Lack of coverage by reliable sources makes it impossible for these articles to meet WP:WAF. --EEMeltonIV 03:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:

--EEMeltonIV 03:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Response - I meant to convey that the lack of third-party sources makes an out-of-universe perspective per WAF impossible. Of course, lack of sources also makes it hard to establish notability per WP:FICT. --EEMeltonIV 11:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I am a sci-fi-fan, these are not even significant terms in sci-fi. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not notable. Judgesurreal777 16:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge all into one article that can be zapped over to the Star Wars universe. Although I'm not a Star Wars fan, all five of these are apparently part of the books (and sometimes films) in the heavy selling world of Star Wars. None of these merit their own article, but the fictional technology. Sure, these aren't "significant terms in sci-fi", but any science fiction fan can recognize these universal concepts. I think the Trekkie equivalents are tractor beam, warp drive, subspace radio, dilithium crystals, etc.; other authors have other names. Mandsford 22:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all Do not have the sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 03:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all, because of incredible notability as part of a major culture phenomenon with movie, television, comic book, video game, etc. appearances. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • There is no evidence of any sources to allow these articles to satisfy the general definition of notability, WP:N, or the specific definition for fictional concepts, WP:FICT. You just can't say "Oh yeah, it's notable" and expect your opinion to carry any weight. Jay32183 00:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that a single article about the technology described in the series would be notable. Often, the description of the tech in a science fiction novel is a subliminal lesson in physics, chemistry, etc., I agree, however, that none of these things, individually, are notable. In this case, the black whole may be greater than the sun of its parsecs. Mandsford 17:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Brown (American football)

Arthur Brown (American football) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

completely non-notable high school kid. emerson7 | Talk 03:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Only weak claim to notability is supposedly being a college football prospect, and it's not even remotely enough in this case. This isn't LeBron James. --Bongwarrior 03:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep! He is ranked #1 by Scout.com -- not too shabby. The guy is widely considered one of the greatest prospects football has seen. Just needs some better sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XDanielx (talk • contribs) 06:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. ESPN aired a high school football game specifically to show this kid. Smashville 06:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as there seems to be coverage from reliable sources. It's not a lot, and whether he's "#1" depends on who's doing the rankings, but there is some attention. It isn't exactly burning up the sports pages, though. --Dhartung | Talk 07:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just like XDanielx said, this kid is widely considered one of the greatest prospects in recent years. ––Bender235 10:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    Comment - Sure, he's a prospect. But he's still in high school. What happens if he goes out in his next game and breaks his leg? What if he makes it to college and isn't that good? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I'm not saying he won't merit an article in a few years, but right now it's just too premature. --Bongwarrior 10:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Even high school football phenoms deserve their article, see T. A. McLendon, Ronald Curry, Ken Hall, Ron Powlus … ––Bender235 11:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
T. A. McLendon's high school career was over for five years before his article was written. The rest had already reached the NFL. Like I said, it's just too soon to assign notability to this kid. --Bongwarrior 11:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
However, Brown has national attention by USA Today and New York Times just to mention a few, which makes him more notable then most college football players. ––Bender235 11:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Having received non-trivial coverage in the national press, he now meets WP:BIO's criteria for notability. End of story. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I read this kid as being in a similar position to Rhain Davis, whose notability was likewise asserted based on the fact that he was a young player who was tipped as being the next big thing in his chosen sport (Davis plays soccer). The article on Davis was deleted due to the fact that there's still a long way to go before he actually achieves anything much in his chosen sport, and I'd argue that Brown is likewise a hot prospect who may not go anywhere. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not about how much a player has achieved in a sport, it's about how much the media is paying him attention. Someone like Maurice Clarett has achieved only a bit more than nothing in football, but he got media attention (because he sued the NFL). Brown hasn't achieved much yet, but Pete Carroll and Bob Stoops praise him like he's the 2nd coming. ––Bender235 10:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I take your point, but the thing is that currently Brown is only beeing talked about in terms of potential, rather than actual, success. In Clarett's case, he never really went beyond the potential-success stage, but he became notable because of his notoriety. If he'd had an article written at the time that he was being talked up as a College prospect (let alone a pro one), then I'd still be advocating its deletion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: distinctly non-trivial coverage in New York Times along with the other decent sources means he meets the overarching notability guideline. --Pak21 11:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment On the one hand, he fails the relevant notability guidelines. However, he has received coverage in the NY Times and USA Today, among others. My personal feelings is that he deserves an article, but it looks like Wikipedia guidelines are against him (though not policy). This is probably an ideal instance where the rules should be ignored. Since I'm conflicted, I'm not arguing Keep or Delete. faithless (speak) 05:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was keep. John254 17:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guido (slang)

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

Article cites no sources. Tagged with verify tag since July. Not in compliance with WP:V or WP:NOR. Dean Wormer 03:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong keep Not only is it a real thing, it's also sourceable: [62], [63], [64], [65]. Wl219 04:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very notable, and sourced as shown. Speaking as a part Guido, I object to deletion of myself. • Lawrence Cohen 05:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Part of the culture of the NE US, and with the sources above, verifiable. Acroterion (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly notable. Article needs better sourcing, more encyclopedic tone, and should follow any guidelines we have for ethnic slurs. Wikidemo 04:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable, even though it's offensive. WP is for adults, not to be censored for randomly. Sourceable per Wl219. Bearian 01:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Please assume good faith; I don't think the nominator wanted to delete the article because it is offensive or because he wants to censor Wikipedia. He cited verifiability and original research concerns. Melsaran (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, can apparently be sourced (see Wl219's comment), may need some purging though (contains a lot of OR). Melsaran (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hong kong film industry independence

Hong kong film industry independence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Reads as an essay, with all the POV and OR issues that go along with it. Also no citations. Girolamo Savonarola 03:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy keep, POV disputes alone are not a reason for deletion. Nominator may fix the article instead, but deletion's not the answer here. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 03:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biologic Institute

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

This article obviously violates WP:NPOV. -profg 01:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep This case has not even been remotely made on the talk page or anywhere.--Filll 02:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep POV problems are not in themselves grounds for deletion and the nominator has made no effort whatsoever to address, or even raise these concerns, beyond a prod yesterday[66]. ornis (t) 02:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Mystache 03:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • comment Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. This entire article -- not just bits a pieces here and there -- violates NPOV, and without a doubt should be deleted per this fundamental principle. To do otherwise is hypocrisy to the extreme. --profg 03:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 04:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straight Reads the Line

Straight Reads the Line (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There are no sources that prove notability. As for the WP:BAND guidelines, the band doesn't really seem to meet any of them. The only ones it kinda comes close to meeting #4, but it isn't reported in reliable sources; and maybe #6, but the notable musician only appeared as a guest on one track. -- Scorpion0422 02:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Gallae

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

not verifiable Neitherday 02:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete usage seems extremely rare - mostly blogs and directories. Non-notable. MarkBul 02:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete...this was deleted a month ago...I'm tagging it. Besides that, it's not sourced and stuff. --UsaSatsui 02:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: the text here is completely different from that of the deleted article, so CSD A3 doesn't apply. --Pak21 06:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
      • How was I supposed to know that?  :) Okay, fair enough. --UsaSatsui 15:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: no verifiable sources. --Pak21 06:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: not verifiable, not notable.--Vidkun 13:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
AFD entry added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism notifications --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --UsaSatsui 20:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abandonia

Contested prod, I felt it could use some discussion. Looks like a very old AFD here that resulted in a delete. I'm going with Delete on this one, there's only one source that could be even close to reliable, and I'm not sure the website passes WP:WEBI'm also gonna bundle Abandonia Reloaded into here (another prior AfD, Keep result), they look like the same site. Also nominated -

Abandonia Reloaded (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

--UsaSatsui 02:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The issues with Abandonia have been resolved, in my opinion, therefore I change my opinion (on that page) to Keep. --UsaSatsui 20:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Nomination completely withdrawn. --UsaSatsui 20:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep I also want to adress some misconceptions you have presented:

  • Abandonia Reloaded is not the same site, even though it may seem like that on the first glance. It does have the same owner, some of the staff take care of both places (or rather took before moving over to Reloaded completely) and both share the same layout. However, while Abandonia is an abandonware site, Abandonia Reloaded is all about freeware. Consequently, each site's subject appeals to a different community. The two should not be considered the same. If you want to nominate the AR for deletion, please do so in a separate AfD. Thank you
  • Blogs and forums may be considered questionable as sources for encyclopedic information, however they can be used as primary sources.
  • For references, I'll take a pick from our press archive in which we collect links to online articles and scans of newspaper articles about the site (or mentioning it in a significant manner)
Online: [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73].
Scanned newspaper articles: [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79]

--The Fifth Horseman 06:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. First off, let me clear up another misconception. Somebody prodded this, I saw it, decided it shouldn't be deleted without discussion, and took it to AfD. I added a Delete opinion because as the articles stood, I felt they should be deleted. I've got nothing "against" the article whatsoever. I call them as I see them.
Okay, the print sources are easily enough to establish notability, but none of them are listed in the article, and are still not even though you "added" sources (don't just link to the press release section on the site, use WP:CITE). Some of those web references may be too, but I can't read them, so I don't know. The references listed in the article are unacceptable...Sure, forums are primary sources, but Wikipedia references secondary sources. So get the sources in, and I'm satisfied.
Now, for Reloaded...still no sources on it. notability is not inherited), just being related to Abandonia doesn't save it. I still feel it's similar enough to be bundled, "Make another AfD" is a stalling tactic. If you can find some good sources for that site, or merge it into Abandonia, then that'd be great.--UsaSatsui 15:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Given the press links above. If you want to trim some websites, you might want to take a look at Category:Webcomics, it's starting to stink again. - hahnchen 08:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - As Horseman. --Abi79 10:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article in Die Zeit alone makes it notable and valid for inclusion. This page should be improved, not deleted. User:Krator (t c) 13:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Those scanned news articles establish notability for sure. Not sure about Abandonia Reloaded, but it could probably be merged as a section of Abandonia instead of deleting it, if it does not have sufficient notability on its own. — brighterorange (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Added 5 references, old invalid references moved to notes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ye Olde Anarchist (talk • contribs) 20:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • That's better. I'll withdraw my Delete opinion on Abandonia, but I still see issues with the other page. Plus, since this is a contested prod, I'd like to see the prodders get an opinion in. --UsaSatsui 20:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merged articles Abandonia and Abandonia Reloaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ye Olde Anarchist (talk • contribs) 21:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Since there seems to be no real references for the notability of Abandonia Reloaded, I have completed the merge by replacing the article and its' Talk page with appropriate redirects. Fixed up the references a little bit too, since two of those you added were at best borderline. --The Fifth Horseman 14:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Great work The Fifth Horseman. ----Ye Olde Anarchist 17:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Works for me. The prodders haven't bothered to show up and comment either, so I'll withdraw the nomination. --UsaSatsui 20:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 02:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grantholomew

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

Appears to be a WP:HOAX. Google search found no "Adventures of" series, and only MySpace hits for the character. Much of the article seems like WP:BOLLOCKS. Evb-wiki 02:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chad Castagana

Chad Castagana (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • Biography of living person violates WP:BLP1E. Also authored by a community-banned editor, and is subject to deletion per the banning policy. Wikipedia is not the news. (TWINKLE crapped on me, probably because FAAFA's talk page is a protected redirect, so I had to create the main AfD page from scratch, hope it's right.) - Crockspot 02:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not the subject of any significant biography and not known outside of the single event. less notable than Katie Barge also being deleted. --DHeyward 04:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 07:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, if necessary rewrite as 2006 fake anthrax letters incident or something similar (a daft solution, IMHO, but apparently it appeases some editors). There are plenty of sources demonstrating WP:N for the incident itself, given that one of the targets is in the line of succession to the Presidency (yes, even last year). --Dhartung | Talk 07:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a tabloid aggregator. Delete this and perhaps put a redirect in place to a suitable target. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable, if every nut and criminal had a Wikipedia entry, it would be Criminopedia. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm sure David Letterman and the others have had death threats or harassment from various lunatics, and this doesn't mean we create an article for each one. As WP:NOT points out: The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was "Use my penknife, my good man!" (Keep) — Caknuck 19:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FCCJ (Jacksonville Skyway)

FCCJ (Jacksonville Skyway) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article does not satisfy the necessary requirements for a rail transport station. As the article stands at the moment, there is not much more detail that can be added to it than already exists. The entire JTA Skyway system is only 2.5 miles (4 km) and all of the line's eight stations are within close proximity of each other. As a member of WikiProject Rapid transit, I am usually in favor of rail station articles, however all these stations are identical to each other, and are only a couple blocks apart, and all the little information in the article can be covered in the main article, JTA Skyway. These changes were implemented into the main article in a previous edit ([80]), however were restored by another editor who did not agree with the changes.

I am also nominating the following related pages because these are the other seven stations of the JTA Skyway, also not notable enough to have their own articles:

Hemming Plaza (Jacksonville Skyway) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Central (Jacksonville Skyway) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Jefferson (Jacksonville Skyway) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Convention Center (Jacksonville Skyway) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
San Marco (Jacksonville Skyway) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Riverplace (Jacksonville Skyway) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Kings Avenue (Jacksonville Skyway) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

–Dream out loud (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Redirect to JTA Skyway. Anyone interested can merge the small detail in the articles from History. Essentially they are articles about transit stops that will likely only be mentioned in the press as existing. There is no meat for separate articles on these stops - Peripitus (Talk) 02:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep unless we are supposed to delete the stations for the Sheppard subway or Scarborough RT in Toronto, each of which has fewer stations. The same goes for the shuttle in Brooklyn. Rather than having them deleted, efforts should be made to include more information. Otherwise, we're going to have to merge each system's subway stations into a single article, like is proposed here. dcandeto 02:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per strong precedent that such systems and their stations are all notable. Alansohn 02:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per long standing precedent and WP:OUTCOMES, such stations are notable. --Oakshade 02:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per WP:OUTCOMES, stations are inherently notable by precedent. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 03:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment to the last 3 editors. There is no doubt the system is notable but WP:OUTCOMES#Transportation_and_geography does not support inclusion of these stations. What is really missing here is verifyability from reliable sources - it's hard to see how anyone would have (and I cannot find any records of) written about these simple train stops. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with JTA Skyway. (I was the one who merged them after seeing them prod-ed). I agree with that WP:OUTCOMES usually calls for keeping these as separate articles, but I think that it is more useful and easier for the reader to keep what information is here in the main article. All the eight articles are stubs, and the information can be reasonably added to the JTA Skyway article without bloating that article to unreasonable lengths. I don't view this as a question of deleting/including the info about these stations, but as a matter of how best to present it. In general, unless the article has become too long, keeping things in one article is easier. One can print out one (slightly) longer article instead of several small ones, and one does not need to click through a myriad of links in order to read it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm sure sources can be found. They might be trivial, but that's okay, they're just train stations. — xDanielx T/C 06:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, I don't understand that argument. If the sources are trivial, there's no point in keeping the article per WP:N. And "they're just train stations" is not an argument for keeping either, is it? --B. Wolterding 09:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
      • By that logic, we should also do away with disused Underground stations like Ongar; they're not even train stations. dcandeto 12:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Maybe, but that's not under discussion here. --B. Wolterding 15:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
          • And that's not a valid counter-argument, as it's not policy. dcandeto 22:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Pardon? Essays serve to summarize arguments. If you don't like links, here's the full text: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article." This is my argument, ad please tell me why you think it's invalid. --B. Wolterding 09:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
              • Let's say the result here is delete. If I put other articles for subway/train/rail transit stations (of a similar notability level—let's say Glencairn rather than Union or 23 St on the 1 line rather than Times Square) through the deletion process, and the result is that we should keep them, then the Skyway station articles can then be recreated, as they should also be kept per WP:N. dcandeto 11:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
                • No, the guideline that you cite (WP:N) does not call for precedents; it calls for independent sources, which need to be given for each article individually. And for the train stops we discuss here, none have been given. --B. Wolterding 16:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • So you are in favor of deleting Glencairn and the 1 line's 23 St station, since they don't have independent sources (and Glencairn has none at all). Got it. dcandeto 17:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I think we can ignore WP:N in favor of more specific guidelines and precedents -- just as we do for cities, highways, lists of related articles, etc. — xDanielx T/C 01:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If they are kept, we should rename them to "[station name] (JTA Skyway)". dcandeto 12:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with JTA Skyway. The articles about the stops are unexpanded stubs without their notabilty established (due to lack of independent sources). The little information contained is better presented in the JTA Skyway article. If more relevant information should become available at a later time, the articles can always be expanded again. --B. Wolterding 09:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to United States foreign policy

Opposition to United States foreign policy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article has gone through so much work, but I believe that unless it can be completely re-written to be specifically about Opposition to US foreign policy, it will remain a POV filled list of reasons people are opposed to US foreign policy, and a bunch of opinionated rebuttals to the reasons people are opposed to US foreign policy. It is nigh unsalvageable. Murderbike 01:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • That's okay -- easy mistake to make. If you put a prod tag on, you don't do anything else unless the prod gets removed. But if you want the article listed at AfD, just add an AfD template to the article instead (instructions at the bottom of WP:AFD). Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 03:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Overall, I think that this is an improper synthesis of information that somewhat retreads on themes already covered in articles like Anti-Americanism. Any sourced, relevant information can be transferred to other articles, but this particular article seems to be a dumping ground for POV.--Danaman5 03:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Pointless dumping ground for the usual anti American bile. Nick mallory 05:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Blair - Speak to me 06:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Technicaly it would be worth inclusion. However, I'm afraid it'll always heavily lean on POV. Having a "Controversy" section in each of the conflicts articles, that this one highlights, POV problems might be easier to handle. 1redrun Talk 08:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral/No vote An article about the opposition to their policy is definitely needed, although some bits will need to be rewritten to remove some POV's (thus the no vote), although with the current heavy heavy opposition of their policies (more evident since GWB is the president), it will be difficult.--JForget 00:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Anti-Americanism rather than delete. It has content not covered by Anti-Americanism article.Biophys 01:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep this article is well researched and a valuable encyclopedic entry. Travb (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The article is a violation of WP:SYNT to the point of being unsalvageable. Also, these topics seem to be covered elsewhere, so there is no use for this article. Pablo Talk | Contributions 17:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep - nonadmin closure. Merge as necessary. The Evil Spartan 05:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muesli Belt

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

Seems to be a neologism created and used by just one author two years ago. Fewer than 200 ghits, many of which seem to be about a play of this title. Transwiki-ing to wiktionary may be an option, but keeping it here seems a poor option at present. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The search results of "Muesli Belt" have a lot of mentions about something called "Muesli Belt malnutrition". Could information about that be added or something?--Alasdair 01:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There's lots of information about muesli belt malnutrition, I added a redirect and info about that. There's sources from the BBC, Daily Telegraph etc and a study from Bristol University. It's certainly not a 'neologism' created by 'just one author two years ago' as a moment's research would have shown. Nick mallory 06:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I guess; there is not much information, but some of it is in decent sources. There may be a better titile, or maybe potential to merge to infant nutrition or some such. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

comment Guardian article quotes source using phrase http://media.guardian.co.uk/bbc/story/0,,677609,00.html 3tmx 22:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge I'd say merge relevant content infant malnutrition, and stuff relating to the term in general to wiktionary. I believe there was a case in the UK where a couple who fed their baby on a fruit only diet were prosecuted for its death. The term doesn't appear to be purely concerned with malnutrition though and can be used pretty generally3tmx 19:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User talk:Shmaltz

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice to a completely new article, that is well sourced being created. The article as it currently stands has no sources and with it's content, is a very serious BLP violation. Sorry. but BLP trumps notability. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lizzie Grubman

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

The article itself states, that Grubman gained "notoriety for committing a felony crime." Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a registry for felons, and this individual is not notable. She appeared on a short-lived reality show, but reality show contestants don't get their own articles either. -- Wikipedical 00:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 00:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- She's become kind of proverbial, as discussed on the article talk page. AnonMoos 01:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There are plenty of articles on criminals in Wikipedia, especially when they are notable. A mention by MTV is sufficient, in my opinion.--Alasdair 01:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - as per arguments on the Talk page Fosnez 01:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Additionaly she's (or was, not sure of her current client list) one of the most notable publicists for the New York elite. Like it or not, she's got notability, reality show and Hamptons incident notwithstanding. Nate 02:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep she has been the subject of extensive in-depth coverage as described in the article, and clearly satisifies the [{Wikipedia:Notability]] criteria. Alansohn 02:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Coverage in CNN, "Today In History" on MSNBC.com, ABC News, CBS News, 112 hits on the New York Times alone, The BBC, The Guardian, Time Magazine, Mentions in 57 books on Amazon.com...and considering she is Britney Spears' PR person, I'm willing to bet that she's pretty busy these days... Smashville 03:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Whoa, Snowball keep. At first I was a little leery of some of these "keep" votes, but the number of sources seems to indicate notability. If she were involved only in the SUV incident, this would be in violation of WP:NOT#NEWS, but the fact that she's also Spears' PR person adds another layer of notability. Good enough for me! Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 04:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep one of the most high profile PR reps there is. Article could use a few references, but passes notability with ease. ~Eliz81(C) 05:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Article clearly states that she was notable before the felony incident ever occurred-- it's just that she will forever be the butt of jokes for her crime. Article needs work, but should be kept.OfficeGirl 05:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep I dont think injuring 16 people with her car is a "joke" one of my friends sisters was hit by Grubman's car.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Criminals can be notable, can't they? • Lawrence Cohen 05:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, was notable prior to the incident. Unfortunately, has only become more successful since (you never know, some clients may consider it a mark of ruthlessness). --Dhartung | Talk 07:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs that have won a Grammy Award for Song of the Year and an Academy Award for Best Song

List of songs that have won a Grammy Award for Song of the Year and an Academy Award for Best Song (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Grammy and Academy Awards are certainly notable. But this list seems like an unnecessary intersection of unrelated awards. Spellcast 00:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm sure that they have a list on different winners of the Academy Award. as for the Grammys, create a separate list if it doesn't exist. Otherwise remove it entirely.--Alasdair 01:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This is a totally unnecessary list, as there are winners listed on each individual page. - Rjd0060 02:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete perf Rjd0060. Artw 03:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per nom. Q T C 05:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - per above. No strong correlation to make a list containing both criteria. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete wow! Undoubtedly the most arbitrary list seleciton criterion I can remember. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Footnote the Academy Award winners on the Grammy list, and footnote the Grammy winners on the Academy Awards list. Copy this list to your userspace (as a subpage of your userpage) so you have access to it until the data transfer is complete. And rather than merely vote, remember that this is a discussion forum for finding solutions. Why ditch something entirely when it has value? I'd be interested in what other awards an award-winning song won. Keep the data, merge it into the relavant lists, toss this page. The Transhumanist 20:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If you want to know what awards a song won, shouldn't it say so on the song's article page, the page's categories, or both? —Dark•Shikari[T] 00:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - The cats and individual song articles etc are sufficiant enough. Spawn Man 02:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, pure vandalism. Pascal.Tesson 00:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Milk v. Nabisco Foods

Milk v. Nabisco Foods (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I think this article is a hoax. I can't find any evidence that this actually was an actually Supreme Court case. Captain panda 00:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion G11. The article, as written is ad copy, and no sources are provided that would provide independent verification of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reality Rhyming®

Reality Rhyming® (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable art technique. Developer of this technique does not have an article. Captain panda 00:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Moved to project space, redirect deleted. Circeus 00:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of publications on evolution and human behavior

List of publications on evolution and human behavior (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Solution found: moved to Wikipedia's resource section in the Wikpedia namespace. See Wikipedia:Research resources/Evolution and human behavior. The Transhumanist    20:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of links or a bibliographic database on a topic. It is highly dubious that this could be reworked into a List of important publications (lack of articles, lack of clear topic), so it should be nuked. It has no place in an encyclopedia (although anybody can have it in their user space if they wish so.). Circeus 00:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete concur with nom. I could see the use for such a list, but it belongs as a reference list in some wikiproject, not the mainspace. Burzmali 17:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Agree. A move into user- or projectspace is fine by meif anybody makes the suggestion.Circeus 18:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Unencylopedic, WP:NOT#MIRROR Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Moved it - it's now in the Wikipedia namespace, as a useful resource list for editors seeking reference material. The Transhumanist    20:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of black metal fanzines

A redlink farm (cothurnus is a redirect) and potential external links farm of at best unknown notability. Circeus 04:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete a list of non-notable links. Lugnuts 07:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Punkmorten 08:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete with fire. WP:NOT#INFO, especially this kind of info. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete although I enjoy zines, they're basically non-notable by definition. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few notable links in there, but there's no way at all to tell (I wouldn't nominate if this looked like, say List of premature obituaries or Iron Mike). Circeus 14:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per nom, WP:NOT#DIR Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TBA (Nelly Furtado album)

TBA (Nelly Furtado album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball. This album does not have a title, track list, or release date. Let's wait until we have something substantial. There is no hurry, When it gets closer to the realease date, I have no problem with recreation. Cyrus Andiron 16:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

there are many articles about albums, which are real crystal balls[2][3][4]] in contrast to this one, nelly furtado said, that she is recording a spanish album and it also stands in the main article Nelly Furtado.--Dave it 16:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

References
  1. ^ ... you dumbass
  2. ^ TBA (Christina Stürmer) Crystal Ball
  3. ^ Before I Self Destruct CB
  4. ^ Ego Trippin'

There is no resaon to delete this article, this album is fixed to be released in January 2008.--Dave it 17:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. When the title fails WP:CRYSTAL, the article has no place in Wikipedia. Burzmali 16:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not denying that the album is in production or anything like that. However, as of right now, virtually nothing is known about it other than it will be in Spanish. Perhaps a merge into the main article would be agreeable for the time being. As soon as some concrete information is known about the album like say: a title, or a track list, or a release date, then it might merit its own article. Right now, it's all specualtion. It should be deleted for now, with no objections to recreation after more details are made available. Wikipedia isn't a race, and there is no golden nugget for being the first person to cover a given topic. Give it some time. --Cyrus Andiron 16:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    Those are not references. Those are other examples. Also, the first one you mentioned is now being AFD'd as well. The other two are about projects that have names and release dates or some combination of the two. This article does not even have a title for the album it is purporting to represent. --Cyrus Andiron 17:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Unless the actual title of the albumn is TBA, then Wikipedia can wait until the artist comes up with a name for it. This is currently a Crystal ball. --Evb-wiki 17:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; Furtado said a few months ago that she had put her plan to record a Spanish language album on hold indefinitely [81]; moreover, she later said that she plans to begin a rock band soon [82]. So an article about her next album is probably unnecessary given that the only thing we know for sure is that Furtado said it might be in Spanish. At the very least, it should be moved to Nelly Furtado's fourth album or something similar. Extraordinary Machine 17:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is a new low. Thus far we only saw these articles as soon as a new album was actually announced with a title an such but "to be announced" is the crystal-balliest (sic) of them all... 1redrun Talk
  • Delete: Per WP:NOT#CBALL. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Nelly Furtado for now until more info is provided. So, far it does fail WP:CRYSTAL.--JForget 00:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for now Too crystal-bally. An artist simply saying they're going to release an album isn't enough. Wait until more info comes out. Spellcast 21:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Article appears to be well-sourced, even if suffering NPOV problems. Nonadmin closure. The Evil Spartan 04:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Arabism

Anti-Arabism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The notability of this term, is barely in use in academic circles.[83] And it is not an historical term as the article claims. It seems to be a neologism, or a newly coined term, and the entire article reeks of Original Research. At best, some of the content should be merged into islamophobia.

  • Strong Delete: Per above. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:42 10 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
    • You have listed yourself as an inclusionist in your userpage. Out of all articles, why would you single this one out for exclusion?--Kitrus 21:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply I am not an inclusionist if it comes to original research. Also, there aren't many people who are actually anti-Arab. Not more so than they are anti-Swede or anti-Japanese etcetera. What people dislike, is Islam, and sometimes, they are anti-Arab because of Islam. Hence, I believe that some of the material in this article should be merged into Islamophobia, and that's because I am an inclusionist. If you can show me a lot of historical hatred of Arabs and perhaps even persecution, I will change my mind and vote keep. So far, I'm not convinced that people are more anti-Arab than they are anti-Russian. And yes, believe me, Russians are very hated throughout the world. We don't have an article about Anti-Russianism, do we? I thought so. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:51 15 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - We cannot tie together a bunch of isolated incidents and present them as a unified phenomenon. To do so violates Wikipedia policy against original synthesis. The Behnam 17:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It could potentially be much more than that.--Kitrus 21:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
      • What do you mean? The Behnam 22:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Using my magical powers, I foresee only turmoil and trouble coming out of an article that is nothing more than original research. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete heavily OR article.--SefringleTalk 03:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —SefringleTalk 03:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletions. —SefringleTalk 03:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable subject and it looks well sourced. Possible merge? Perhaps with islamophobia. // Liftarn
  • comment I'm torn because, as I see it, there are two main problems. On the one hand, this article is poorly written and appears to be mostly composed of OR, but on the other, I don't doubt that Anti-Arabism exists and I don't think Islamophobia is precisely the same thing. Maybe clean it up? I think we'd have to pretty much stub it and start over. <<-armon->> 09:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect. To islamophobia. • Lawrence Cohen 16:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Not all Arabs are Muslim. Most Muslims are not Arabs.--Kitrus 21:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep AfDing an article w/ 73 references is of bad taste. Redirecting it to Islamophobia is nonsense as well (Muslims=Arabs nonsense) -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • A 'count of references' is really not a very good method in determining whether or not the article violates WP:OR (which could include original interpretation of 'cited sources') or subsection WP:SYN (since that relies upon a synthesis of sources in the first place). What we have are a bunch of incidents that in some cases mention "anti-Arabism" being tied together to posit a "novel narrative." We can't be the ones to tie what could be isolated incidents together to present a phenomenon or concrete relationship between the events - that's the work of RS, not Wikipedians. The Behnam 22:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep A Google search of Anti Arabism turns up over half a million results (596,000), with 2,620 results from Google Scholar. Their have been a number of popular and academic books written about Anti-Arabism. Academics who have covered this issue extensively include Edward Said, Jack Shaheen, Steven Salaita, and many others.--Kitrus 21:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:GOOGLEHITS SefringleTalk 22:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment; while I strongly sympathise with the Behnam's statements against OR conducted by WP, and this article is a disgrace as it stands, the term itself has 200 hits on Gbooks etc. All of them use the term in the same manner, as shorthand for discrimination against Arab cultures. If necessary, stub this down - I certainly intend to remove some of the nonsense immediately - but I can't see that the term itself does not deserve an article. (Definitely more so than Anti-Australianism, in my opinion.) Hornplease 22:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Your first arguement is WP:GOOGLEHITS, your second is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The australia article can be nominated for deletion as well. As far as I am concerned, they both should be deleted.--SefringleTalk 23:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
So what? Both WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are essays. -Huldra 23:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, than prehaps you can show me the policy where it states that google hits prove notability, or other stuff exists is a valid deletion arguuements for keeping?--SefringleTalk 01:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. WP:googlehits implies that the quality of the results is not considered, merely the quantity. I clearly considered the quality, and the fact that they referred to a phenomenon with what appeared to be a stable definition. (Anyone interested in making a similar argument over at Pallywood? No?)
About otherstuffexists, my only point was that I can't imagine why this article is being singled out for deletion first. You're right, its an inappropriate argument for retention. I suppose I was just thinking out loud.
That being said, note I didn't state my conclusion. I continue to think that stubbing down the egregious OR leaves something that is clearly notable. Not a neologism, not inherently POV, etc. Hornplease 23:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If we removed the egregious OR we'd still have something notable. We should fix the article by editing it. <<-armon->> 23:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep This is a notable subject, end of story. I think it is quite incredible that this article is put up for deletion; especially when on see, say, the huge New Anti-Semitism articles. The alternative (redir to islamophobia), is, as pointed out above not correct as not all Arabs are Muslim, nor are all Muslim Arabs. Having said that; it does need more editing...(like most other articles on WP) Regards, Huldra 23:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you can provide sources to show us how it is notable? The redirect would be appropiate, as while not all arabs are muslim, the topics are very closely related (i.e. much anti-arabism is called islamophobic, and vice versa.)--SefringleTalk 00:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - a very notable concept and also quite a significant one in the modern world. Many users are wrongly confusing Arabs with Muslims. However, most Muslims are not Arabs, and a lot of Arabs are not Muslims.Bless sins 00:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Prehaps you can offer some citations as to how it is notable, and maybe you can respond to my comment directed at Huldra, which is my response to your second point.--SefringleTalk 01:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The two topics are not closely related. The common stereotypes against Muslims is that of terrorism and suppression of sexual freedom. The common stereotypes against Arabs is excessive wealth, indulgence in excesses (including sexual intercourse).Bless sins 01:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable subject, well sourced. This is not islamophobia.Biophys 01:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per FayssalF, Kitrus, Armon, Huldra and others. The article needs work, but the subject is notable and its use is well-established by scholarly sources. Merging with Islamophobia is not an option. They are two clearly distinct terms and phenomenon though it's true that those who share in them both often don't know that there's a difference. Tiamut 01:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per FayssalF and Armon Bigglovetalk 12:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Comments in favor of deletion are predicated on the assumption that this is not an actual term, but the dozens of footnotes to reliable sources prove otherwise. Statement that the content should be moved to "Islamophobia," an entirely different subject, does not make sense. Badagnani 02:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: If the lead cant cite any significant references for the term, its probably OR and a weak article. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Citing references in the lead is not generally considered necessary. Is that the entirety of your objection? Hornplease 15:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think it is the 7th Anti-x article that I vote. Most of these Anti-x articles are notable enough to have article. The sad point is that most of them are filled with stupid OR nonsense. The cure is not deleting them, but correcting them (even by "stubbing" them). Although the former is easier :) --Pejman47 21:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I really can't believe it's considered "not notible enough"!!? The article itself may be bad but the term is used, if you really insist it can be changed to Anti-Arab discrimination although it weighs it down. Moreover, Anti-Arabism is much older than what is listed. I think the problem with the article is that everyone knows a tiney bit of info and put it up, no one really looked up a proper source and added the information. The article needs a lot of work but the subject is defintly notible - it's rediculus to claim otherwise. --Maha Odeh 12:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Anti-Semitism is notable, because Jews have suffered genocides and been persecuted. Though they are far from the only ethnic group who have suffered persecution, I can't recall any instance where Arabs have suffered genocides and heavy persecution simply because they are Arabs. This article is taking a few incidents, and exaggerating and blowing it out of proportions. Every ethnic group has faced some kind of racism; Arabs are not alone in this. We can't create an article for every ethnic that has been called this and that every once in a while. The only reason some people dislike Arabs, is because of Islam. Really, that's it. So the notable incidents in this article should be moved to Islamophobia. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:51 15 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is reliable. --alidoostzadeh 22:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TBA (Christina Stürmer)

TBA (Christina Stürmer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.There is not a title, track listing, or source for this article, although it will supposedly be released this year. The article should be deleted now until something more meaningful is known. I have no objections to recreation later. --Cyrus Andiron 17:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - This is a new low. Thus far we only saw these articles as soon as a new album was actually announced with a title an such but "to be announced" is the crystal-balliest (sic) of them all... 1redrun Talk
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Brazilian grindcore, noise and hardcore bands

Yet another redlink farm. It is possible that some,or even many of these may be notable, but this is absolutely impossible to assess. Circeus 19:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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