Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 18

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Page deleted by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Non-admin closure. Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 15:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guitar Hero Masters of Metal

Guitar Hero Masters of Metal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Failed prod. Unverified game with no substantial Google hits; likely a hoax. Nufy8 00:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete in terms of the actual speculation I could find on the internet (which would still violate WP:CRYSTAL), it looks like this isn't even the rumor... Aerosmith is. So either 'unsourced' speculation or WP:HOAX. ~Eliz81^(C) 01:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources cited. This name is unlikely, as the name would be too similar to the recent PS2 game Monster 4x4: Masters of Metal. Caknuck 01:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax. Maxamegalon2000 05:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Epic Super 4x Strong Star Power Activated 8x Delete. This is totally a hoax. ViperSnake151 00:34, 21 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. Walton^One 14:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passion Conferences

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

Non-notable ministry. No reliable sources. Corvus cornix 23:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No reliable sources cited (the SBC Baptist Press can't be qualified as independent in this case). Even if this is kept, the articles about the conference recordings (Passion: Better is One Day, etc...) certainly fail any and all notability tests. Caknuck 01:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep these conferences look like pretty major events. Google news hits reference the event as having anywhere from 10,000 attendees in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram to over 20,000 people in the Belleville News-Democrat, and is the subject of articles in the Washington Times, Atlanta Journal, and many other local newspapers. Article needs cleanup and these articles added as references. ~Eliz81^(C) 01:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This looks likely to be notable to me based on the content of the article (10 conferences over 10 years) and the fact that I had heard of it before (not that me hearing about it makes it notable, just that I know it does exist and I think they're pretty large). However, I don't see any good sources in this article to assert the notability. I'll change to "Keep" if someone cleans up this article to add some. Cogswobbletalk 17:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep If editing will fix the article than it does not qualify for deletion, deletion is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Ratherhaveaheart 17:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything that could fix this article to make it notable. That's why I nominated it. Please assume good faith. Corvus cornix 20:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Quite enough refs in Google News to be added to show notability--not just local papers: Washington Times [1], Atlanta Constitution [2] etc etc .
• Delete nn group. passing references are insufficient; significant coverage is required under WP:N unless we want to become a directory of every conceivable group or business which can find some passing references in reliable sources, then we're the YP (yellow pages) not WP. Carlossuarez46 22:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As per Ratherhaveaheart, if it can be edited to fix it - it's not deletable. The conferences return many refs in google searches and they are big, very big. They have become internationally known (e.g. I'm from Australia and I know of them). If it helps, I'll find someone 'trustworthy' to quote. Richardschwarz.oz 06:56, 25 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 01:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vopt

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

A defrag utility. All sources are either generic or listings. This has not been primary subject of any non-trivial independent coverage, as far as the sources tell. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, a classic utility with nearly 25 years on the market. A favorite of Jerry Pournelle mentioned numerous times in his BYTE columns, but I'm not sure how much of BYTE is online. Has evolved from MS-DOS to Windows 95 to NTFS-based systems. 44 Google Books results is unusually high and collates many periodical reviews as well as professional books that recommend it for consultants or end-users. --Dhartung | Talk 23:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Not only have I used the software sporadically for the past few decades, but the article seems to establish and support notability. Alansohn 03:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Several notable references are listed: 2 books, and a review. In the review "Defragment Your Hard Drive" in PC Today February 2004, Vol.2 Issue 2 Page(s) 78-80

Golden Bow Systems VoptXP

RATINGS: Interface: 8, General usability: 8, Feature set:10, Documentation: 8, OVERALL: 9

VoptXP is the fastest defragmenter of the lot, probably because it defragments when there is absolutely no other activity. Still, for most people it is more than adequate, and much, much faster than Disk Defragmenter. Its $40 price tag makes it a decent value when you consider that it also includes an array of diagnostics and maintenance utilities. With VoptXP, you can automatically remove cookies, Inter-net history files, and temporary files; test your memory usage; and even perform error checking.

Then there is the Jerry Pournelle quote:

Chaos Manor Users Choice Awards: "For about the twentieth year in a row the Chaos Manor Users Choice Award for disk defragmenter goes to Golden Bow's VOPT."

Surely it isn't necessary to list all 20 of Jerry's articles, many of which appeared in print in Byte magazine? Then there are the references to Vopt in the well-respected "Security Now" podcasts. If both Steve Gibson and Jerry Pournelle have referred to this product, then it is notable. RitaSkeeter 06:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I feel that Guy misrepresented the sources as well. I will WP:AGF in that it is common for spammy articles to "source" generic statements to major books, but in this case, I think it's clear that the books actually dealt with the product. If not, we can easily replace them with sources accessible through Google Books or A9. --Dhartung | Talk 06:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well why not put the Jerry Pournelle stuff in? It distinguishes the product form others and makes it an article instead of a directory entry. Plus I'm a Pournelle fan (though only in treeware). Guy (Help!) 17:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to put the Pournelle stuff in, then put it in. What's stopping you? RitaSkeeter 20:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Why am I not surprised? The sources listed seem the most relevant, yet the WP admins feel it is their perogative to shoot the article down in flames, and wait for others to pick up the pieces. The same thing happened with JkDefrag (only worse) and I expect the same to happen with O&O Defrag and PerfectDisk. I wonder what they hope to achieve by this, apart from a smug feeling of improving WP by deleting content? --Donn Edwards 13:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Another fundamental issue is that Wikipedia:Deletion Policy -- Wikipedia official policy that requires "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion" -- seems not to have been followed here. The policy, which seems to have been completely ignored here, requires nominators to consider alternatives to deletion -- such as editing, tagging or merging the article -- before considering deletion as a last resort. Given that the article as it existed when nominated for deletion made explicit claims of notability and provided ample sources, there seems to be little justification for this clear policy violation. At a minimum, an explanation of the nominator's actions would be in order. Alansohn 14:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• The article has been here for a while and still contains not one source which is primarily about this product. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a directory, article subjects should have been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial independent coverage. The debate above asserts that it has, but that information is not in the article. "ZOMG! Notable" is all very well, but the article reads as an entry in a directory of defragmentation utilities, drawn form a number of reviews of defragmentation utilities, and that is not what an encyclopaedia does. I am quite prepared to believe that it is significant, but it doesn't look it from the article. And I am a heartless deletionist bastard who dislikes directory entries on commercial products, because I've been abused by too many spammers. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• While I appreciate your candor in explaining why it is that you take out your misplaced anger at perfectly viable articles such as this one, the article provides the claims of notability and sourcing you keep on stating don't exist, and were there when you marked the article for deletion. There seems to be little support for your contention that the sources provided don't just retention. Your responsibilities in nominating any article for deletion are well-described at Wikipedia:Deletion Policy, and your acknowledgement that this article could meet your own personal standards places you squarely under this policy's requirement that "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion.", yet I seem to be unable to find any evidence of any such effort, which further undermines the validity of this and other such AfDs improperly submitted. Alansohn 19:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"I've been abused by too many spammers" is simply nonsense. If you are assuming that the article was written to spam WP, then you are violating the primary WP:AGF assumption. RitaSkeeter 20:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Alansohn, it seems like you're overlooking an obvious way around the apparent requirement to edit or tag before AfD. If the nominator feels that the page can not be improved, there are no other obligations. On the diff you supplied above, only references 3 and 6 were actually about disk defraggers, but reference 6 didn't even mention Vopt. None of the references mention Vopt in the first 3 paragraphs. If that's the best that can be found to establish notability, I can see why someone would call this article beyond improvement and immediately go for AfD. --JJLatWiki 23:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep - but change the tone and style, to address JzG's concerns. This is not a collection of software reviews; and I'd certainly say the same thing about similarly non-encyclopedic entries on the other utilities Donn mentions! --Orange Mike 18:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any edits by Orangemike so I assume we are all waiting for someone else to do it. RitaSkeeter 20:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge - I agree with JzG that in the world, this product is not notable. But in the smaller world of defragmentation utilities, it's extremely rare for there to be an article about a specific defrag utility. At most, I would expect shoot-out-type articles. Does that satisfy notability? I would say, "maybe". If there is a preponderance such favorable comparisons and minor awards, then I would say, "yes". Recently, in PC Mag or some other printed magazine I get, there was a short article about a single anti-virus program that I had never heard of, and I think the author hadn't either, that the author just hated. I would prefer a WP article about a long-lived, well-reviewed utility that never held title billing, over a WP article about a recently release, once-reviewed and panned utility that has a single article but holds title billing. That being said, assuming the article on defragmentation is now too large, maybe there should be an article titled Disk defragmentation utilities, and merge in a short paragraph about each of the notable such utilities. --JJLatWiki 18:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"But in the smaller world of defragmentation utilities, it's extremely rare for there to be an article about a specific defrag utility." I'm sorry but there are already articles about Contig, PageDefrag, WDD and Diskeeper. Why not just nuke them all? RitaSkeeter 20:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not strongly opposed to nuking them all. They all skirt the fringe of the notability standard. An article that says there ARE such utilities and a handful of examples should be adequate. --JJLatWiki 21:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There is such a list of utilities, but it was deleted from the defragmentation article and can be found on Mr Edwards' talk page (oh dear, now some clever fellow has deleted it. Such is democracy, I guess RitaSkeeter 07:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)). Alternatively, the category on Optimization software already exists. The reason why each article is listed separately is to provide the level of detail and sources required by the notability requirements. There are links to reviews if a review is reqiured, and WP is not the place to write software reviews. There is a similar debate raging about the JkDefrag article, and I wish the posters here would rather spend some time working on the articles instead of arguing about them. It's becoming a trifle tiresome. --RitaSkeeter 20:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not proposing a list of such utilities. I propose an article about such utilities with a handful of the most notable examples. Hopefully there would be some technical differences in how each utility actually works or how their algorythms differ. I'm also not proposing reviews or how well each program has done in the reviews. Maybe some use a Microsoft provided API while others use their own technique, and maybe others run only from a DOS or non-Windows OS. Maybe some use some active technique for preventing fragmentation. If they all use the same Windows API, who really cares if one is faster than the other? Even if it is today, was it also faster 5 years ago and will it be faster 5 years from now? By the way, this is the first I've been involved in this family of articles and I simply offering my opinion on the AfD. I don't care enough to do much more than that. --JJLatWiki 21:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Opinions are a dime a dozen. How about some editing work? --Donn Edwards 07:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added further referencs to verify the "fast" claim:

• "Disk Organizer "Vopt Is something of a miracle. It performs Its disk reorganization chores In seconds, Instead of the minutes and even hours ..." in Personal Computing Magazine v.11 no.7-9 1987.
• "VoptXP is the fastest defragmenter of the lot, probably because ..." in PC Today Software Reviews February 2004.
• "Vopt 8.20 is a fast and easy to use defragmenter ..." in CHIP magazine, 2007

Hope this helps! --Donn Edwards 07:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What I was saying is that "fast" isn't special and a claim that is probably made for every competing program. Even with numerous references saying it's fast, the most that should be said in an encyclopedia is, "Vopt is often described as, "fast"." Are any of the sources about Vopt? Or are all the sources about defragging in general or optimizing a computer in general and Vopt is a well-regarded option for handling the task? Basically all that these references do is prove that Vopt exists, Vopt is a defragger, some reviewers like or prefer Vopt, in reviews it is often fast or even fastest relative to some other defraggers, and it has recieved awards of unknown significance. For some people that may not satisfy the notability standard that says, "sources address the subject directly in detail". --JJLatWiki 16:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yawn: there are so many opinions, so few edits. Is it really necessary to spend all this time arguing when the article is actually quite useful? --Donn Edwards 07:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - Yes, it is; "useful" is not a valid reason for retaining an article. --Orange Mike 16:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • What is the actual problem?

• Is the article too short and generic?
• Is there a conflict of interest?
• Is the "notability" of the product still in question?
• Are the sources unaccepable?

I am finding this entire debate vague and unhelpful in resolving the CONTENT of the article. Is it possible for you gentlemen to restrict your comments to the article in question, and what possible edits could be made to improve it? Thanks in advance RitaSkeeter 20:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone has corrected the original issue that landing this in AfD: notability. Still the only sources cited do NOT address the subject of the article directly or in detail. And based on that, I have changed my recommendation by striking the "keep" and now suggest only merging with a less specific article. But I doubt the AfD will succeed at this point. So this may be for naught. --JJLatWiki 21:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Insn't it just great when no-one can answer a simple question!? This article was marked for deleteion because someone thought it might be a spam attempt. It is a product that has been available for two decades, and comes highly recommended by people who understand computers, and which is mentioned in ALL the sources cited. Of course none of this matters because no-one actualy knows why the article should be deleted, but it should, purely because it can be deleted by the the folks who "care" so much about WP that they cannot follow the basic procedure: "This software-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." Am I the only one who can read, but AfD does not expand the article or improve WP. --Donn Edwards 20:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the AfD nomination is spelled out at the top of this page as a basic failure to meet to the notability standard: "This has not been primary subject of any non-trivial independent coverage". That standard has still not been met. Being "mentioned in ALL the sources cited" does not quite make it all the way to meeting the standard of "sources address the subject directly in detail". "Addressing" the subject and "mentioning" the subject aren't quite the same thing. Asking other editors to expand the article with the stub tag also does not address the basic failure to establish notability. As this debate has progressed, the article has been expanded and turned into an even bigger advertisement with summaries of the various reviews and recommendations. There is still no substance that explains why Vopt, among its numerous competitors, is special. For example, the current article says, "[Vopt's] method of defragmentation is highly efficient", but never describes Vopt's method. Unless that "method" is to do an incomplete defragmentation which I infer from another sentence that says, "The convenience of quick procesing time is offset by less optimal performance". With some minor copyeditting, Vopt could easily take this article and use it for their advertising. Deleting this article would not harm WP and may bring more credibility to WP by removing another trivial article. --JJLatWiki 22:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think you misspoke when you said, "is mentioned in ALL the sources cited". Or maybe my Find function isn't working on that page, but when I look at reference 9, I can't find where Vopt is mentioned. --JJLatWiki 22:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• "... If you are looking for even faster defragmentation, Golden Bow's (www.vopt.com) VoptXP (which also supports Windows 9x, Me, and 2000) is a longtime favorite because of its incredible speed and efficiency. ..." in Upgrading and Repairing Microsoft Windows Scott Mueller, Brian Knittel, page 512 --Donn Edwards 21:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• "Windows gives you two tools for maintaining your hard drive and helping its performance. ... Check Disk and Defrag aren't the best tools available for maintaining your hard drive. You can find better versions of these tools in third-party utilities ... another good alternative for the Defrag tool is Vopt ("Vee-Opt") from Golden Bow Systems ..." in Chapter 23 Troubleshooting Your PC For Dummies by Dan Gookin (2005) page 309-310 --Donn Edwards 21:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• I use the VOPT program from Golden Bow Systems to rearrange the files on my fragmented disks." in Supercharging Windows by Judd Robbins, pg 625 - Sybex 1992 (ISBN ISBN 0895888629) --Donn Edwards 21:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The deletion reasons supplied are: "A defrag utility. All sources are either generic or listings. This has not been primary subject of any non-trivial independent coverage, as far as the sources tell". To go through these "reasons" one by one:

a) "a defrag utility". Presumably software of this category is somehow unwelcome in the fine pages of WikiPedia.

b) "all sources are ... generic": The extensive qiotes above are hardly generic, but refer to the product specifically and by name.

c) "all sources are ... listings". If an article providing multiple reviews of several products in the same category constitues a "listing", then the articles are being deliberately misread.

d) "not been the primary subject of any non-trivial independent coverage". Again, this is overly harsh and unneccesary: all the coverage listed is independent, and to describe it as trivial is a disservice to the discussion.

This leaves the question of why the article should be "allowed" on WP at all: because Vopt is a long-standing product in this category (preceeding Windows itself by several years), with as much right to be covered as Diskeeper or the Windows Disk Defragmenter. In fact, the article provides more information about Vopt than either of the other articles provide about their respective products. Since the article is neither spam not an advertisement, what reasons remain for deleting it other than the obvious bias, ignorance and prejudice of those who want it deleted in the face of the facts stated in the article.

"Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion". I suggest the admins withdraw the deletion, and allow the article to be improved, if the existing improvements aren't already good enough. 41.243.102.199 14:46, 22 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 CSD G11. — Caknuck 01:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paulette Dozier

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

Fails notability as outlined in WP:BIO. Googling fails to turn up anything notable about the albums either. Is also a thinly veiled WP:ADVERT for the new album (if there is any doubt, see that it is copied nearly word-for-word from an ad: [3]), not to mention it appearing to be self-promotion with flowery descriptions. —Mrand ^T-C 22:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, it's a copyvio from http://cdbaby.com/cd/paulettedozier2. A COI vioaltion, too. Corvus cornix 23:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  Agreed to speedy delete based upon on copyvio. Good catch. —Mrand ^T-C 00:49, 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 Keep. Maxim_(talk) 15:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calvin Cheng

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

Non-notable bio. Article was originally prodded. Keb25 06:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No news articles on GoogleNews. Scores 72 Ghits, most are directory entries, press releases, and a few others which are irrelevant. Although the sources in the article recognise he is the head of Elite Asia, are all trivial mentions or rentaquotes. Most of the details in the artcile appear therefore to be unverifiable. Ohconfucius 07:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Run-of-the-mill corporate figure appearing in 5 unique news articles in the google archives, of which 2 are subscription only and 1 doesn't work. --Mud4t 08:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment subscription articles are perfectly acceptable sources. DGG (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

- Hi Which of you here who have voted delete is a fashion and modelling industry expert/person in South East Asia?Aricialam 18:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 08:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I live and work in Asia as a fashion editor and this man is the President of the Modelling Industry of Singapore, was the Head of asia for the biggest agency in the world, sits on several boards in Singapore and was recognised by the Singapore government as 40 outstanding singaporeans under 40. He is a notable figure in Singapore and Malaysia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aricialam (talk • contribs) 09:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I am a model in Singapore and Malaysia and I can verify that this man is notable in his industry in this region. His company now manages Amber Chia , a supermodel that whose bio is also on Wikipedia, as will as other stars in south east asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meganchua (talk • contribs) 10:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC) — Meganchua (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment I have replaced Afd with BLPSources. There was really no reason to nominate this article for deletion, especially by a user that has shown no interest or experience with the fashion industry in Singapore and Malaysia. All points are verifiable through a phone call to relevant organisations mentioned in this article. User who nominated this article for prod did so in bad faith, not justifying it. Keb25 then went on to try on various other tags including NPOV, again without justification. Aricialam 20:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I admittedly know nothing about the Asian fashion industry. However, I see no independent verification of the puffery claims about this person being the "leading expert on fashion modeling in Asia." He's quoted once or twice in a few articles about Asian fashion. Getting quoted once in a while does not mean notability -- there are lots of company heads out there who are not notable enough for Wikipedia. Some of you may work in the industry and can "verify" his notability. Fine, feel free to do so by citing some better references. And inviting us to make "a phone call to relevant organisations[sic]" is not particularly helpful. Cap'n Walker 15:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Independent verification does not have to be other articles found on the internet. It is verified by the citations that he was the Head of Elite Model Management for Asia. It is verified and well-known that Elite is the most famous and largest model agency network in the world. It is verified again through the links that his new company manages stars in SE Asia, each with many google hits and their own entries on Wikipedia. It is verified that he sits on the board of a presitiguous quasi-governmental body in Singapore. All of these points alone are enough to establish notability, at least in the countries he operates in, in the industries he is in. Do not take my word for this - please click on the links yourselves that these facts are all true.Aricialam 20:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I've gone through and cleaned up the article, for what it's worth. I think the notability here is borderline. If you're getting quoted by all sorts of international publications, it's definitely a hint that you're notable. Obviously the sources don't verify all the material in the article, but they do establish that he was the head of Elite modeling in Asia (which I think is a pretty big deal, considering it's the biggest agency in the world) and the other positions he's had, which are marginally notable. I suggest erring on the side of keep, since he's from Singapore and many sources may be in Chinese or otherwise difficult to locate for Western editors like me. Also one thing to keep in mind is that many reliable publications in the fashion industry are not online (most of my work is for WP:FASHION, which I founded, and this is often a problem) so it's possible there articles about him that are in physical magazines and the like. Calliopejen1 20:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - notability seems to have been established. Fosnez 04:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - article has undergone some changes late in the discussion and these changes should be given further consideration before the debate is closed. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Plenty o' citations now. Guy seems notable enough. Certainly, if I stumbled across this article in its present form I would never consider it for deletion. SolidPlaid 22:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Week keep - Marginally notable (but suffers from inherent lack of citations in coverage outside major English-speaking countries, and also tendency of commentators, pundits, and analysts to get published for their work and not their personal history), article is written properly, adds to encyclopedic coverage, is not an insult to Wikipedia. Wikidemo 23:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Week keep - borderline on sources but should be given the benefit of the doubt as it stands to logic based on his verifiable position that there would be other major sources not in English or not available online, as explained by Calliopejen1. -Markdsgraham 01:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I interviewed this man for an article in 2004 but unfortunately it is not published that this is true "In a short span of 3 years, he started Elite agencies in Bombay, New Delhi, Seoul, Ho Chi Minh City, Hanoi and Shanghai. At its height, Cheng's control over the Elite modelling franchise spanned 10 cities including Singapore, Hong Kong, Jakarta and Tokyo.". Any opinions on whether we can re-include it?Also I think thus quote is interesting and verifiable "In Newsweeks article on the Perfect Face (November 2003) which made famous Canadian model Saira Mohan (Newsweek described her as "the perfect example of global beauty"), Cheng was quoted as saying that “There is an increased awareness of all things oriental in the West. And with [the rise] of China, I think this trend is set to continue.” " Should we re-include it? Aricialam 05:16, 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 keep. Wizardman 17:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 7:22

7:22 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Bible study group. Corvus cornix 22:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep per mentions in the Atlanta Journal, including a full article on the group in 1997. Groups can still have notability even when local. ~Eliz81^(C) 01:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Eliz81. --RucasHost 06:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete clearly fail WP:N, mere "mentions" as pointed out by the two keepers above fall so far below the significant coverage expected to discount the position taken by them. C'mon if mere mention = significant coverage then WP:N is broken. Carlossuarez46 22:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC) re-worded. Carlossuarez46 03:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment thanks for the rewording, though I most assuredly understand your frustration. ~Eliz81^(C) 03:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I didn't purchase the full text of the one linked Atlanta Journal article. It is 941 words, so not itself all that long. But it clearly (from the linked intro) has the organization as the primary subject, so "mere mention" isn't a great description of that article either. GRBerry 16:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough for my satisfaction Mbisanz 17:02, 27 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 Deleted by Nawlin Wiki. Non-admin closure--JForget 23:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-hip hop

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

non-notable slang, racist cruft, pov, etc etc etc. No good speedy criteria  superβεεcat  22:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as incoherent Patent Nonsense. In the event the speedy tag I placed doesn't stick vote Strong Delete. Exxolon 22:20, 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. Maxim_(talk) 17:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Previous United Airlines destinations

Previous United Airlines destinations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

It is my humble opinion that this sort of listing is not necessary for Wikipedia to have, it might be enough to just have a link to the appropriate everything2.com page. The United Airlines article could talk a little bit about destinations that have been discontinued and why. Plinth molecular gathered 22:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I don't understand how this is encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a collection of everything. MarkBul 22:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not for Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics, and most especially not for a list of "previously" loosely associated topics.—Mrand ^T-C 23:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic at all.--JForget 23:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article only contains lists, not encyclopedic content. — Wenli ^(contribs) 00:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Is this a joke? Sefringle^Talk 00:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Of no possible interest to anyone. Mandsford 00:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into United Airlines destinations (though that article needs work itself, too). Robert Happelberg 02:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above -- seems like the best solution. A table format would go a long way towards making this more readable, too. -- phoebe/(talk) 06:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Whilst *** destination articles have been up for deletion in the past and survived as an integral part of the Airlines Project, I don't see how this serves any purpose in an encyclopaedic sense, and with no prose at all I would say it is squarely against WP:NOT --Russavia 09:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but expand with information as to why these flights were discontinued. Cromulent Kwyjibo 14:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I suspect all these were discontinued for the same reason, in which case all we need is a paragraph in the United Airlines article ending with something like "... leading to the discontinuation of selected flights all over the world." Slappywag42 14:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Robert Happelberg, though I'm not all that excited about keeping the information around. Actually, some sort of information about why the airline stopped flying to those destinations would be useful. In the current destinations, some sort of information about the importance of the routes might be useful. (For example, Minneapolis to Chicago might be a fairly busy route for United, but Northwest Airlines might have more of the market share.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merger I don't why anyone wants to delete useful info like this. --CSharpBeatsJava 02:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is NOT a list of routes (i.e. this is NOT a list of city pairs). The fact that an airline totally pulled a destination is significant and encyclopaedic. Why? Because the airline totally removed itself from having a presence in city and exited that market. The sunk costs of restarting a previously served market are enormous (and much higher than adding incremental flights) and thus important to track. Thanks! --Inetpup 06:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Difficult to verify, does not assert notability. --Matt 11:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Why such a short explanation? Doesn't seem to do justice.--Inetpup 05:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Do I vote here? Please keep this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AirportFriend (talk • contribs) 19:57, 21 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 three as non-notable, unreferenced neologisms. GTBacchus^(talk) 01:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quasi-Realist

Quasi-Realist (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Pretty sure this is non-notable slang.  superβεεcat  22:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, and also wish to nominate the related articles:

Slasher-lite (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Backwoods Slashers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

All appear to be be original research from the same contributor, describing sub-genres in Slasher film (which I have removed for the time being) Marasmusine 22:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT Makes sense to include these as well per reasons of my original nom. - superβεεcat  22:44, 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. Non-admin closure. Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 16:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Page deleted by: User:DragonflySixtyseven.
• Reason was: made up.

[edit] John 117 War Memorial Monument

John 117 War Memorial Monument (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The so-called "monument" is actually a seen in a Halo 3 videogame commercial (it is dedicated to "John 117" a.k.a. "Master Chief", a Halo character), apparently "created in 2067" and hosted at the "Museum of Humanity", according to Google. No evidence to its real status or location. Nehwyn 21:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing to indicate that this exists outside of the game. Caknuck 01:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, and transwiki over to the Halo Wiki. This is the sort of thing it's there for... :) -- phoebe/(talk) 06:30, 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 redirect to Internet slang. Shyamal 03:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Webcronyms

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

Not a dictionary, non-notable jargon, no appropriate speedy category (nonsense?)  superβεεcat  21:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. 2 google hits for webcronym, 4 for webcronyms---aside from www.afterhours-literati-cafe.com, of course: caffeine-induced mania by members of the worldwide literati acronyms with some support the diplomatic initiatives to bring in bosnia we are references webcronyms acronyms for tne the delorenzo emergency medicine hilt from the all acronyms with some stood naked facing the was went a-wooing like sensible false references webcronyms acronyms for tne the www acronym Huh? Jack^(Lumber) 00:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete ye with a will, for Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Alba 04:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Abba. ffm 13:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or redirect with Internet slang. Bearian 20:36, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IWEBTOOL

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

Spammy advertisement. Link to an Alexa graph is not acceptable claim of notability. ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no evidence of notability presented - seems to be spam. --Fredrick day 22:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — Wenli ^(contribs) 00:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- Google news archive search: zero hits. --A. B. ^(talk) 00:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ffm 13:05, 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 no consensus/keep. There was an initial surge in deletes, however if you look at the article history, there was a major overhaul during the course of this AfD. It seems like this AfD prompted editors to try to improve this article and address the nominators concerns. While perhaps still having issues, many following commentors felts the new, improved version was worth keeping. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-Darwinism

Neo-Darwinism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Creationist POV fork of modern evolutionary synthesis. Deleted once and redirected to modern evolutionary synthesis for 3.5 years, recreated today by an editor refusing to recognize WP:NPOV, particularly its WP:UNDUE clause. Odd nature 20:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete/restore redirect There are also serious WP:OR issues with the article as it currently stands. JoshuaZ 20:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC) comment I have no objections to a major rewrite as per Dave below. JoshuaZ 13:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC) keep for now per Dave's attempt to do a rewrite. JoshuaZ 16:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. This article is better covered elsewhere. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I am not convinced we need two articles that are so similar.--Filll 21:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep this is a new page, not a restoration of the old one, which I have put a great deal of work into. There is nothing in the least bit aggressive in my approach, which has been to explain what I am doing and why in advance at all times and at great length. Sadly, certain editors persist in labelling me as a creationist, despite my insistance that I am anything but that. The alteration of the original page to a redirect was done without notification or flagging on the page, and was not in line with accepted reasons for creating a re-direct. Quite simply, neo-Darwinism is a term with a long history of use, and much current use, both by leading evolutionists and by opponents to evolutionary theory. It is not another term for Modern evolutionary synthesis but differs in very important respects, as I have fully explained on both talk pages. It therefore does not meet any of the criteria for becoming a redirect. I have some support for this view, and given time I expect more, and I am quite prepared to seek consensus, but I believe the proper place for that in at neo-Darwinism and not Modern synthesis. I reject suggestions that the term is somehow "obnoxious" (as one editor puts it) or associated with Creationism. It is not. It's a perfectly legitimate term. In any case, turning it into a redirect is not a valid way to challenge the content of any page. This is most certainly not a 'POV fork'. It does not present an alternative view of anything, in fact I am keen to separate out the term to make the article Modern synthesis stronger, as at the moment the latter is self-contradictory as explained in the talk. No cogent case has been made for OR, or POV, or UDUE, despite requests. There is no OR, and the cites are primary in that they are given as evidence of useage, not in support of useage, see my explanation in talk. --Memestream 21:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: cogent case for WP:OR -- the lead, 'Why 'Neo'-Darwinism' (by far the largest) and 'The Modern Synthesis' sections contain either solely non-reliable (and sparse at that), or no, citations. Hrafn42^Talk_Stalk 03:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A new page with an editing history back to 2003? I am confused. • Lawrence Cohen 06:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork and OR. Didn't we go through this before? •Jim62sch• 21:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, what cited material there is might make a reasonable section in History of evolutionary thought, since this material is primarily a discussion of how a term has been used through the history of evolutionary biology. However, better sources are needed that discuss the usage of the term directly. Most of these citations are not to reliable sources - primarily web encyclopedias, a creationist website and personal webpages. Tim Vickers 21:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

NOTE - Discussion of the comment in the nomination about an editor being an "aggressive creationist POV warrior" moved to the talk page. Tim Vickers 23:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Looking at what links to the article might be insightful for some people. Note also how the term is used in those articles. There is no doubt that the term is used by creationists, but note that words like queer and even atheist have a history of being used pejoratively. I would strongly argue against any 'speedy action. 22:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benhocking (talk • contribs)
• Delete - Merge relevant content into History of evolutionary thought per Tim Vickers.--Danaman5 21:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If we merge content then we need to leave a redirect to comply with the GFDL. JoshuaZ 23:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Pete.Hurd 22:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete & re-redirect, transfer any salvageable, reliably sourced, material to History of evolutionary thought, per Tim Vickers. Pete.Hurd 22:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete basically nothing worth salvaging from this POV fork. Creator understands neither NPOV, NOR or RS. ornis (t) 22:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The Modern Synthesis covers it. Neo-Darwinism is a perfectly good term, but the author here is confused for some reason. Neo-Darwinism is the combination of Darwin's Natural Selection with Mendel's genetic mechanism. The combination of the two created a clear understanding of how selection functioned across generations - which even Darwin puzzled over. The creator is seeing a problem where there is none. MarkBul 22:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, this term does have a historical meaning that is distinct from the modern synthesis (see PMID 15241603). Although this present article fails entirely to define or discuss this adequately, the term can be discussed in a section in the History of evolutionary thought and this title redirected to that article. Tim Vickers 00:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • A single source is too small a sample to establish notability of the viewpoint. Odd nature 00:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • See also DOI: 10.1078/1431-7613-00004 Tim Vickers 00:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I notice however, that his historical usage is already explained in the Modern evolutionary synthesis article. I've added a reference to this. No need for a new section in the "History of evolutionary thought" article, the redirect to modern synthesis would be fine. Tim Vickers 00:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Get this OR and POV creationistcruft out of here. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 00:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Original research, POV fork. Sefringle^Talk 00:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete: this article is nothing more than a OR POV-fork. What few sources it does cite mostly range from questionable to grossly non-WP:RS. Hrafn42^Talk_Stalk 02:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly a one-sided POV Fork. Author appears to have WP:OWN issues as well WP:NPOV problems. FeloniousMonk 03:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Unscientific, unsourced, original research, and rubbish. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 06:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As an uninvolved editor, I can't tell where the claims of this being a "creationist pov fork" are coming from -- this seems to be trying to put forth a history of the usage of the term, and I see nothing that looks like a creationist pov here. (To clarify: neo-Darwinism is a term that's used by creationists out in the world, but I don't see this article being biased in favor of creationism). I'd merge it into History of evolutionary thought, per Tim Vickers, and try to improve the refs. -- phoebe/(talk) 06:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Redirect with a drastic re-write and reliable references. A TalkOrigins Archive piece by John Wilkins notes the term's early meaning, usage during the 1930s-40s (mainly in the UK) and lingering current use among scientists as well as increasing use by creationists.[4] Another useful quote is "Some scientists continue to refer to modern thought in evolution as Neo-Darwinian. In some cases these scientists do not understand that the field has changed but in other cases they are referring to what I have called the Modern Synthesis, only they have retained the old name."[5] The article can be useful for explaining this to anyone who looks it up. Any objections to me having a go? .. dave souza, talk 09:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • First go at re-write – the intro now reflects the way I think the article should develop, with sources from TalkOrigins Archive. I've commented out sections which seemed to overlap the modern synthesis article or were rather dubious. ... dave souza, talk 14:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I've added some better sources and removed redundant paragraphs. The article is now two well-sourced paragraphs dealing explicitly with the usage and history of the term. This could make an acceptable stub, or a section within History of evolutionary thought, if a redirect is thought to be the best option. Tim Vickers 16:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
      • A redirect to a section in the history article seems good to me, so I've added that option to my "vote". .. dave souza, talk 17:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Redirect. Quite frankly, I don't know if neo-Darwinism is the same as the modern synthesis or not, but that doesn't matter. The term is widely used (by both sides of the "debate"!), so Wikipedia should have an article about it or redirect to the appropriate target. Deletion is not the solution in either case, and requires no administrative powers. Issues of POV, OR, etc. should be resolved through editing and discussion, and if that doesn't work, mediation, arbitration, or whatever it takes. But deleting a common term altogether makes no sense. --Itub 10:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a WP:POVFORK ffm 13:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect or Disambig - if someone types "Neo-Darwinism" into the search box they should be sent to an appropriate article. If there is more than one then make this a disambig page. The above arguments are about the content of this article and not about retaining the title for other purposes such as redirect or disambig. WAS 4.250 16:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If deleted, a search for Neo-Darwinism in the Wikipedia search-box will bring up History of evolutionary thought and Modern evolutionary synthesis. There is no need for a separate article on this confusing and often abused word, increasingly politicized by those involved in the debate about "separation of church and state" in the United States. At the absolute most, it would properly be a permanent redirect to History of evolutionary thought. ... Kenosis 16:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, I've added a note to the present version of the article saying that the majority of the text has been commented out. To avoid confusion in this AfD. Tim Vickers 17:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Neo-darwinism is a standard scientific term, well known in the evolutionary biology literature for decades, long before "modern evolutionary synthesis", and I think distinguishable from it. --and the article says so. The term may have been recently hijacked by the creationists, but that doesnt mean its not a valid article subject. the present article as expertly re-edited by Dave souza andTim Vickers is neutral and sufficient as a start for an article. Those who have looked earlier should re-examine. DGG (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. That the word is "increasingly politicized" and "often abused" is not a reason for deletion, but, yes, caution needs to be taken with what goes here and a merge/re-direct may be the best solution. Bondegezou 16:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG and Bondegzou, but most importantly, fix the POV problem, which is "non-negotiable". Bearian 20:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup POV--יודל 21:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • As a question for the last two editors, are you noticing a POV in the old version of the article, or the current version? Tim Vickers 21:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and source All the article needs is some sourcing. That would easily prove that it is not OR and POV. This subject was covered in great detail in my college science class and if I still had the book I would list it as a source. Any arguments listing it as cruft violate WP:HARMLESS#I_do_not_like_it and therefore should be discounted. Viperix 22:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Just for clarification, are you talking about the old version of the article, or the current version? Tim Vickers 22:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I guess it was sourced, I do not see the problem with the article then. Viperix 20:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The new version of the article is so different from the one I created that great confusion is going to arise now. Never mind. I suggest that the sheer volume of discussion and comment that has arisen here and in the article and on my talk, together with the fact that some 45 other pages link to it, means that the article MUST be kept. All the issues of POV OR or suchlike, which are not just cause for deletion, will get sorted out in the end, but they are deep an complex and the article's talk is the place for that to happen, bit by bit, as an ongoing process, by those editors here who are agreeing that Creationist and Anti-creationist shouting have no place. --Memestream 11:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a patently absurd argument: that the level of criticism of the original article & volume of opinions calling for its deletion is in some way a reason why the article "MUST be kept". The old article was an obvious candidate for deletion, I'm still reserving my opinion on the new version. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep in its current state now that it sources and describes the historical meaning of the term. However, this is with the understanding that Memestream's version is unacceptable as original research and a pov fork that should not be allowed to creep back into the article. —David Eppstein 17:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep in its current state. I was wondering what was wrong with it until I read here that it was almost completely rewritten. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I've stricken my preference to delete. The article, which started out as an original research, POV fork, has come somewhat more into line with WP policy as a properly sourced description of the word "neo-Darsinism". It appears it can be brought into yet better compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. No doubt WP:NPOV#Undue_weight will remain an important issue. Hopefully it will be maintained in keeping with the basic WP policies. ... Kenosis 21:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The second sentence virtually contradicts the first. Basically the article says new Darwinism contains nothing of Darwin's theory. It can't justify using the name Darwinism in its title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moriori (talk • contribs) 04:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. You mean this?

  Neo-Darwinism is a term used to describe certain ideas about the mechanisms of evolution that were developed from Charles Darwin's original theory of natural selection. Its usage is mainly historical, since modern evolutionary theory includes many ideas, notably Mendellian genetics and genetic drift, which are not found in Darwin's work.
  Although it's possible this was modified from when you read it, these two sentences do NOT contradict each other. What it means is that, from an historical standpoint, there have been ebbs and flows in what evolutionary ideas were popular/most important in various eras. 'Neo-Darwinism' really means that the ideas of Darwin became popular again in the 1890's. Today's view is that Darwin was 'mostly right' but that the best view of evolution is a composite that combines Darwin's ideas with that of Mendel and further modifies them with modern understandings. Note that in the same way that modern Einsteinian physics altered but did not completely obliterate Newtonian physics, so Darwin's substantial contribution remains recognized. But that is not the point of the article. The point of the article is to explain the historiography of the term 'Neo-Darwinism.' Note that an idea need not be scientific to be 'notable'. Most evolutionists discard intelligent design as unscientific, but recognize that it has POLITICAL-SOCIAL importance.

  :--Ryoung122 09:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and 'improve'. It seems that some people are so concerned about control, they'll metaphorically shoot down anything not in their control. The fact that the term dates to 1895 suggests this should be kept. It doesn't have to be 'scientific' and it doesn't have to be pro-Darwin or anti-Darwin. This article has significance from an HISTORICAL perspective, just as social Darwinism does.Ryoung122 09:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The original version of this article was horribly POV. The current shorter version is better but still needs improvements to make it more NPOV (see my comments on the talk page). The term neo-Darwinism has had enough different uses historically to justify having a short page to make sense of them, but there is no justification for declaring some of the uses incorrect when so many reliable sources are in conflict.Rusty Cashman 22:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep current version much improved since nomination. Well written and sourced. Gandalf61 10:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This is widely recognised scientific expression.89.107.46.3 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. The article makes a strong case the term "neo-Darwinism" has notable and distinctive use, and it contains an interesting description of the term's history, usage, and meanings as they've changed over time. It's an extremely well-done and informative dictionary entry. The difficulty is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and its policy is to have articles about the significance of subjects, not of terms. As the article makes clear, however distinctive the term may be, the subject is well-covered by History of evolutionary thought and similar articles. I express no opinion as to any motives behind the article's creation. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I disagree with that overly broad interpretation of WP:DICT. Sometimes a term gets to the point that the history and usage of the term itself becomes a legitimate encyclopedic topic of its own. For an extreme case, see nigger (I hope you won't argue that that one should be deleted as well). IMO neo-darwinism is a term that generates enough controversy to justify an article. --Itub 07:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. ::I disagree, though I am concerned that the article has indeed been steered towards being a dictionary entry. I restored the page because I consider this term to be not only one in very widespread use, but quite simply the name properly given to the modern theory of evolution by all who really understand the matter and have not fallen into the trap, propagated by many articles and quotes taken out of context, of assuming that the modern theory of evolution is 'the modern evolutionary synthesis'. If I could win over other editors I would make this page the main article describing the modern theory of evolution, and clean up modern synthesis to make clear the fact that that term refers to a historical landmark, and should not be assumed to refer to the current mainstream theory. I would then make clear on all pages that some writers do take the term 'modern synthesis' to refer to an ongoing process of synthesis, synonymous with neo-Darwinism, but that such use appears to conflict with the dominant useage. I would also make clear that the term was neo-Darwinism was also used in the past where it may have had a more specific meaning at certain times but that to assume a historical meaning only would conflict with the dominant meaning suggested by the overwhelming majority of examples of use. Primary sources overwhelmingly support my case, in that major scientists and experts (Dawkins, Gould, Fred Hoyle, to name just a few major well known ones) use the term more than any other. 'Neo-Darwinism' and it's adjectival form 'ne-Darwinian are convenient terms to use, whereas 'the theory that derives from the so-called modern synthesis' and even 'modern evolutionary theory' are cumbersome. The argument that Fred Hoyle was not a credible scientist or an expert in the field, being used against me at the article, is laughable. He was FRS, and knighted. More imprortantly though, the credentials of users are of no concern when simple asserting use. Fred was a scientist of the highest order, and an expert critic of neo-Darwinism. That he used the term to refer to the modern theory is 'blindingly obvious'. Creationists also use the term (25,000 hits on Google, mostly creationist sites or arguments against the neo-Darwinian theory) and I must emphasise that they use it correctly; not to refer to some imagined or crackpot theory but simply to refer to the modern theory of evolution. This too falls into the category of 'blindingly obvious'. Their use of the term is therefore valid evidence of its meaning, as assumed on a huge scale. I understand that they are all primary sources, and I understand the argument that the conclusion I draw here could be WP:OR, but it falls into the category of 'blindingly obvious'. It passes the test laid down of being an obvious conclusion that would be made by any reasonably intelligent observer, and is not a 'novel synthesis created by juxtaposition of primary sources'. I have appealed for comments on this at wikipedia:verifiability. On these grounds, relegation of the main term that describes our modern theory to a history article would be a huge mistake, granting success to those editors who want to confuse and obscure the subject in an attempt to silence opponents of neo-Darwinism today by obscuring and denying the fact of what it is. If I coould find a 'reliable source' that actually said what I am saying I would use it, but few people seem to have felt the need to say what it is, as opposed to just using it. Brittanica online comes close, saying "Theory of evolution that represents a synthesis of Charles Darwin's theory in terms of natural selection and modern population genetics", but is admittedly vague. ISCID encyclopedia says it exactly with "neo-Darwinism is the modern version on Darwinian evolutionary theory" but is trashed by editors as an 'unreliable source'. --Lindosland 13:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reply to Memestream Wow, you are taking this personally. Neo-Darwinism is definitely a pejorative term hijacked by crackpot creationists (to use your terminology). ISCID is not a real source, it is at best tertiary (kind of like Wikipedia itself). Modern synthesis and modern evolutionary theory are what is used by the scientists in the field. Hardly any use neo-Darwinism any further. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Neologism, OR, and not encyclopedia, better covered elsewhere Mbisanz 19:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep in its current form, though it still needs some work. I further applaud the editors who salvaged this article - that's how AFD is supposed to work. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:52, 27 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. GRBerry 16:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talia Madison

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

This model/wrestler is not notable, the article is poorly written there isn't sources confirming her career, and this article contains fragments and run-on sentences. Also there isn't enough information to make an article about her Art 281 20:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I couldn't find reliable third party sources, but she is heavily mentioned on Professional Wrestling websites. Perhaps someone from this Wikiproject might be of some assistance? ~Eliz81^(C) 01:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think "heavily mentioned is very much an exageration, she may have been mentioned in a trivial manner like "this year's list of diva participants" or something like that but hardly warranting an article on her own. MPJ-DK 20:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I believe the expertise and experience of others within the appropriate community-- in this case, wrestling-- is useful for assessing notability. Hopefully some editors who are familiar with the topic will offer their recommendations here soon. ~Eliz 81^(C) 00:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment With all due respect, MPJ is a member of the wrestling community and has contributed significantly to WP:PW in the past. --Naha|^(talk) 14:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment That doesn't make her a notable person, look at the article! Is poorly written. (And yes I know somebody could add some more information but there aren't any sources. Art 281 03:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Nikki311 19:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I am one of those so called people with "expertise and experience" in the wrestling community. She's not notable, being an early cut in the Diva search isn't enough for a wikipedia article, achieving minor things in wrestling isn't enough. And like I said "Heavily mentioned" is a direct exageration of how much she's been mentioned on wrestling websites - it's been trivial mentions if she's mentioned at all.MPJ-DK 05:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Great! Then thank you for clarifying what helps indicate and not indicate notability in the wrestling community. She had enough hits on wrestling-related websites (as opposed to lengthy articles, in terms of what I meant by 'heavily mentioned') that it gave me pause. Your input is very valuable for wrestling outsiders. ~Eliz81^(C) 07:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per MPJ-DK...and I am also "one of those so called people with 'expertise and experience' in the wrestling community". Nikki311 17:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If she at TNA Bound for Glory (2007) and stays around at TNA after then she deserves a page, otherwise bye bye. Madbassist 10:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete err, I need to read everything before I make comments. As one of those who fits into the same category as MPJ and Nikki, delete per them. --Naha|^(talk) 14:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment after close She also is known as Jamie Szantyr and this link is provided so that What links here for Jamie Szantyr brings up this AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 23:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment after close Talia Madison (Jamie Szantyr) exists, and is arguably notable now (Madbassist's suggested condition has been met). Please either counterargue, or make "Talia Madison" and "Jamie Szantyr" redirect to it (or rename it to one of those, and make the other redirect to that). Emurphy42 16:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Rough consensus is that the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. Jreferee t/c 21:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LiveVideo

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

This article was deleted in standard prod process but I was asked to put it here. So here we go... Supposed bordercase of WP:WEB Tone 20:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I contested the prod out of common sense, but I concede there's a chance I'm wasting everyone's time. The most the site seems to be notable for is luring away YouTube talent. Motley Fool:[6][7][8] New York Times: [9] Quote from Times artice: "The comedy duo Smosh, another of YouTube’s biggest stars, moved to LiveVideo.com, where its videos begin and end with that site’s branding messages. The Smosh stars did not return e-mail messages seeking comment, but David Peck, LiveVideo’s vice president of operations based in El Segundo, Calif., said: “Just as every TV network, film studio and record label in America has done for decades, we are proactively signing talent to bring their work to new audiences.” Mr. Peck would not disclose the terms of its deals with contributors, but other popular YouTube contributors say LiveVideo has recruited them with promises of money in exchange for the right to show their videos exclusively for an introductory period." There might be other sources I can't find at the moment. Ichormosquito 20:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but that is a story about Smosh, not about LiveVideo.com. I've yet to see anything about LiveVideo that meets WP:WEB. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  No need to apologize, I have zero stake in this. I just thought it was too recognizable a site to prod. Other sources might exist. Somewhere. Ichormosquito 22:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, another in a laundry list of non-notable video sharing sites. They do not get free advertising here. For more similarly non-notable articles, see List of video sharing websites. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep See below. Weak delete - Unless more sources can be found. Ichormosquito 22:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of websites-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep [10] Sources abound, although few are primarily related to the site at hand. Cursory mention and partial-articles in the pop. press, however, do seem to qualify as multiple verifiable sources - just need more than you do when more focused sources exist, and solid prose to give 'em context. MrZaius^talk 02:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  None of those sources are articles about the subject. The primary argument here is that the site does not meet notability standards laid out in WP:WEB. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 04:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Don't delete it - these guys are up-and-comers that are positioning themselves (well, actually) as competitors to both YouTube and MySpace. The company was started by Brad Greenspan, who co-founded the company the developed MySpace. It's at least notable for that reason, even though the article sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.243.147 (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Alexa Internet ranks the website as about the 1100th most visited site with about one third the page views as Metacafe a comparable site. Operating 22:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I realize notability by association is a tough sell, but William Shatner has a video blog there: [11]. And here's a source that is mostly about Brad Greenspan, but mentions the Shatner vlog and LiveVideo: [12] For these reasons, and the reasons listed by others, I'm changing my opinion to "weak keep". Indications of notability are good, even if the evidence isn't all there yet. Ichormosquito 03:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete 1100th on Alexa isn't that notable, now if it was the 1000th most notable for 5 years running. Maybe Mbisanz 17:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• delete per nom. can be re-added once (if?) true notability is achieved. stolenbyme 18:26, 27 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 21:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jenny Toth

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

Not a really notable model, she came in second on Project Runway and that is all this page basically states. Tinkleheimer 20:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep Precedent seems to be mostly having articles only for winners, but I think given how famous and widely watched this show is, we can make an exception. GlassCobra 21:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

NoteThe winner doesn't even have a page, if the winner did, I would have to agree with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkleheimer (talk • contribs) 21:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as above Elmao 10:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - a runner-up on a reality show with not other notability. No reliable sources showing notability beyond appearing as a reality tv contestant. -- Whpq 18:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete failed contestant on a reality show, per WP:BLP1E re-create as redirect to the show if need be, but no separate article is warranted. Carlossuarez46 22:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 22:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jacques Teyssier

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

Not really noticeable. Article likely created by himself on French, English and German wikipedias. Deleted on the French wikipedia. Poppy 19:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above and precedent on French Wiki. GlassCobra 20:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and/or Redirect to Volker Beck per lack of notability for an individual article.--JForget 23:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctantly delete per lack of notability. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:31, 25 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, based on the actual policy arguments presented.--Kubigula (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Natural Sapphire Company

The Natural Sapphire Company (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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}}

This page was speedily deleted twice as blatant advertising and has been recreated yet again. The initial version was again very spammy, but it has been cleaned up a tad by another user. I'd like to get some consensus on whether it should stay or not, though. GlassCobra 18:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and salt Prior versions were created (and deleted) less than 7 days as of this AfD. Two speedies, one practically right after another, should indicate a potential problem... Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Also, I doubt seriously that they have released their logo into the public domain. shoy 19:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As per all of above. --Endless Dan 19:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP The initial versions of this page was prepared by someone else and it had mistakes. This new version has all those mistaked corrected and there is nothing spammy in it now. This page is just a bio page like | Blue Nile. The logo in this page has been approved for the public domain. 72.205.63.188 19:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Jebadoss 15:54, September 18 2007 (EST)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.63.188 (talk • contribs)
  • Using the existence of one article is not grounds for justification that another should exist as well. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GlassCobra 20:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Who signed the keep comment above? There are two signatures. Is it 72.205.63.188 or is it Jebadoss? The only reason I ask is because if it was Jebadoss, then I suspect COI here, as the logo was uploaded and justified by Jebadoss Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as I don't see what claim to notability this company has with refrence to WP:CORP other than selling precious stones. --Gavin Collins 20:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • • My guess is that they are one and the same. GlassCobra 04:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Neither, both, maybe all three. I thought it looked funny, so I checked the history and added the {{unsigned}}. -- Ben 14:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Whether or not the prior versions were deleted should not be of consequence. The actual page contents should be decide why it is deleted or not. It looks like the previous versions were created incorrectly. The creator has now fixed their error and is now resubmitting it. The content now has no advertising, nor listing of products. It is a pure BIO page and as stated on | Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes under "companies", this company is noteable. --207.237.82.60 23:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)— 207.237.82.60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Weak delete for being non-notable. Sourcing is very weak, one of two claims to fame ("largest sapphire") is only a $417K stone and the other seems to be that a royal family member patronized the company. There is no context in the article for what it has to do with anything or why we should care. Only a few hundred google hits. If the company is notable I don't really see it in the article. If there's something more to it than that and it can be sourced, my opinion would change to a weak keep. Wikidemo 23:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment According to Wiki rules, Google hits have nothing to do with the entry. See:| Google Test. As for the stone ONLY being 417K, that is the largest price for a sapphire in the US. In the jewelry trade, this company is very well known. Log into any jewelry forum, and you will see posts about NSC. Am I biased about this company since I am in the trade, perhaps. But I am also a fan of Wikipedia and hate pointless deletes, just because the original editor didn't know how to create the page the first time and had to learn from experience. --207.237.82.60 00:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)— 207.237.82.60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep This looks like a bio page of a jewelry company. They have been around for a long time. Doesn't seem like a mom and pop place. And i agree that the page shouldn't be deleted just because of previous errors. --66.30.163.37 02:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)— 66.30.163.37 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 10:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable company. Keb25 10:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I have shopped at The Natural Sapphire Company after seeing stories about them in The Wall St Times and New York Times. I didn’t see the previous pages that were put up, but the page as it stands now, does not seem like blatant advertising at all --69.119.186.15 11:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)— 69.119.186.15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete Does not meet WP:N. This isn't about google hits. It's not about the fact that this isn't the first time the article was posted. It's about notability as defined here. I think the established editors here know that, but sometimes forget to keep writing it for the sake of the new people. -- Ben 14:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I work in the jewelry industry as well. This company is very famous for their collection of sapphires (which is said to be the largest collection in the world). If this doesn't make them notable, what does? Also, WP:N as stated on top of that page, is NOT set in stone. It's easy to research this company on the internet. There are many articles and forum posts. --EvanWasHere 17:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC) — EvanWasHere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep I don't know what all this nonsense is about being notable. the fact of the matter is, the company does exist and someone thought it was notable enough to write about. Wikipedia is a source of knowledge on both the common and uncommon. I cannot see the detriment to having this article up.--207.251.78.62 18:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC) — 207.251.78.62 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete. I did a bit of cleanup on this article without really looking at the sources/references. I should have done so. Of the references, one is a press release from the company; one is a blog post commenting on the press release; one is an article which does not mention the company concerned except in a comment at the end, which could have been added by anyone. None of those qualifies as a reliable source. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yep I came to the same conclusion a while back about the current references. But I think that what's there is an indication of what's really "out there" for sources for this company. -- Ben 14:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources. -- Whpq 18:06, 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. GRBerry 16:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anticon.

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

Non-notable: no sources independent of the subject are listed. Rambutan (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - They're a pretty major independent label. They have their own website, a few of the artists have their own website, you can find their CD's at Best Buy and your local record store, and have been around for a longgggg time. The page as it is right now is fine, could be expanded a little bit. But if you delete this, it'd only be fair to delete the Def Jux, Stones Throw, and Rhymesayers page. Take a look at all the albums they've released. [13] Surely it would be a mistake to delete this page. My 2 Cents at least. ^{Erryday I'm} 18:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - To be on WP it must list several reliable sources independent of the subject. It doesn't. Read WP:NOTE.--Rambutan (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply I'm sure within 5 minutes of using Google you could have several reliable sources for the article. If you like, I could run some by you. ^{Erryday I'm} 19:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Rambutan, that's not at all true. Sources need to exist, but the fact that an article is currently unsourced isn't grounds for deleting it.P4k 22:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The record company is notable. The article needs refs, and I have tagged it accordingly. Refs shouldn't be hard to find - would have been better to tag it and leave some time for refs to be added before AfDing IMHO.--Michig 19:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per the above. A need for cleanup != grounds for deletion. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm sorry. but this fails WP:MUSIC as best as I can see. First of all the link is not exactly reliable. WP:MUSIC states that reliable including but "publications of contact and booking details in directories," and a series of other things. This is a a listing a directory, not a reliable source. Until someone can show me a reliable source, delete. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 22:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If you have references for notability, put them in the article, not here. MarkBul 23:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC
• Keep I have heard of this record company. I have not read the article, but if an editor from the Midwest who doesn't listen to Hiphop has heard of it, chances are it's notable. How about giving the editor(s) a chance to find reliable sources before deleting? (Diego Gravez 23:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC))
• Comment. I didn't know anything about this record label before looking it up in relation to this AfD, but a few minutes on google has demonstrated that the label is clearly notable, as are the artists on the label, and I have now added a number of references to the article which I believe demonstrate notability.--Michig 19:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article might not be the best one in the whole Wikipedia, but I dont see one good reason why it should be deleted. There are all the basic facts about the record label, and some extra as well, before just deleting it we must try to enhance the article, so if anyone has a more reliable source, please use it, and perhaps we´re allowed to keep the article in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyuiopillu (talk • contribs) 10:53, 25 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. Not notable. Shyamal 13:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leonard Zimmerman

Fails WP:BIO. An unencyclopedic article on a self-published author whose lone book, published in 2006, garners two ghits: this article and an Answers.com mirror. The product of several single purpose accounts. Victoriagirl 17:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)"

Delete. No evidence that this author's work is well known or has been the subject of independent articles or reviews; no evidence that it's garnered critical attention or become a significant monument. In short, as Victoriagirl says, fails WP:BIO. To boot, violates WP:BLP, as very little of the article is sourced. --Moonriddengirl 20:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete That article is in fact an... unauthorized autobiography. [14] [15]. He lives in Virginia Beach, VA. Jack^(Lumber) 00:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ffm 13:10, 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. I've noted below the opinions I have discounted. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of unreleased songs by Kylie Minogue

List of unreleased songs by Kylie Minogue (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I've been keeping an eye on this article for some time now - several people have obviously put a lot of work into this list and it is the sort of thing that would be perfect for a Kylie Minogue fansite, or if userified - I actually found it an interesting read. Unfortunately, the article fails WP:V due to a complete lack of references from reliable, published sources for any of the songs listed - and is crammed with original research/speculation about the origin of said songs. Kurt Shaped Box 17:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete a list of non-notable songs. I think other similar lists were deleted too (I recall one for Radiohead??) Lugnuts 18:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the only way these songs are remotely notable is because they were produced by a notable artist. As the title indicates, they've never been released, so have no notability on their own. Include the more notable ones (if there's any difference) in Kylie Minogue and delete the list. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I won't talk on the notability, because I say it is potentially questionable, but in terms of sources, the lack of them that is, delete it. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 22:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Interesting list but lacking sources causing problems for verifiability. Capitalistroadster 02:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)'
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 02:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per Capital. Twenty Years 08:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Although I find it hard to believe anyone would actually waste time trying to veify if someone made this stuff up, I think the main problem is that two of the sources cited are just top-level links for the EMI/ASCAP websites. (Why not BMI, too?). If more exact sources can be found, then this is savable. The main problem I see is Wikipedia's ongoing bias against using "unofficial" websites as sources, an attitude that needs to be updated for 2007 when such pages are becoming used more and more for actual research, and whose webmasters often put in superior work than what official sites and certainly fast-outdated printed material offers. Otherwise Minogue is certainly a major enough and prolific enough artist to justify this sort of article. 23skidoo 12:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but it certainly needs considerable work. The page is currently unverified, but it is not unverifiable, so I don't see that it fails WP:V. Sources could be found and original research trimmed, leaving a valid article. I concur with 23skidoo's comments. Bondegezou 09:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This article may or may not be appropriate for wikipedia. But it clearly represents a tremendous amount of work, and would be a useful resource for a lot of people. If you do delete it, please copy it to the annex first. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 07:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly the article needs some work, but it is informative and useful for someone researching Kylie Minogue. Fosnez 13:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have referenced the Pre-fame section, the sources are out there people, don't sit here any say delete, find them! :-) Fosnez 11:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as far as I can see, this is a copyvio of [16], archived on May 26. Our article landed a few days earlier, but the first version looks like it was copied, and archive.org's first archival date only indicates the page already existed at that time. To close for my liking. If someone wants to stub it, or completely rewrite it, I will change my opinion, as I do believe this topic can be adequately sourced (I even added a source myself :-)) John Vandenberg 11:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep please keep this article... i've always found it useful and interesting to read... although it might not always give its sources, alot of these 'unreleased' tracks have leaked online... proving that many of them do exist... i already have at least 8 of the tracks mentioned as recorded in the section about her new album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.142.179 (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This opinion was discounted by the closing admin as it is from an unregistered user.
• Keep Yes, the article is currently messy but I do not believe that need to be the case. There are a lot of stuff on the article that can be verified. Contrary to what some might think, many of the songs listed have in fact been released - unofficially. In other words, they have been leaked and are circulating on the internet. I myself happen to have many of the songs listed. I would be more than happy to work on improving the article but I'll need some time. Perhaps the following weekend if I'm free. There's no reason to delete the article though - the topic is perfectly legitimate for inclusion in wikipedia and the fact that it is currently messy and unverified should not be grounds for deletion, only improvement. --60.241.170.216 13:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This opinion was discounted by the closing admin as it is from an unregistered user.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete obviously per my remark on the talkpage back in August. EconomicsGuy 19:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep There are unreleased song articles for Madonna, Dannii, ABBA, & Mariah Carey - all in similar unreleased pop song ilk, this article needs major improvement, not deletion, unless you're going to go after all the other articles as well. there was a similar deletion attempt on unreleased Dannii semi-recently. Anyways, keep! =) IceflamePhoenix 03:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This opinion was discounted by the closing admin as it is from a user with very few edits.
• Strong Keep Very well done article. Well organized (chronologically) and offer the truth when it's only "rumoured". There are also articles about The Beatles unreleased stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.122.2.82 (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This opinion was discounted by the closing admin as it is from an unregistered user.
• Delete. If the songs are unreleased they aren't notable individually, putting them in a list simply makes an unnotable list. Operating 22:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I think it is ridiculous to suggest that songs are only notable if they have been officially released by a record company. Music is bigger than the dictates of record companies. Notability should not be confused with popularity or fame. There are many articles on wikipedia on obscure topics and a list of songs that Kylie Minogue has recorded but which has not been released is hardly obscure. This is a perfectly legitimate subject for wikipedia and to think otherwise borders on the absurd. As many people have pointed out above, this article needs to be improved not deleted. --124.183.124.233 02:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This opinion was discounted by the closing admin as it is from an unregistered user.
• Delete. I counted better than 300 "unreleases". Surely these are not all covered by 7 references. Unreleased tracts are certainly not notable unless discussed by independent reliable sources, each, individually, on their own merit. ♫ Cricket02 05:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. If some tracks on that list are not appropriately referenced, then indicate that with individual tags or, eventually, remove them from the article. If however parts of the article are appropriately referenced, then the point you make is not a reason to delete the whole page. Bondegezou 11:55, 27 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.--JForget 22:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AEK Letchworth F.C.

AEK Letchworth F.C. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Amateur football club playing in Sunday league football. The fact that a cameraman plays for them or that they are supposedly supported by celebrities (one of whom is well known to support Torquay United F.C.) do not make them notable. Contested (deleted) prod. Number 57 16:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Number 57 16:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - attempts to establish notability by association (name-dropping), invalid. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete An amateur football club way below the level considered appropriate to be notable. --Malcolmxl5 19:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The league that it belongs doesn't appear itself to be notable, so the team is even less notable.--JForget 23:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Just because a "notable" person (who I don't personally believe actually is notable) plays for them does not make the club notable, any more than his local branch of Tesco is notable because he shops there. And being supported by a celebrity certainly doesn't confer notability, even if it's true, which I find very hard to believe. Ridiculous all round ChrisTheDude 07:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete For all reasons listed above Thurls 10:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - completely non notable. - fchd 17:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. N.B. I placed tags on this article three months ago, in an effort to prod it into something better, which efforts were reverted by a bot. Not much can be done. Bearian 20:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable club in a non-notable ligue... SyG 08:54, 22 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 deleted by Eagle 101‎ (WP:BLP - this guy has done nothing notable to desearve this on wikipedia). Non-admin closure. shoy 18:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Lewis (Pedophile)

Gary Lewis (Pedophile) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This may be a hoax article; none of the links at the bottom seem to function, and I didn't find anything on the web about this (at least, not on the first few google pages). Didn't want to speedy though in case I'm wrong ;) EyeSerene^TALK 16:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It appears that the links were incorrectly formatted. I've fixed them up now. --Kurt Shaped Box 17:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Nomination withdrawn by nominator - please speedy close. Thanks Kurt! The Sun link is still dead, so I've removed that one. EyeSerene^TALK 17:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No worries. My gut feeling upon seeing that article was that it was an attack page created by kids about a teacher they didn't like. I nearly tagged it for speedy myself... --Kurt Shaped Box 17:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted as a WP:BLP violation. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 17:58, 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 Snowball delete. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anna Wilding

NN media figure - all of the sources seem to lists and NN announcements. Don't be fooled by the fact that she directed a film. That is NN as well and has no significant media coverage. Fredrick day 16:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Related ANI discussion for background information. ^Ariel♥Gold 16:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. From what I have seen, the subject of this article lacks sufficient notability for a WP article. However, I am unfamiliar with the film and lack expertise, and this nomination appears to be motivated by the actions of one or two POV-pushing editors, as much as the substance of the article. If there is significant input from people with expertise in films, or familiarity with the film Wilding directed, that will be very helpful in determining the outcome. For the moment, I'm sticking with "keep." Article deletion should not be used as a punishment or retaliation for uncooperative editors. -Pete 16:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I resent that, I'm a long-term editor and the concept of nominating an article because I don't like an editor is silly - I have examined the article in detail and the sources are NN - THAT is the basis on which this article has been nominated for AFD. Your KEEP is based on some odd version of solidarity, what keep can you present based on the sources presented in the article? --Fredrick day 17:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This keep vote can and should be disregarded in the final tally, at is is nothing but a point-making exercise. The voter even readily admits the subject fails WP:N. Tarc 18:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. My apologies for my hasty !vote. I was thrown off by the "don't be fooled" bit in the nomination, and by the fact that editors I respect have devoted significant efforts to this article. A quick spin around Google, however - and the comments below - have convinced me otherwise. I should have done that before my first comment - sorry. -Pete 18:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem I should have more carefully considered my wording and can understand how you might have taken it that way. --Fredrick day 18:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Pete, in addition, if you find sources, even if they reference obscure sources I will write up the article on Ms. Wilding or the film. User:Acalamari and I are devoted savers of articles about minor celebrities and will put extra effort into it should the need arise--when people don't have a lot of information on the web, but do get mentioned enough, I think Wikipedia is a good place to make a little extra effort to put up a usable article. We do this usually with doctors, but occassional others--again, let me know if you ever need help in this area. KP Botany 03:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I have a long history with this article. I saw it when I was doing some New Page Patrol, and had concerns at the time, so I actively encouraged the original authors of the article to get the details in, and said that other editors would then massage that information to make it a suitably well written article for Wikipedia. In that process, I went to Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers to get help[17]. After that request, other editors started cleaning up the article, trying to find reliable sources, and began removing unsourced items. Editors have searched high and low for reliable sources for her notability, and after all the unsourced items were removed, we were left with very little[18]. I'm not attempting to punish anyone; I've worked hard on this article to try and prove her notability, but I am now convinced that my failure to do so is simply because she isn't notable. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 16:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Every single film producer that has ever worked would be able to produce some kind of evidence of success, acclaim, awards and the like. Notability should be more than that. --El Ingles 17:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and El Ingles. No evidence of notability. Biggest claim seems to be the film, and the only readily apparent review of that called it "not quite a home movie, but not exactly a professional production either." High praise. It may or may not be true that the editors doing good-faith work on the article have lost the will to try to make it work because of the actions of some pov warriors, but any supposedly misguided motives behind the nom would not change the fact that the article doesn't belong here in the first place. -- Vary | Talk 17:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources. One documentary film is not by itself enough. Why isn't Buddha Wild part of this nomination? --Dhartung | Talk 18:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Buddha Wild currently has a prod (and prod-2) tag on it. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 18:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Both the person and the film fail WP:N. Judging by the discussions about this both on the article talk page and at its AN/I entry, there has been a great deal of effort expended in trying to find reliable sources to establish notability, but they have failed because the material simply does not exist. Tarc 18:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: A couple messages at Wikiproject Films seem to support deletion, as well. -Pete 19:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant self-promotion. I remember this article popping up during new page patrol in August[19], it was puffy G11 fodder then. The current version has been trimmed and sourced to neutrality, but it is sporadic and bare to the point of leaving little doubt of Wilding's obscurity. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I have strong doubts myself about the honesty of the article. I don't want to be used as a tool to promote someone's career, on blatant lies. Tonyx123 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and salt, so that we don't have to put up with her legal foolishness again. Non-notable person. We brought this article into the Wikipedia Intensive Care Unit, but I think it was dead on arrival. Can't save 'em all. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It appears we've been taken. But that's okay, we'll be taken again. And we'll correct it again when we need to. KP Botany 03:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment to closing admin: Please consider salting the article after deletion. I have a strong feeling that there would be an attempt to recreate the article, especially given how vehement the main proponent of the article was. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 04:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and WP:SNOW. Crazysuit 04:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failing N and V. I was willing to help with the article, but I can't find any non-trivial coverage on either Factiva or the Australian New Zealand Reference Centre. So delete, but if someone comes up with some non-trivial coverage, I am willing to reconsider. Sarah 05:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I agree that, based on the AN/I, this should be salted. Eusebeus 12:37, 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. No prejudice to someone WP:BOLDly creating a redirect but consensus on that recommendation is not clear. Carlossuarez46 22:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous phone number

Anonymous phone number (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

As stated in the (declined) speedy, topic may be legit (and may be known by another name), but this is unsourced non-content that hasn't risen above its origins as an advertisement (see External links). edg ☺ ★ 23:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Advertising, drivel.--Rambutan (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Possibly redirect to call forwarding (although this term is more often used for a tip line, for which we have no article). --Dhartung | Talk 18:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree, it's an advertisement, complete with some comparison shopping of the other guys who charge by the minute. I like the slogan, "Strangers are STRANGE!" Brilliant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 18:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as WP:CSD#G11, blatant advertising. The article has been boldly tagged as such. --Darkwind (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • D'oh, I didn't see the part in the nomination about the declined speedy. Let's just make that delete. CSD tag removed. --Darkwind (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Silent number Though this content is unnotable, this might be a possible search term for an unlisted or silent number within that context. Nate 23:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at those two articles, anonymous phone number (where people can call you without knowing your number, perhaps simply an outside organization that just does call forwarding) doesn't seem to be the same thing as a silent number (an unlisted number, i.e. any number that is deliberately not listed in the phone book) at all, so this redirect might confuse the issue. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a redirect of some kind, but I think it should be something closer than this.

Virtual phone number, another rather spammy-looking page, might be a closer match. / edg ☺ ★ 19:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Silent number per nate ffm 13:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect or Merge to Virtual phone number, silent number, call forwarding, or tip line. This page attempts to desribe a topic that should equate to a page somewhere. Revolutionaryluddite 04:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This topic may belong on Caller ID spoofing-- the process seems similar. Revolutionaryluddite 04:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Advertising. Keb25 05:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamish McPherson

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

• Speedy Delete as non-notable. A non-notable president of a university student union in noway deserve a separate article on Wikipedia. Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 12:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• keep- Says the man who criticised me only a post ago. the man is notable not so much for his position or achievement, but because of the scandal caused by his removal. Also the page is heavily footnoted and referenced.Jembot99 13:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Heavy footnote cannot make some non-notable person notable. Moreover, it seems this article is created to defame someone. So, I strongly support a speedy deletion here. - Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 13:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• If you read down to the actual words, you will observe that he WAS the student president, and WAS removed. This is notable, as he is the only President in ANU student association history to be forcibly removed, and possibly in all of Australian Universities. I wish I had the woroni article in downloadable format, but I don't. Comment- no basis for removing him, he is a noted political activist, writer and political figure, however none of this is the primary reason for keeping him. He is notable because of the incident surrounding his removal, which is unprecedented, and noteworthy. Jembot99 13:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's other people decide whether removal from a university union post can make someone notable or not! Still I strongly support a speedy deletion here. - Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 13:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Weak Keep changed on the basis of Bduke's comment below--my error, I should have recognized that myself. I am not sure whether the president of a student union in an individual university is notable, but he was president of the national one, the Australian National University Student Association. However, the negative information is sourced to a confidential page at the university, which is not acceptable. Unless there is a better source, it must be removed. Presumably it was in some newspaper. DGG (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Australian National University Student Association is not the national student union, just the student union of the Australian National University - a single university. --Bduke 01:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• comment- It is very easy to prove it, there are ANU admins here, but it is difficult to expect someone to find an archive of something like this in online format from 1995, before they had widespread use of the internet... JJJ999 19:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• comment - Aside from ANU references, we could assume these [20] and [21] ref+ as reliable source. But this link is complete blog.--NAHID 20:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • comment- That link is hosted by the ANU political science dept, so assumedly they support someone of his stature writing an article on their page, rather than it being a "blog" like article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.218.27 (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• You'd better to create an account.--NAHID 20:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Longhair\^talk 20:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete***. The subject of the article does not meet WP:N and is therefore not notable. The Green Left reference (even assuming it to be independent) only mentions that he gave a speech, which is hardly an in-depth coverage of him. The other reference merely lists his name as subscribing to some resolution. The article written on ANU doesn't meet the other exceptions to WP:N. The secondary sources coverage of the subject of the article can only be considered trivial at the moment. There is no reason why this information can't be kept on the student association page, which is where it belongs. Assize 04:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • comment- you have to understand, google is not the be all and end all of referencing. There are newspaper articles on him, and he has been mentioned several times in the Student magazine over the years. He is, to a community of 10,000 students, a significant figure. But there are limits to what you can prove for something of this scale that happened in 1995. Since the other info given has proven accurate I think it should stay, and some other ANU admins should inquire into it at the SA archives or woroni backlogs if they are dubious. His removal is also historically relevant to that community.JJJ999 04:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm aware of the limitations in Google and Yahoo. NSW State Library has zip on this person other than a reference to a photo in the Sydney Morning Herald. There is nothing to stop somebody sourcing paper versions of newspaper to substantiate this, but I think they will trouble finding anything. Assize 03:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, not a notable position, fails WP:BIO. The president of an actual national student union (is there one?) might be notable, but not one for one particular university. --Dhartung | Talk 18:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, pending sources, per nom & Dhartung's notes about localization and also DGG's note about the sourcing--the criticism and controversy section, which is as close to notability as McPherson comes, links to an inaccessible source and fails WP:Verifiability. WP:BLP guidelines specify that unsourced information about living individuals should be removed immediately, and if the "criticism" can't be sourced, I don't believe it should be included in considerations of the individual's notability. Google search is not helpful in finding other sources. JJJ999 correctly notes that Google is not the be-all of notability, but notability does require significant, reliable secondary sources. At this point, this article lacks those, and I can't find seem to find any. --Moonriddengirl 20:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There are very few sources for this guy and none indicating notability. Being President of the ANU Students Association is not in itself. While some presidents have gone on to become notable, Mr McPherson hasn't. Further, his removal didn't cause that much of a stir given that I who was a student at the ANU was unaware of it until now. Capitalistroadster 03:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per capital. Twenty Years 08:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Link me to this photo of him?JJJ999 05:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable bio. Keb25 05:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The only assertion of notability is that this person was removed from his post for being non-compliant with societal expectation. However, he is hardly a Gandhi, Marx, or Trotsky. It doesn't seem he has left a lasting change on society or the university.Ryoung122 09:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to Australian National University Student Association per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudia Newman-Martin and the lack of individual notability as noted by others. John Vandenberg 12:05, 22 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 by nominator with all commentors also advocating that it be kept. Procedural close. (Non-admin close). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harold McQueen, Jr.

Harold McQueen, Jr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Page does not meet notability guidelines for biographies, as he is only notable for a crime and an execution (Wikipedia is not a newspaper) StaticElectric 16:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep establishes notability for the fact he was the first person to be executed in that state since the death penalty was reinstated. Lugnuts 18:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep In addition to being the first person to be executed in Kentucky since the early 1960s, the law was changed shortly after his death, allowing persons to choose between electrocution or lethal injection. Although there are still a few nutjobs who opt for the electric chair when they have a choice, he was charged with murder... and with 1,100 volts. Article does well in listing Ms. O'Hearn, the convenience store clerk whom he shot to death 16 years previously. Mandsford 18:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per nom, who admits that he is notable. Article could do with some sources, but a Google news search shows that they're out there. faithless (^speak) 20:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw my objections. StaticElectric 20:41, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of applications developed by David Watanabe

List of applications developed by David Watanabe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a list of internal links. The article David Watanabe has been deleted; the only reason for this article would be if the article David Watanabe was too large to accommodate this list. See Linking articles. The article was "proded" and contested. Bpringlemeir 14:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed the category to Science and Technology. I thought this meant the type of grounds for deletion. I was referencing WP:NOT. Specifically, it states that 'Wikipeadia is not a list of internal links'. Bpringlemeir 18:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. See also the relevant discussion on the article's talk page. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. (For reference: I had put a PROD-2 onto the article.) The applications linked in the article may be notable (that's not for discussion here), but the person who created them is not. Hence there's no reason in keeping the list. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Watanabe. --B. Wolterding 17:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – Not notable. In my opinion, the person must merit an article for this list to exist, and in that case, the list would properly belong in that article. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 01:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This article provides a central, organized place for putting this list, as a navigational aide to users (previously redundantly scattered in the "See also" sections of the application articles -- see also WP:NOT exceptions to the "collections of internal links" section: "except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists to assist with the organisation of articles."). This is a list of notable applications, and most of the applications listed have their own Wikipedia article. The lack of notability of the author is merely a tangential issue - instead, the notability of the applications themselves makes this article by definition notable, since this article is a list of those applications. While clearly not a bio page, making the bio issue a non-issue, I would also like to point out that on the David Watanabe AFD, there was weak agreement on lack of notability of the author (some hits on Slashdot, for example). Instead, it seems like a stronger reason people wanted the bio article deleted was because people got tired of the perceived ongoing struggle against vandalism and libel which is really a broader Wikipedia issue but I won't go into that. —Tokek 12:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That is very strange. I only find these changes in the relevant articles.

* Acquisition diff

* NewsFire diff

* Inquisitor diff

In all cases, they replaced the David Watanabe text to a link pointing to the page in question. Can you point us to the place where the See also section was changed? Bpringlemeir 14:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The other argument I made in the talk pages (and others as well) was that there are no other individuals listed in Lists of software. All entries in the list as well as the topic of the list should be notable. Some entries would be fine in a list of Mac Newsreaders, P2P software, etc. The reason for aggregating the entries must also be notable. The real question is do people really care about a list of applications made by David Watanabe? It is sensible that people might wonder what software Donald Knuth has made; In that case, the works are listed on the individuals wiki. The interest in software made by David Watanabe is very narrow and hence the notability of David Watanabe is very relevant to the deletion discussion. Bpringlemeir 14:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Of the three edits you link, only the February edit was mine. I was replacing a red link with the best non-red alternative, which is not an unusual practice on Wikipedia (but that doesn't prove that a clearly non-bio article to be a bio article). You've proven that I don't have very accurate memory of small-scale edits made long ago, of which I am guilty of. Analyzing the February versions, two out of the three articles do reference another application by the same author. Inquisitor (software) didn't refer to any other apps by Watanabe but this was taken care of by linking to a bio article while it still existed. My feeling was that it's fairly natural for one to want to know what other applications the same author has made. (Nice touch adding the notability tags to all the app articles, by the way. I noticed what you did there.)

You are comparing apples and oranges with the Knuth example. The false premise argument used in the Knuth and bio-article-too-long arguments makes an assumption that the bio article exists in the first place. It doesn't, so basing an argument on the case that it exists don't apply. Obviously Knuth hasn't been AFD'ed from Wikipedia. Saying that this article should be merged with the bio article if the bio article is not too long - that's comparing apples and oranges. The example that you give is not the "only reason" where a non-merge with a bio article would be acceptable, as I've explained my reasons for a keep vote. —Tokek 16:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please show where in the change history Acquisition, NewsFire, and/or Inquisitor were linking to each other? I am sorry you didn't get my point with the Knuth example. It has nothing to do with him being a person. It has to do with the list subject being notable . For instance, this article was nominated for deletion deleted. The notability of an article is a personal opinion (swayed by references, etc). I guess you feel that David Wantanbe is notable; others do not. That is part of this discussion. The notability of all of the articles listed is also not clearly illustrated in those articles. You are free to improve them (and I certainly encourage you) to show why they are notable, especially using good references. That is a separate issue, not germane to this discussion. I think we should all assume they are notable for now, but we are discussing whether the list subject is relevant. See Listcruft. Bpringlemeir 17:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I could not find the link for NewsFire. Here is the Acquisition diff, with link to NewsFire. Tokek is correct. That link did exist. Bpringlemeir 17:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the NewsFire diff. Tokek is correct again. Bpringlemeir 17:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is the NewsFire diff that placed the link to Acquisition (software). The summary is "De-linking Watanabe, as he was deleted upon AFD" by User:Tokek, just as the Acquisition diff, with link to NewsFire. The link above was by another anonymous editor with the edit summary "How cares?", removing the link.

Also, perhaps I am too quick to dismiss another point (relayed in the paragraph with Knuth). It is that allowing a list of software by a person sets precedence. This did not exist until this article was created. Previously it appears to be something Wikipedia was not. Ie, WP:NOT. That is not a complete argument, but an ancillary fact that should be considered if someone were neutral given all other reasons. Bpringlemeir 20:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Can you please show where in the change history Acquisition, NewsFire, and/or Inquisitor were linking to each other?" — I think you're being unreasonably and completely unnecessarily being nitpicky here. As I've clearly stated, the February versions were linking to each other and they do. You're completely ignoring a point that I'm making, which is that this article does serve a navigational purpose and is listed as an exception to the collection of lists entry in the WP:NOT.

"Previously it appears to be something Wikipedia was not. Ie, WP:NOT. " — I'm sorry but that's just a play on words and it ignores the fact that this is an extraordinary circumstance, making it rather unique. Play on words is not an entry in WP:NOT, but I see that you're admitting bluff right after that sentence.

I think the main difference in our opinions is what this article is about. Some argue that the notability of the applications should not even be considered despite the fact that this article is about a "List of applications" as mentioned in the article title. This navigational aide article does not try to be a bio article (and I'm honestly not saying this to get around some sort of perceived loophole or workaround, etc.). The difference in the nature of the article seems to indicate that it does not face the same issues that a bio article would encounter. I say that the applications themselves are notable dispite the fact that you are perhaps strategically disagreeing for the sake of this AFD by placing tags to the application articles. Just goes to show that it is near impossible to get 100% agreement on anything on Wikipedia. Even for the Watanabe AFD, the first two votes were "neutral" and "weak delete" based on the notability argument.

The list article inherits some notability from the applications' notabilities. After all, it is not a list of non-notable people, but a list of applications. The list criteria is essentially "works by the same author." Despite your missing-the-point nitpick you had with article histories, "works by the same author" is category that is commonly of interest to users, hence it is a reasonable criteria. The navigational aide list of multiple applications has an article of its own because of the extraordinary circumstance of not having the author article. The subject of the article is not the author, but the applications themselves, while the criteria for the list is "by the same author."

Despite what you may consider about the apps' notabilities, the mere fact that they exist as articles means that this list does serve a role as a navigational aide. "Does this article serve a navigational purpose?" may be a more relevant question rather than "Is this notable?," because as someone has stated, this article is a collection of links. You usually don't get Notability tags added to disambig pages, for example, even if said page might only provide links to only two articles, since the Notability argument would be completely irrelevant in such cases. —Tokek 00:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. — Wackymacs 18:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I find the following chronology troubling,
  • 17:43, 28 September 2006 - David Watanabe article deleted.
  • 14:59, 13 February 2007 - User:Tokek removes red link of David Watanabe from NewsFire and links to Acquisition_(software)
  • 15:01, 13 February 2007 - User:Tokek removes red link of David Watanabe from Acquisition_(software) and links to NewsFire
  • 15:07, 13 February 2007 - User:Tokek creates List of applications developed by David_Watanabe
  • 15:09, 13 February 2007 - User:Tokek replaces red link in Inquisitor (software) with List of applications developed by David_Watanabe.
  • 21:04, 9 September 2007 - 71.195.58.16 replaces David Watanabe with link to List of applications developed by David_Watanabe in article Acquisition_(software), which is on User:bpringlemeirs watch list.
  • 22:17, 12 September 2007 - User:bpringlemeir prods List of applications developed by David_Watanabe.
  • 05:56, 17 September 2007 - User:Tokek removes prod and prod2 tags from List of applications developed by David Watanabe, causing this Afd.

This seems to be flaunting the previous delete by creating a page by a different name to replace it. Bpringlemeir 00:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot disagree more. Both with the fact that you are ignoring or not replying to 99% of the arguments I've made with regard to the topic of this AFD, and with the fact that you are unnecessarily derailing this AFD discussion, intentionally or not, into a personal attack thing with an accusatory tone (although generally weak and unsubstantial ones). I hope you can tell me that I am misunderstanding this situation. Wikipedia is based on trust that Wikipedians won't be rash to come up with cynical and unreasonable conspiracy theories against each other, largely in order to save each other's time. However in the meanwhile, whether it is a complete waste of time or not, here are some general responses.

1. Yes, I occasionally remove red links if they point to a "bad destination." Especially those that point to deleted articles because such red links could invite people to create articles that have already been deleted. If they do create a new one, their contribution efforts would likely be wasted by a speedy delete (WP:SPEEDY). There's nothing troubling about it.
2. As I've already stated, the IP address user is not me! The thing about what I said on Wikipedians having reasonable amount of trust in each other..
3. Yes, I did remove the prod tags. The prod tag that you added links to an explanation about what prod tags are. At the prod tag explanation page, it specifically instructs editors who disagree with the deletion request to remove them. Otherwise a concensus is assumed and the article is deleted. This should not be troubling as it just means that I would have voted for "keep" if the Prod had been an AFD. And now that it's an AFD, I have not surprised anyone I suppose by voting "keep."
4. Lastly, whether Bpringlemeir realizes it or not, this never-ending nitpick of accusatory history digging is in ways a great waste of effort. It also ignores many of the more on-topic arguments that already respond to what you are repeating and also arguments that are actually about the subject at hand: the article up for deletion. —Tokek 13:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Listcruft ffm 13:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment FYI the listcruft argument was also discussed previously at Talk:List of applications developed by David Watanabe. —Tokek 13:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Gandalf61 13:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Since my comments got long, I will summarise, (hopefully) once and for all, my opinion : WP:NOT lists "collections of internal links" but adds "except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists to assist with the organisation of articles." This article would fall under "lists to assist with the organisation of articles." A category of articles that WP:NOT approves existence of.

While I argue that this article should survives notability as I did above, more significantly I think the notability question should not apply to this article in the first place. The purpose of this article is not to document a subject matter, rather to assist in organisation of other articles.

If the argument is "David Watanabe is not notable, hence articles relating to him are not notable by association," then it would make sense first to put the applications themselves under scrutiny. If decision is made that the applications themselves should not exist, then the list of applications would lack reason to exist after not linking to anything and not serving its organisational purpose anymore. The inverse of that statement could also be said.

On the side, I also argue that the stronger reason why the David Watanabe article was really deleted for was because of vandalism and libel issues rather than a strong consensus on the lack of notability. I would assume being the author of multiple notable applications would give him some notability by association. While this is not my main arguing point, related articles probably do not have the same vandalism / libel issues that the bio had. —Tokek 20:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not even lists are immune to the notability guideline. If a consensus has appeared that David Watanaby is a non-notable individual, then so is the concept of "an application developed by David Watanaby." The fact that David Watanaby is non-notable is not a tangential fact related to this list, but rather, the fact that all of these programs had a developer in common is tangential. Someguy1221 23:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Someguy1221. Pavel Vozenilek 03:32, 22 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--JForget 22:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plus-size clothing

Plus-size clothing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

AntiVanity 02:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 

• STRONG DELETE

The reasons given by AKADriver to maintain this article as seen on the article's discussion page are illogical and insubstantial. "...entire magazines devoted to plus-size clothing"? As of right now (Sept 2007) there are only 2 in-print publications internationally available on newstands (Figure and Vol): Figure is an advertorial-style release put out by Charming Shoppes to market its own merchandise, and Vol is a subscription-based and limited circulation magazine from the Netherlands that barely anyone outside of that country will recognize. Other paper publications available are brand marketing tools freely available in retail stores; they are not properly audited newstand magazines. Furthermore, these magazines exist to sell product, not to discuss the plus-size clothing industry, garment construction or sizing, nor are they able to provide any meaningful data to this article. There is a distinction to be made on that score. Overall, not a valid reason to maintain this article.

The article lacks structure and cohesion, and under the paragraphs commencing "The Plus-Size Market in..." the research done for the provision of brand names meets the Wiki criteria for spam, although of a questionable intent. i.e. The brands Options Plus and Now cited for Australia are in-house brands of Target Australia and Kmart respectively, and at the lowest price point of clothing available. Why mention those brands when so many better ones (with obvious online presence) are ignored? Where is the breadth of research? There are also more mentions of the Lane Bryant and Catherine brands than any other US brand; this in itself is either definitely spam - or at least, very apathetic research.

The development of the plus-size clothing industry as it pertains to North America is sufficiently detailed in the plus-size model article, and nothing more is required on the topic of plus-size clothing. In addition, there is continued dissent from Wiki editors on all size-related topics requiring international size comparisions, as well as in popular media, which makes this type of article extremely problematic as well as being a topic unworthy of encyclopaedic inclusion. AntiVanity 02:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Ehhh. This is probably a topic that should be written about, but what we have right now is a bunch of ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Leaning towards the deletion view unless this is fixed. Burntsauce 17:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please do not misuse the term original research to mean the same thing as {{unreferenced}}. They are not the same thing. --Dhartung | Talk 18:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reponse If I wanted to use the term UNREFERENCED, I would have. Thanks! Burntsauce 17:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP Of course this article needs improvement, but that's no reason to delete it. Plus-size fashion is a significant sector of the fashion industry, and is frequently discussed in the press as a topic unto itself, in terms of design, marketing, demographics, social and cultural attitudes, etc., distinct from straight-size fashion (e.g., the fact that sales of plus-size clothing are rising, while sales of straight-size clothing are flat). Many retailers target this sector of the market specifically, and many general retailers devote specific sections to this market. A plus-size model article is the wrong place for a general discussion of the plus-size clothing industry. Rather, that article should (obviously) deal with modeling specifically, while its content pertaining to the plus-size clothing industry should be moved into this article about...plus-size clothing. If sizing issues are problematic and contested, this fact should be noted in the article. If certain retailers are over-represented and other retailers under-represented, this should be remedied. Whether there are fashion magazines addressing this field is irrelevant; perhaps the experience of the industry is that direct marketing better serves customers than fashion publications (another fact that distinguishes this field from straight-size fashion). The article needs an improvement tag, not a deletion tag. And by the way, Vol is no longer in print. However, there is a magazine called Big is Beautiful which is published in the Netherlands, and a separate edition is published in Belgium. 209.244.42.76 17:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, though I'd support a merge to wherever this topic is better covered. This article contains a lot of original research that needs to be removed (or well sourced), but it also contains a lot of other verifiable useful information. When we are talking about common measurements that can be measured and verified anywhere, I am not eager to see it deleted, but it still needs to be referenced. Reswobslc 17:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, notable and, uh, growing segment of the clothing industry. Needs better sourcing and some NPOV trimming, but a significant topic that has books, magazines, and entire retail chains devoted to it. --Dhartung | Talk 18:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Ehhh per Burntsauce. This could be a good article, but at the moment it looks like mostly original research. The topic isn't bad, so not voting to delete, but hard to vote keep on this minus-size article. Mandsford 18:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment "It's OR" and "it's unsourced" are not reasons to delete an article, they are reasons to improve an article. faithless (^speak) 20:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reply Hence our vote of "Ehhh", which does not ask for a delete or a keep. I like Burntsauce's approach to this, since "Ehhh" is a concise way to acknowledge that one has read the article and (in my case anyway) is indifferent. Mandsford 15:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All the delete comments here belong on the article talk page. Plus-size model was mentioned. That article also needs some work--probably some of the content would be better in here.The topic is certainly notable. DGG (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Everything is already on the talk page, but it goes unnoticed by editors if recent updates are anything to go by. Good luck to those who attempt to talk about sizing in clothing manufacture, hopefully you will get someone who has been pattern-making for over 20 years in more than one company to speak to the topic. If outcome is keep, recommend that petite sizing be used as a initial template for development of article AntiVanity 06:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Also suggest a need for editors to read over WP:REF relating to verifiable source citations as media outlets quoting statistics on population/size are usually outdated and/or sourced from other media outlets rather than neutral surveying organizations; especially unreliable are those surveys conducted via women's magazines or beauty product companies such as Proctor and Gamble (Dove) as they by no means reflect the entire population of a particular country. AntiVanity 08:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There's no spam involved here; it may possibly contain OR but that's easily fixed with some better research with sources. --Darkwind (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. An enormous industry, probably tens of billions worldwide. Deserves coverage. Article needs serious improvement. Wikidemo 23:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Bad article about a notable topic that should have an article. Clean up but don't delete. (Diego Gravez 00:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC))
• Keep It doesn't even seem like all that bad of an article to me. Just needs expansion and better sourcing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Dhartung. Maxamegalon2000 05:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep commonly used term in the fashion industry in the US; it's a stub now, but not spam. Could be improved. -- phoebe/(talk) 06:59, 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. Carlossuarez46 22:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ephectic

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

This is a short orphaned article, that, apart from its creation, my prod and the removal of the prod, has only been edited by bots. The word crops up sometimes in relation to Nietzche's philosophy and post-modernism, but infrequently. Suggestion: shift to Wikitionary if it is not already there. Anarchia 08:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Suspension of judgment. CIreland 10:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no "School" of Ephetic philosophy, as is claimed, and the article has no chance of ever being more than a stub. Banno 23:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 15:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The word does not appear in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,a n extremely comprehensive and modern RS, so I doubt its notability DGG (talk) 21:02, 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. WjBscribe 23:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Swiss Banking Billionaires

List of Swiss Banking Billionaires (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article was created by an SPA simply to promote his website http://www.swissbillionaires.fws1.com - it's unreferenced apart from that and is simply an unencyclopaedic list of names with little or no value. andy 15:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - unverified list, and also very spammy.--Danaman5 16:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above. EyeSerene^TALK 17:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, check the website, here's a quarter-million, call someone who cares. Mandsford 18:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: WP:NOT indiscriminate dumping ground for information. Alba 04:52, 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 and maintain as a category only. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of conductors

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

Unsourced listcruft. Difficult to maintain, and duplicates Category:Conductors only with much higher maintenance. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'll say it's hard to maintain. Can you believe the author forgot Copper? ;p shoy 16:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no sources, OR, unmaintainable, and also missing people like Danny Kaye... but he only did it as a hobby (presumably a semi-conductor?) EyeSerene^TALK 17:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC) (I'll get me coat)
• Delete for the reasons listed above. Nothing here that can't be better served by the Category, nor is it really necessary to have an article listing conductors, their orchestras, their dates of birth and death, etc., since there's nothing to be gained by comparing one to another. Mandsford 18:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. Even as is, it does more than the category by indicating the other musical notability. It should be expanded to give the dates and the nationality, both of which are important in this field, and useful for browsing. Many people who like classical music compare one conductor with another as a major preoccupation. And the criteria are plain enough--the two comments just above seem not to have read them and are presumably making jokes about "conductor" as in electrical conductor--and the criteria clearly eliminate Danny Kaye as an hobbyist. DGG (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment OK, so it was a rather feeble joke, but illustrating a point ;) Actor Danny Kaye was an amateur conductor, and is not included. Gilbert Kaplan, another amateur conductor, is included. From the article: "Inclusion on this list does not necessariy suggest conducting was their primary occupation or talent." In other words, amateur conductors meet the inclusion criteria. This makes the article almost hopelessly broad; the title is not even "notable conductors". As with all AfD's, I did read the article carefully. You can't deny that it is a bit of a red-link farm, and totally unsourced. How is this better than the existing category? EyeSerene^TALK 09:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't vote. Just trying to provide a bit of levity. shoy 14:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, my apologies--I know you did not intend as such, but levity in these discussions has occasionally been used by others as a sign of contempt for a topic thought hopelessly non-notable. But red links are very easy to delete, as are mistaken listings. The objection raised is just an editing question. DGG (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No offence taken, and the fault is really mine ;) Levity is not appropriate when discussing deleting someone's hard work, and I didn't intend it (and wouldn't use it) to denigrate anyone's contributions.

You make a good point (and one I fully agree with) concerning style deficiencies not being reasons for deletion. I didn't intend my 'red-link farm' comment to be taken as a deletion argument in itself, but as an indicator of a problem with the article from the perspective of verification. How can we know these people are conductors (let alone notable ones)? They have no articles, and the list is unsourced. EyeSerene^TALK 18:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

perfectly good point, and the red links should be removed if articles don't get written--just as in other such lists. Anyone putting in a new one should be told to write the article first--as with other such articles. All such list require periodic maintenance. DGG (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. It is a unique and valuable resource, and quite a remarkable piece of work. Where there are omissions, fix them. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! NCdave 22:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Such lists are hopeless and always will be. That's what categories are for. Jack^(Lumber) 00:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. When a list becomes this big it is better served by a category, which is self-maintaining. Crazysuit 04:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Lists of this nature do not merely duplicate categories, as they can contain red links where articles are required. (As an aside I don't understand why "red-link farm" is a bad thing, as long as most of the red-linked items would be worthy of inclusion.) It could also be expanded, as DGG suggests, to include other information not available via the category system. Espresso Addict 01:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and improve. difficulty in maintenance shouldn't be a criterion for deletion. neither should its omissions or vague inclusions. let's enhance its utility by making it better.--emerson7 | Talk 14:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: versions of this list also exist in no fewer than a dozen other wiki languages creating a invaluable tool for crosschecking variants in spelling, duplicate articles and sourcing references. --emerson7 | Talk 18:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this is much better handled by the category, this is virtually impossible to maintain. If kept should be renamed to List of conductors (music) to match the article and I for one was not upset at the humor (as in funny not as in physiological theory). Gotta laugh folks! Carlossuarez46 22:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 22:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holdfast Bay Handicap

Holdfast Bay Handicap (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No google hits for this event, no sources, it reads like it's a promotional page for the race (which Wikipedia is not). If some sources can be found, I'll gladly chainsaw away all the promo stuff and make an article of it, but as it stands now, it's gotta be deleted. UsaSatsui 15:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability can be established (I couldn't find anything either) in which case rewrite to remove all the WP:SOAP. Notable events of this type (eg the London marathon) tend to attract well-known runners... which this obviously doesn't. EyeSerene^TALK 17:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delort fails WP:SOAP 4 ViperSnake151 00:36, 21 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. Carlossuarez46 22:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Geneseo student organizations

List of Geneseo student organizations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Page is unsourced, POV, and very much like an ad. —ScouterSig 15:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete sounds like it was copied from something. None of these student clubs have individual notability. Rather spammy list of links at the end. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - These organizations are not notable enough to be put into their own list. Merge any notable clubs into the main article.--Danaman5 16:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with SUNY Geneseo, which is in fact notable, an outstanding public liberal arts college. Bearian 20:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the important information can be covered here, a separate article is not needed. This list is quite spammy and of poor quality anyway, many items are clearly OR. shoeofdeath 20:26, 22 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, no independent reliable sources discussing subject. Tim Vickers 21:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dom Passantino

Dom Passantino (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD) Search (wp gwp g | eb 1911 co en gct sw)

Wikipedia:Notability is about the availability of reliable source material for the article. It is not about importance or fame such as may be gained through being a published author. The individual Dom Passantino has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Dom Passantino himself or those for whom he works to develop an attributable article on the topic. The topic does not meet general notability guidelines and no one has brought forth sufficient reliable sources since AfD#1 and AfD#2 to get this topic to meet the general notability guidelines. Since the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines, the article can never become an attributable article. Thus, the article should be deleted. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No attributable, reliable sources, WP:N. Not an influential music journalist, either. Wrote a small handful of reviews for the Guardian (4 or 5 that I can see).--Sethacus 15:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree profoundly. This guy broke Mondeo Pop, you ingrate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondeo Popsicle (talk • contribs) 22:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC) — Mondeo Popsicle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Strong Keep I can't help but notice that both previous calls for deletion for this article were by trolls, and I have little reason to doubt that Jreferee is anything other than one. MatthewPerpetua
  • I have replied on this user's talk page, regarding the need to actually address the deletion nomination and to admonish him for a groundless accusation of sock-puppetry. --Dweller 10:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Strong nomination, but I hold by the sentiment I placed in AFD1. Per WP:BIO (Creative professionals) I think the range of reputable journals he's written for meets "independent periodical articles or reviews", but you've certainly convinced me down from my "Strong keep" in that AfD. I'm still open to persuasion and will keep an eye on this AfD. --Dweller 15:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• General notability guideline indicates that reliable source material be independent of the subject. The journal's he has written for are not independent of Passantino with regard to the material he contributed to those journals. Also, what material from his writings would you use in his biography? A Wikipedia article is not an award for "independent periodical articles or reviews" and it really does not make sense to use self-written biographical material that no one but the writer or those connected with him cared to publish. -- Jreferee t/c 21:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Jonathan Williams 17:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.174.96.138 (talk)
• Delete per nom, nn person bio with a minor work product. Carlossuarez46 22:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin: two keep votes that are purely votes (not !votes) and two keep commentor have decided to use this forum for personal attacks, you can decide whether to credit such votes and behaviors. But this is unfair to the nominator. Carlossuarez46 22:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not in the least notable or influential in his field. The entry smacks of vanity publishing more than anything. 77.97.163.220 23:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)77.97.163.220
• Delete Appears to be non-notable in his field. Mbisanz 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The individual may well be notable - I have no way of knowing that without additional sources to establish that Notability. As this is the third AFD without improvement, it's not unreasonable to assume that no further sources exist or are forthcoming. No prejudice against a properly sourced article in the future. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:09, 27 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 nonsense. If the "sport" has implausible rules and no sources listed, it's probably nonsense. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flooginball

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

Non-notable sport. No ghits. Spryde 13:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No hits in Google. Probably a hoax. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 14:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There's no "probably" about this one. Besides being "the single most awesome game in the whole wide world", it's a sport where "Points are deducted for getting hit and being a general douchebag". Author is probably the stats leader in that department. Mandsford 15:20, 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. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 05:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cougar Creek Elementary School

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

Non-notable elementary school. SolidPlaid 13:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. No refs to notable people from the school. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 14:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, no substantial content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable school, little context. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 16:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect our visitors to the School District 36 Surrey article. Burntsauce 17:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Burntsauce. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to the school district as this article is basically lacks notability as most elementary schools.--JForget 23:18, 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 without prejudice against a properly sourced recreation. Eluchil404 22:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Ogwyn

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

Non-notable individual - WP:NOT, WP:BIO Watchingthevitalsigns 13:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Article gives no reason why he deserves an encyclopedia entry. *SolidPlaid 13:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless more can be added to the article explaining who he was and asserting some notability (backed up with reliable sourcing, of course). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep considering the size of the Living Church of God, the accomplishments he has made within the church are a big deal. If this were a small-town church or some other non-notable entity, I would say delete it. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 14:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep same reasoning as BlindEagle's. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What accomplishments? Where are the details and the sources? Clarityfiend 16:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree it needs verifiable sources. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 17:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with Living Church of God. Mavourneen 00:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn person, fails WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. GRBerry 16:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dlawer Ala'Aldeen

Dlawer Ala'Aldeen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom as contested prod in April when the initial stub was created. Only contributions have been from the guy himself and anon IPs from the universities he works at - even then they were copyvios of university pages.

There are no secondary sources available. With copyvios removed this article remains a very short stub, and I don't see the potential for this to become a full article at a later stage. Whilst he might be notable in Nottingham where he practices, I don't see substancial WP:BIO. Breno ^talk 13:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete just another prof like any other. No refs to substantial contributions or awards. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 14:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Does anyone do research anymore? This man has authored/co-authored, by my count, at least 50 articles, including for the Lancet more than once. Has co-authored 3 books on microbiology AND holds a patent.--Sethacus 15:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 22:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (though a patent by itself unless exploited is not particularly meaningful). Even the original article gave his position, which should have at least raised the thought that Nottingham usually appoints Professors who have done notable work. DGG (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Web of Science lists 33 publications that have been cited a grand total of 375 times. This is not really remarkable or notable.--Crusio 22:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Professor (far rarer title in UK than in US) and head of research group at University of Nottingham. One of the Society for General Microbiology subject chairs [22] and Chair of the Federation of Infection Societies; I don't know the latter organisation, but the former means he's one of the foremost UK experts in his field. He's also an expert consultant to the Medical Research Council & Royal College of Pathologists, and Associate Editor of Journal of Medical Microbiology, which is a reasonably prestigious journal in its field. [23]. His publication record is solid with 45 publications indexed by Medline, many in high-quality specialist journals such as Infect Immun, J Bacteriol, J Antimicrob Chemother, J Infect, Mol Microbiol Microbiology etc, plus several short papers in Lancet & NEJM. Several have relatively high citation counts (eg 94 for this review [24], 43 for NEJM letter [25]) He also appears to have been interviewed by the Lancet, if anyone has a subscription: [26]. He's also co-written several textbooks with reputable publishers. Clearly meets my definition of WP:PROF. Espresso Addict 00:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

objectively, reviews always get high counts. That none of the research papers have more than 30 or so citations is not really very promising. I still think he just makes it, based on the editorship and so on. He is probably as much a clinician as a researcher. I'll check Lancet tomorrow. DGG (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

True enough. Microbiology is my area, though, and the journals he's published in are all reasonably decent specialist journals in the area, which I think counts for more than just numbers of published papers. Espresso Addict 04:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

They are high ranking journals, but I think this is an unwarranted extension of our practice. Individual papers in even the best journals dont make people notable. A great many people have published a few good such articles--and there is a very wide range of quality. (Looking for example at J. Bacteriology, articles in an issue typically have anywhere from 2 to 20 cites--1 or 2 have over 100.), It isn't the number of papers, but the citations- Suppose I had three papers in Journal of Molecular Biology, an excellent journal, each cited 8 or 10 times. That's not notable; very few people thought it worth citing. If they had been cited a few hundred times each, it would be another matter. By the standard you propose, almost every assistant professor at a major university would get an article--they have all published a few papers in good journals. I'm not that inclusionist, even with academics, and I don't think the decisions here or the proposals at WP:PROF support that view--the most recent proposal there was to sharply elevate the standards. We can discuss this further there. (note that this is a side issue--the guy is notable, putting everything together). DGG (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as above Elmao 11:04, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kornichuk

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

Obvious hoax. Kornichuk appears to be a surname. No searches revealed it to be a common name for a plant. The scientific name given in the text also does not exist. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax - Even the picture is from a different plant. --Tikiwont 13:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Which different plant, for reference? --MikeVitale 22:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The photo is from Verbascum thapsus, a featured article, and the taxobox is a copy&paste from plant. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Duh. As I was washing dishes 10 minutes ago, I was thinking about this, and realized I could probably have figured it out myself if I had bothered to look at the filename referenced in the page source. Sure enough, there it was. Thanks, Rkitko. --MikeVitale 01:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hoax or possibly a stealth attack page on someone of that name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable hoax if there ever was one. Burntsauce 17:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete External link provided as reference (http://www.kornichukplant.com/) not registered with any ICANN-accredited registrar as of 5 minutes ago. Apparent hoax. --MikeVitale 22:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Funny though. What the heck is the "Tartrahetronalagonalean-6 acid"? Jack^(Lumber) 00:40, 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 Speedy Delete No claims of notability whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rec Football

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}}

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

Non-notable school sport activity Spryde 13:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. The sunder king 13:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Classic WP:NFT case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 13:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT ChrisTheDude 13:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given above Thurls 14:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

KEEP!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max1990 (talk • contribs)

KEEP NON-NOTABLE SPORTING ACTIVITY...YOU'RE HAVIN A LAUGH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.73.70.197 (talk • contribs)

KEEP This wasn't something made up during a school day. Despite being fairly trivial this page is entirely accurate, and it genuinely represents a sports option at Abingdon school etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ih8sunderking (talk • contribs) — Ih8sunderking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEPAn accurate article about a genuine sporting option at Abingdon School Jonowarlow 15:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC) — Jonowarlow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP- An honest article about school life. What's wrong with that?Max1990 15:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC) — Max1990 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment I'm not havin a laugh, other than that the kids at Abingdon are all having fun in computer class today. Maybe in 200 years, this will be as famous as the wall game that's played at Eton, but not this century. Mandsford 15:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I did not AfD this because of WP:NFT, I did it due to the serious lack of notability and unencyclopedic form. It appears I have touched a nerve (or 4). Spryde 15:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - you certainly seem to be attracting sockpuppets. Non-notable of course. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - individual recreational programmes at a school are definitely non-notable. - fchd 16:11, 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. GRBerry 16:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] XGenStudios

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

Non-Notable website. Fails WP:WEB, as far as I can tell. Also, references are the domain's whois data (That's a new one....), and, a forum thread. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 20:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 13:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete when an article has to rely on a thread from its own forums for sourcing, that's a baaad sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete looks like an ad to me. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 14:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now — Part of the problem is it is something a "cult" website. Most of the editors (including me) are/are probably XGen regulars. However, what else is there to cite other than the forums? It's evidence that the game exists. I've removed some of the unverified stuff. I say we delete Stick Arena: Go Ballistick!. What isn't advertising there is specualation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Anotherpongo 18:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't speak for most editors, but yes, I am an XGen regular. Due to this, and as I think that the site is notable, but only because I know lots of people who use it and not because reliable third-parties have talked about it, I'm abstaining from the discussion. But while keeping the main article is questionable, I don't think any individual game (with the possible-but-unlikely-exception of Defend Your Castle) has sufficient notability. -- Mike (Kicking222) 19:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete what part of WP:CORP or WP:WEB is this supposed to meet? It has the same amount of 3rd party coverage as my local Chinese restaurant whose menu is on the web but doesn't have a WP article - and doesn't merit one despite the fact that lots of people rave about their General Cho's chicken. Yes, just a cadre of insiders like it but hasn't been covered significantly by reliable 3rd party's - just like my restaurant. Carlossuarez46 23:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus, defaults to keep. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of car audio manufacturers and brands

List of car audio manufacturers and brands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

this may be an ok category, but not so much for an article. RCHM 22:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The fact that a list and a category might overlap is not grounds for deleting the list. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Could be a category and could also be a nice template at the bottom of car audio mfgs' pages. As a list it adds no information. SolidPlaid 14:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This list is as good as any other in WP. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 14:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Nothing wrong with category/list/template duplication. Some people like chocolate, others prefer vanilla. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Actually, there is something wrong with category/list duplication. Categories maintain themselves - that is the beauty of them. Manual lists must be maintained by human intervention.—Mrand ^T-C 23:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no; it's easier to police changes to lists than to categories, thanks to the ability to monitor changes to the entries via your watchlist, and there's currently no method for providing a citation to support an article's inclusion in a category. Lists also have a substantial advantage in their ability to provide explicatory text to accompany their entries. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This list is harmless, because every entry on the list is blue and presumably notable. But because it only lists the firms, and doesn't say anything about them it is no more useful than a category. If the list had any parameter, such as revenue or location, that it could be sorted by, it would be cool list. SolidPlaid 00:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tried coming up with some parameters, criteria that would make it a more relevant article other than a list dump, but as the other "deletes" have mentioned, there's not much meat to be had here.RCHM 02:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete more useful as a category. Willirennen 23:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• delete and use a category instead. stolenbyme 19:48, 27 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. Jreferee t/c 21:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NetShops

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

This article was deleted as an expired prod. The concern was the lack of independent sources and not meeting the guideline WP:CORP. An editor has asked me to undelete the article because the article does mention that the company was rated by Inc. 500 magazine and that it received an award from the Omaha Chamber of Commerce. In my mind, this is still way too thin to ever hope for an article beyond its current stub status. Pascal.Tesson 22:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Netshops is ranked #104 in the 2007 Internet Retailer Top 500 guide of the largest retail web sites in the country, in 2006 they were ranked #120.Internet Retailer Inc. magazine ranked Netshops #154 in 2007 for their Top 500 of The Fastest Growing Private Companies in America, in 2006 it was ranked #13. Ranking #5 in Top Companies in Retail for 2007.Inc. 500 It was also presented with the 2007 Excellence in Business award by the Omaha Chamber of CommerceOmaha Chamber and was voted one of the Best Places to Work in Omaha in 2006Best Places to Work I feel this is a very interesting company and would like to keep adding to it's list of achievments.--Sherrillh 03:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• With all due respect, you don't sound like someone who's particularly objective about this company's success and Wikipedia articles are not places to list a company's achievements. The article is not supposed to be a substitute for the "About us" section of a company's website. Pascal.Tesson 15:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• I was simply trying to list the resources for validation of this site for you. The company has it's own About Us page that is quite extensive, I think the Wikipedia page would only scratch the surface. My opinion on this particular company is influenced by the specialty aspect and it's rapid growth, not only within the Omaha area but in the retail realm.--Sherrillh 17:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Inc. is a fairly notable publication, and its list of fast-growing companies seems to be pretty prestigious, especially a spot as high as #13. Looks like a company from humble beginnings, though recognized even then, as per the Omaha award, but has grown since then. If more sources can be found, I'd say it's a definite keep. For now, though, moderate keep. GlassCobra 18:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Inc.'s information about it makes me think it meets notability. The article certainly needs work though. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 23:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It has so many affiliates I can't determine notability. As for the inclusion in Inc magazine, we are just talking about a list here, aren't we? The same kind of list that ranks 500 companies regularly? Or am I missing that they did a full up article on the company? —Mrand ^T-C 23:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep I consider Inc's lists reliable. They have a many lists, though, by various characteristics, so I would not consider merely being on one to be notable, but ranked No. 5 in the Top Companies in Retail among the Fastest Growing Companies, yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 10:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete lack of secondary sources suggest that notability to come. --Gavin Collins 10:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable company. Keb25 11:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I work at NetShops. We didn't start the NetShops entry - someone else did awhile back. Once we found it we just added some information to it. If you want it to be fleshed out into an article, we can certainly do that. We will add more historical information about the company and talk about some of our notable acquisitions. We will discuss media mentions and where our CEO has spoken at conferences, all of which would be interesting to people who are in our industry. We do not have that information on our About Us page. The vote for deletion was probably made by a disgruntled former employee or a competitor. Give us the chance to fill out the entry some more and make it more interesting for readers. If someone comes to Wikipedia and types in "netshops," why shouldn't we have an entry for those individuals to peruse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xbows (talk • contribs) 16:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well thanks for telling us you work there. As such, you're vote here shouldn't count. Further, NetShops can beef the article up all they want but unless they have accessable, independent sources, ie: hits on the web, it's pointless. As this article reads now, it's like a PR piece from the company. It certainly violates WP:NN and would even more so if the employees came to save it (Independent of the subject per WP:NN). -- ALLSTAR ECHO 11:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: The article that is the subject of this debate has been placed in the Wikipedia Intensive Care Unit to bring it to keep-quality. Lockesdonkey 03:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, because article is being cleaned up by Intensive Care Unit. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Not notable. More promotional than anything. I'm in a list of all kinds of things from Best Neighborhood Yard For July 2007 to Best Dad Ever but I don't feel that would warrant my own article. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 11:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete So many magazine lists, so few notable. Mbisanz 19:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as the article is under active cleanup. So long as verifiable sources exist to document the notability of the subject, WP:NOTE is satisfied. Unfortunately, everything from sources within the company should go - which is part of the cleanup, I believe - unless independent sources can be used for verification of those parts of the article. Where the article is salvageable, as I believe this article to be, deletion should be discouraged. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:53, 27 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 by User:DragonflySixtyseven as notability was not asserted (CSD A7). Pedro |  Chat  13:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Visupedia

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

Non-notable software. While WP related, I can find few notable links Spryde 12:51, 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. Carioca 02:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somerville School

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

Non-notable school --Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 11:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reluctant delete I dislike deleting schools, as they're generally enough of a focal point of their community to be notable (and to get the requisite press coverage), but as things stand this is unsourceable. Given the school closed prior to the internet age, sources likely exist in print archives somewhere; if anyone can dig some out, change to keep — iridescent (talk to me!) 11:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect our viewers to the Bromborough article. We cannot use blogspot as a source, it is not "reliable" per our standards. Burntsauce 17:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Gimlei. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There are no sources except for a blog, no notability of any kind is stated, and as noted by Iridescent, the school closed so long ago that it would be nigh impossible to dig up reliable sources. I wouldn't necessarily be against a redirect, but I can't imagine how many people will actually search for this (as there was only one real editor of the article, and they have no other edits, and as the school was destroyed circa 40 years ago). -- Mike (Kicking222) 19:26, 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. Carlossuarez46 23:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lissome Avid Engineer

Lissome Avid Engineer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable game character that fails WP:FICTION. Lack of any secondary sources is not compensated by in universe descriptions that read like original research.--Gavin Collins 10:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete They actually do appear to be OR, or even possibly CopyVio (I don't have books to check). Iconic characters should be on an Exalted-Wiki, not on Wikipedia. They have zero context outside the game, and I don't even think warrent an redirect. In addition, the following articles are also related.

• Maiden of the Mirthless Smile
• Falling Tears Poet
• Lilith (Exalted)
• Tepet Ejava
• Sesus Nagezzer
• Peleps Deled
• Sesus Rafara
• Denovah Avaku
• Mnemon (Exalted)
• Tepet Arada
• Lissome Avid Engineer

These are all the active Iconic character articles for Exalted. Personally, I don't think any of them belong here. Gavin, you are more experienced then I am with AfDs. In this particliuar case, I feel all the articles should be looked at as a whole. Would you mind setting them all up to be discussed here as AfD? The Exalted Template (which is huge), will need to be cut down if this passes. I can assist in that area. The iconics is over half the template by itself. Turlo Lomon 11:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete almost the definition of non-notable, in fact. This isn't about the game or the publication, but characters within the game, and this is fancruft. Also support the broading of the AfD to the others listed by Turlo Lomon, and strongly support deletion of them all. SamBC(talk) 11:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ffm 12:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into a Characters of Exalted article would be first choice, but if no-one wants to bother then delete is fine too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Turlo Lomon, or merge into a list article if not. Percy Snoodle 13:16, 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 keep. GRBerry 16:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Del Palmer

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

Previously AfDed article which has been recreated. The author asserts that the rewrite has additional information and references that demonstrate notability. The notability of the subject seems to be based on a personal relationship with Kate Bush. His musical bio does not meet WP:BAND as he is primarily a bass player and engineer for Ms Bush. The references are mainly trivial and mostly not directly related to Palmer. The two articles that are non-trivial are not so much about Palmer but his take on Ms Bush and a technical interview on how one of her albums was created. I assert that the replacement article still does not demonstrate notability for Palmer. There was a discussion of this on the article's talk page Talk:Del Palmer

• Keep. I didn't create the original Del Palmer article, but noticed one day that it had been deleted after a very short AfD discussion. Surprised that Del Palmer would be considered non-notable, I retrieved the original article from the Google cache, re-created it and sought to tackle the problems WebHamster had identified, particularly around a lack of citations. We've been discussing this at Talk:Del Palmer, so I'll try to be short here. I don't see any consistent ruling on the notability of musicians who are regular members of a "solo" artist's band. As Kate Bush's bassist, Palmer played on multiple charting albums and an international tour; as her engineer, he's on yet further albums. As such, I feel Palmer qualifies under WP:BAND's criteria (2), (3), (4), (5) and (11). As he has had a career away from Bush (singles on a notable label in the 1970s, appearances on two recent albums), it seems appropriate to have a distinct page for Palmer rather than just covering him on Bush's page. The article cites two music magazine interviews with Palmer: while these focus on his work with Bush, they are about him and his contribution to the recordings and not just about Bush. These mean the article meets WP:BAND criterion (1). I make no claim that Palmer's long-term personal relationship with Bush makes him notable. Bondegezou 11:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• weak Keep. It's unlikely that any musician who has mainly contributed to another artist's recordings would meet WP:BAND, but that is not an automatic reason for deletion. As someone who has played on several massive-selling albums and singles, Del Palmer may be sufficiently notable - further sources would, of course, help. I don't feel that deleting this article would in any way improve our encyclopedia, so would err on the side of keeping it.--Michig 12:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Michig. Strong keep If there is enough reliable sources to form a decent length article on a musician, it doesn't matter if that musician has never been on tour or if the reliable sources also focus on a more notable musician; the article is still encyclopedic. Epbr123 12:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep per WP:MUSIC. Bassist on some of the most critically and commercially successful records of the past 30 years. He has other significant work too, so a merge with Kate Bush wouldn't be appropriate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• That initial AFD nomination was strange; deleted with a total of one opinion other than the nominator's. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Federico Macheda

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

Fails WP:BIO as he has not played a match for a fully professional side, and is not otherwise notable. PeeJay 10:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep It is possible to verify the contents of this article. A quick google search shows quite a number of reliable sources for this player. On top of that, he is a very promising player as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Apart from the links to his profile on ManUtd.com, the majority of the links that come up in that Google search are to forums. Sure, the forums have to get their info from somewhere, but I don't believe that someone whose Google search returns mostly forum posts is notable enough. Also, he's 16 years old, so the fact that he's shown a bit of promise is irrelevant. - PeeJay 11:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete verifiability in itself is not enough to establish notability. This 16-year old guy obviously fails WP:BIO. Additionally he has had little or no media coverage in his native country (Italy). --Angelo 10:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per norm, fails WP:BIO. King of the North East (T/C) 11:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment 4,180 google hits, which is substantially more than his other teammates that I googled, but some of them had 50+ google news hits to his zero and every one of them are redlinked on the team page. --Mud4t 11:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete He gets an article when he plays for the first team. This is a well established and, in my view, entirely necessary maxim. Nick mallory 12:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Has not played in a fully professional league (WP:BIO). Number 57 16:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO as has not played in a fully professional league. --Malcolmxl5 19:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:BIO is fairly clear. This guy does not pass. - fchd 17:07, 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 delete. GRBerry 16:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Camille Cleverley

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

A young lady reported as missing then found dead. Prior to the incident she was just a typical young lady with no notability whatsoever. The article reads like a news report (Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper). Creator asserts that as her disappearance was reported widely in the press that this infers notability on her personally. CSD was denied on the grounds that notability is asserted but commented that notability may not actually be demonstrated. The case itself is not unusual, the associated press coverage was primarily used as a means to locate her. Reason for nomination: Non-notability -- WebHamster 10:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep James Kim is the closest similar example I can think of off hand, although I believe his story was more widely publicized. --Mud4t 20:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Fails WP:N. Pedro |  Chat  13:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and WP:POINT allegation. This case received a hugely disproportionate amount of attention, just like Elizabeth Smart, that goes far above and beyond the scope of just another "missing and found dead". For better or for worse, people attribute this to her being a white upper-middle-class blonde female that's not "supposed" to go missing. Yes, Wikipedia is not a memorial, but when the New York Times, the Associated Press,CNN, MSNBC, CBS, and even the television show America's Most Wanted pick it up, you can't sit with a straight face and say it's another "non-notable memorial". The notion that the "associated press coverage was primary used to locate her" was fallacious since they continued to report on her after she was located. I allege nominator is making a WP:POINT - nominator and I were involved in an unrelated recent disagreement shortly before I created this article (another unsuccessful AfD where I alleged non-notability elsewhere) - this is potentially a bad faith "payback" nomination. He has already attempted to speedy this article, which was quickly overturned. Reswobslc 16:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Repudiation: The only point I am attempting to make is that the article is not suitable for WP for the reasons I gave. I really don't care about any disagreements we may or may not have had. This is Wikipedia not a pub. There are always debates and there are always conflicting views. Some you win some you lose, I don't take either seriously, I'm certainly not petty enough to do something like I've been accused of. Perhaps a perusal of both our contribution records and talk pages would elicit some perspective to any interested parties. Meanwhile I suggest that you stop making these unsubstantiated and histrionic accusations before you make a total fool of yourself. You've had your say, now let others have theirs. The article is there in all its glory let it speak for itself. I know what it says to me, hence the CSD then the AFD. ---- WebHamster 16:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Transient press coverage does not confer notability. Clarityfiend 16:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article can be judged on its merits irrespective of any prior conflicts between the nominator and other editors. This is a tragic incident wherein a non-notable young person fell to her death in a possible accident. Hundreds of thousands of people annually die just as tragically in accidents and do not merit encyclopedia articles. Fox News or "America's Most Wanted" selects stories to boost ratings, and encyclopedia editors have different criteria for what is notable or encyclopedic, as stated in the essay WP:NOTNEWS as well as the policy WP:NOT#NEWS. Wikipedia is neither a memorial site to remember the departed nor a news archive to forever report every accidental death. The fact that the media chose to print several stories about a missing young blond white woman does not mean that WP:N is satisfied. Edison 16:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So we now discount nationwide news published by independent sources by making conclusion about the news media's motivation in publishing it? "Well, it's just for the ratings, so it's not really notable"? That is a little bit of an oxymoron. If a subject gets selected by the news "for the ratings", that is prima facie evidence of notability. By the way, I don't know Camille nor have I ever met her, nor did I contribute to her search effort, which should moot most "memorial" allegations. I only know of Camille from the news. Reswobslc 16:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, tragic, with a flurry of publicity, but not notable. --Dhartung | Talk 18:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per the relevant notability guideline: The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Certainly this is the case here? faithless (^speak) 19:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• delete In this case the notability is simply as having been missing--and then found dead from an accident. Presumably the news coverage as being missing was due to a morbid public presumption that she would have been kidnapped at the least, if not murdered. I know I'm being cynical, but news coverage does work that way. DGG (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Both comments you make are more likely true than not. To add to it, I suppose many people here recognize that being a blonde white female means the attention she gets is far more than the attention she deserves. It's also true that she's getting talked about much less now that she's found. That's the nature of all news and events. But that does not make someone not notable. Plane crashes are no different - their perceived notability is exaggerated simply because planes fly and people fear that - and they disappear just as quickly from the news. Yet we have extensive articles not just for plane crashes, but for near misses that harmed nobody! (example, example, example). I think we should stick with the criteria in WP:N for judging notability. WP:N says notability means the person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If notability were judged on how notable some feel she deserves to be, then I'd agree, this article should go (and I'd AfD Paris Hilton in the same swoop). Reswobslc 01:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - One of the points of attempting consensus is that rationalisation is achieved rather than hard and fast sticking rigidly to the word of the guidelines. Yes there was major press coverage, but this has to be taken in context both to the way the media works and to the case in question. It's one thing having a valid biographical press article on a politician and quite another when it's a flash-in-the-pan media frenzy when they perceive that they can either increase ratings, sell copy or help find someone. If this was the case then it could be argued that every kid on a milk carton should have an article. The fact of the matter is she went missing, then showed up dead. That is it. No-one in their right mind can say that person is notable. Famous, yes, but not notable. There's a difference. ---- WebHamster 10:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Interesting concept - "famous but not notable". That's quite a stretch. Can we AfD Paris Hilton yet then? (I think not.) There is no practical limit to the number of topics that Wikipedia can cover. Wikipedia is not paper. As long as the guidelines for notability are satisfied, why can't most every kid on a milk carton have an article, especially if it was nationwide? There aren't that many total. The "milk carton" complaint would only strike me as a problem if people were using Wikipedia to find their lost pets or runaway teens. Having an article is certainly more meaningful than a search result essentially saying "Nope, we have no idea who that is, but see the extensive discussion on why we're keeping our mouth shut", or "Nope, we don't know who this is, and we don't want you to tell us either (salted)". Reswobslc 14:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
        • The simple answer to that concept is that WP is an encyclopaedia not a missing persons bureau, neither is it a newspaper nor a memorial site. It's not a who's who nor is it a source of knowledge on everything. It's also not the Ministry for Silly Ideas. ---- WebHamster 15:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Despite no mention in WP:NOT, I agree it's not a missing persons bureau, which is why the article is not asking "Have You Seen Camille Cleverley". Agreed it's not a newspaper, which is why the article title is not "Missing BYU Student Found Dead". I agree it is not a memorial site, which is why the article talks about her disappearance and death, not her life and by whom she will be missed. It is a who's who for people that satisfy WP:N, and it is a source of all knowledge that is consistent with Wikipedia's five pillars. It may not be a place for "silly ideas"... but it is a place for "notable silly ideas" (example). Reswobslc 15:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
            • So is the article meant to about her, a non-notable person, about the disappearance (nothing to distinguish it from 100s of other disappearances) or about the news frenzy associated with her disappearance? It's starting to look like an inappropriate name for an article if it's not about her per se. ---- WebHamster 15:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
              • I think you do have a point here, such that "Camille Cleverley disappearance" (redirected to by Camille Cleverley) may be a more appropriate title, because her only potential claim to notability is her disappearance. Look at Destiny Norton - same issue (where naming the people and not the disappearance begs the question "do we name the article after the perp or the victim?"). It is fair to say that the news reported on Camille's disappearance because her disappearance was notable, not because Camille was. May I solicit your opinion regarding doing such a move? (Also, as a counter-example food for thought, consider Kiplyn Davis, also a missing person who per the article has not been found, for whom the "milk carton" and "is the article title appropriate" discussions would also apply, but whom I wouldn't be quite as quick to move to Kiplyn Davis disappearance and I'm not quite yet sure why.) Reswobslc 16:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & DGG. Sad, yes, but not notable ultimately. Carlossuarez46 23:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Castle Falkenstein (role-playing game)

Castle Falkenstein (role-playing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This book of gaming instructions fails notability criteria WP:Fiction or any other notability criteria. The article contains details of the game instructions but no context or sourced analysis of its impact or historical significance, for which there is no independent evidence. --Gavin Collins 08:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep At least your arguments are sounding better. It would be nice to have more then 24 hours to fix things. This book - actually 2 (which is what you should be looking at - WP:BOOK), won two awards, etc. I will agree that sources are not added to the article, but it will be fixed. Turlo Lomon 09:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Multiple award-winner, passes WP:BK Percy Snoodle 10:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong and Speedy Keep Multiple award-winning game, near cult status in the industry, a very different approach to role-palying. Web Warlock 10:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep among prizes, it won the 1994 Best RPG origin award. http://www.originsgamefair.com/awards/1994/list-of-winners - Mads Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 11:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. User:Gavin.collins is just trawling through Wikipedia for anything related to GURPS, AFDing everything he sees. He appears to be making some kind of WP:POINT, though what that may be is unclear. And he persists on calling them "game instructions", a term which I as a roleplaying game aficionado find completely off the mark and dripping with condescension. --Agamemnon2 12:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This book of gaming instructions won the Origin award for best game rules. --Gavin Collins 18:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• And the Dixie Chicks won the Grammy for "best noise recording", right? Why do you continue to do this? It's been demonstrated, time and again, that you don't have any sort of background knowledge on this subject, yet you continue to try and get articles discussing it deleted, citing guidelines that don't even apply. I would not try and pick out which business and economics related articles I feel are important and nominate the rest for deletion (and if I did, I would clearly be disrupting things), you shouldn't be doing the same outside of your area of expertise. --UsaSatsui 19:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment No joke. It won Best Roleplaying Rules. Check the link yourself. --Gavin Collins 21:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Gavin, sarcasm isn't needed. A simple explanation, or using the {{fact}} tab would have sufficed. Turlo Lomon 22:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• And your point would be what? --UsaSatsui 21:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• I believe his point was that the link was not from a 3rd party and needs to be verifiable. I added a proper link for Origins Award. Working on the 2nd now. Notability CLEARLY established now. Turlo Lomon 21:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Gavin, can we talk about this? You seem to be sticking fast to a definition that all other parties consider inaccurate. It's a possibility that you consider the others telling you so biased (and I'm not saying you do, but hope that you don't find voicing the idea offensive as you have been very liberal with suspicions of biases and conflicts of interest in the past). If that's the case, will you listen to me? I have basic knowledge of role-playing games on account of being a geek - it's a cultural thing - and I've studied some RPGs because I was curious how they worked, but I've never played a tabletop RPG, don't have strong feelings about them, am not affiliated with the RPG wikiproject, and the closest thing to a game corporation that I've ever worked for was a hospital.
  *stops to take a drink of water*
  And I'm telling you that the award for Best Roleplaying Rules was for that particular part of Castle Falkenstein. It's analogous to winning the Oscar for Best Cinematography or maybe Best Writing or Best Actor in a Leading Role. "Gaming instructions" is not a fair or accurate description. --Kizor 01:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• I wish I could disagree with the statement about trawling, but he AfD'd several other and independent game systems that, at some point, had GURPS versions made of them, and nominated them on the grounds that they should be merged to GURPS books... that's incompatible with even a basic knowledge of the field. --Kizor 00:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Important award-winning, genre-influencing game. Ukulele 15:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, mainly because I'm completely exasperated with the nominator, but the article stands on it's own merits too. --UsaSatsui 19:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Well, basically for all the previously mentioned reasons. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It had significant awards as stated per several editors.--JForget 23:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per everyone. Maxamegalon2000 05:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — Per above; sufficiently notable. — RJH (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As per Ukulele, eveybody else. Nominator appears to not be reading these articles or not understanding them. Edward321 01:34, 21 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, per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diplomat Records Discography

Diplomat Records Discography (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary content fork that is already mentioned in the artist discography articles and in the main Diplomat Records page. Spellcast 08:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Diplomat Records. ffm 12:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's already merged. In fact, it's a very duplicate of that page! Spellcast 12:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as dispensable duplicate created by copy&paste. --Oxymoron⁸³ 12:24, 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 Speedy deleted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Management Consulting Firms in India

Management Consulting Firms in India (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

advertisement of management consulting firms ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, pure spam--Jac16888 10:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as copyvio from http://www.researchandmarkets.com I couldn't come up with the entire document because it's been removed, but there are enough summaries on google to match entire sentences at a time. (I don't take this article as spam, btw.) --Mud4t 12:07, 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 speedy deletion. --Ed (Edgar181) 09:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sunil Kumar G

Sunil Kumar G (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

graffiti by an unknown person about himself, non-notable -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - this qualifies for WP:CSD#A7 and I have tagged it as such. → AA ^(talk) — 08:25, 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--JForget 02:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable NFL games to air on NBC

Notable NFL games to air on NBC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Pretty much defines listcruft. Absolutely no criteria listed to show why some games are listed and some are not. So it's essentially a formless list. Which defines. Listcruft. :) And honestly, even if there was strict criteria, it's extremely trivial. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unverifiable listcruft. szyslak 09:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete signature deletion!--58.108.255.78 10:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Shortly before I added my delete !vote, I left a message for Trover (talk · contribs) regarding his blinking signature. I wonder if this is him. szyslak 20:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Notwithstanding the questionable usefulness of listing which games were seen on which network, there are other problems. Anyone knowledgable about pro football history will see how inaccurate this list is. Much of this is devoted to "Thanksgiving Classics", with the article listing games like the Lions-49ers, Cardinals-Cowboys, etc.. These were broadcast on CBS, not NBC. NBC, of course, telecast the AFL from 1965-69, then the NFL's AFC games from 1970 to 1998 or so. Again, does it really matter if you saw the "Immaculate Reception", as with any other AFC playoff game, on NBC? The only difference may have been that if it had been on CBS, Curt Gowdy would not have said "Holy Cow!" Mandsford 11:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Define a notable NFL football game. ffm 12:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - unless there's some major facet of American sports culture of which I'm not aware, I can't see any reason why it would be significant that a match was shown on a particular TV channel.... ChrisTheDude 14:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Even if there were hundreds of hugely important games broadcast on NBC, and even if every entry was sourced (including a source stating the game was on NBC), this would still be a useless article. Unless it's the Super Bowl or the Heidi Game (which happened to be on NBC), it doesn't make a difference what network airs a football game. Or, to put it another way... listcruft. -- Mike (Kicking222) 19:31, 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 as original research. However, this deletion does not prejudice the recreation of the article IF reliable, inline citation sources for the article's information can be provided. The article can also be redirected.Alabamaboy 18:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lyran Star Empire

Lyran Star Empire (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This non-notable fictional race are the subject of a long and unverifiable essay comprised of what appears to be original reasearch. --Gavin Collins 08:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to a new list of peoples of the Star Fleet Universe, along with the other such articles that have been nominated. As with all the other SFU articles, this isn't original research. Pinball22 13:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if its guilty of anything its that its written in an in Universe style, for which there are tags as there are for lack of references re notability; it would be easier to assume good faith rather than a vendetta against all RPG topics if these curtesies were attempted. KTo288 19:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Where's the original research? This article is all based on the in-game universe. The "original research" was all done by the game designers, not the article writers. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Response Prove it. From which page of which book did the author derive the content of this article? I suspect this plot summary wass actually made up in school one day. --Gavin Collins 07:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't own any of the books, so I don't have the proof, but it seems much more likely, given that the books exist, that the information also exists as opposed to someone making it up. Pinball22 14:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no citations to reliable sources and no assertion of real-world notability. If there's info. out there about how the writers (and later programmers) developed the species, then that'd be great -- but, right now it's just plot summary. Perhaps shoot to Memory Beta? --EEMeltonIV 23:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Source or Delete I'm leaning toward delete unless I can see some proper references per Gavin Collins. As I've said in other AFDs I'm all for having good SF articles on Wikipedia, but I think we need to strive for accurate info. If the article improves I might change my mind, so I'm challenging the editors to try and source the article. --Torchwood Who? 07:15, 26 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 to Singapore Airlines. GRBerry 16:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KrisFlyer

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

Notability is not inherited, and there are insufficient third-party, reliable, non-trivial sources which would establish notability of this program in it's own right in an encyclopaedic context (all references are from Singapore Airlines). The article also goes against WP:NOT. It is common practice within Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines for FFP to be covered within the main article of the airline, such as AAdvantage which is now covered inline within the AA article. Whilst it has no bearing on this AfD, Asia Miles did not survive AfD and Skywards was speedied as advertising. Russavia 07:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as fails notablitiy guidlines, but worth a mention on the Singapore Airlines article. --Gavin Collins 08:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Singapore Airlines. ffm 12:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. —Huaiwei 17:15, 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--JForget 02:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acacia Bay

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

Already speedily deleted once as not notable, but now reappeared. Still seems rather non-notable, so raised AfD Oscarthecat 06:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, verifiable human settlement, so notable per WP:OUTCOMES. Official NZ profile. Shows on several online map products, e.g. MapQuest. --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep but requires huge clean up. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 07:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The article reads kind of like an advert, but it's an actual settlement and looks like a well developed town on Google Maps [27]. Per above, all settlements are notable. --Oakshade 08:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per abov ffm 12:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a real place, though there's not much left after I deleted the spammy parts. Clarityfiend 16:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, since verifiable human settlements are notable. Why was it speedy deleted? Burntsauce 17:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I can WP:AGF and see how somebody would think it was an ad for a resort. --Dhartung | Talk 18:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment People who shout AGF in deletion debates should be blo— Burntsauce 17:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Not only a settlement (and as such instantly meeting notability standards), but also - as I have now added - the home to a fairly prominent organisation. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. To quote WP:OUTCOMES, "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size." Bearian 20:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and close as soon as possible. The quote above says it all. Greenshed 19:40, 21 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. Next time, it will be re-created it will be salted.--JForget 02:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flugpo.com

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

Non-notable web company / social marketplace. Article centers around a vaguely advertising-sounding description of the company, and then lists some planned future features. No reliable ghits found, and 0 found through google news. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Nominator !voting to delete on grounds of failing WP:CORP/WP:WEB, and possibly WP:SOAP. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Bfigura. --RucasHost 05:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A quick google search shows up very few hits for this website. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this subject from third-party reliable sources as well. Fails WP:WEB as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn company, and a spammy tone to boot, written in a style only a marketer could love: "Flugpo similarly embraces the reality that each community is unique and therefore has different needs." Gosh, and up 'til now I'd assumed all communities were the same. Thanks, spammy article, for showing me the way! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per all above. GlassCobra 18:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete as reads like spammy advertorial. --Gavin Collins 09:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Non-notable vanity website. Keb25 10:01, 21 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 per WP:SNOW (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 13:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to evolution

Introduction to evolution (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A well written article (although it isn't NPOV and presents only 1 side of the debate); however, I can't see a purpose. This is the only "Introduction to ..." article I have ever seen on Wikipedia, and frankly there is no point. I think it would make more sense to copy this to the Simple English wikipedia, there's no sense in having 2 articles on the exact same subject on the same website. RucasHost 05:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. There is no "other side" in Introduction to evolution. Article was created by consensus - and as for other similar articles, Introduction to entropy, Introduction to quantum mechanics, Introduction to genetics, Introduction to special relativity, Introduction to general relativity and Introduction to M-theory. Sander Säde 05:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment In that case, why can't we have an Introduction to creationism or Introduction to Intelligent Design which omits all opposing viewpoints and is written solely to indoctrinate people into those belief systems? That's basically what we have here. --RucasHost 05:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply. There you have it - "belief systems". Evolution is well supported by a mountain of evidence and by far majority of scientists. So-called "alternative theories" have a marginal support and no valid evidence. Sander Säde 05:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sander Säde (talk • contribs)
      • Comment There is plenty of valid evidence for creationism (eg. irreducible complexity, evolution's inability to explain symbiosis, missing intermediate species in the fossil record, fraud being used to support evolution, etc...) and the number of people who believe a certain theory says nothing about it's veracity. --RucasHost 05:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Piltdown Man has not been used to explain evolution for more then 50 years - ie ever since it was found to be a hoax. And irreducible complexity claims have been shown to be wrong so many times that it isn't even funny as an argument. Please go see Evolution as theory and fact and remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. Sander Säde 05:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As shown, there are other introduction articles, and this one is no different. The fact that it doesn't go into ID doesn't mean much -- it's meant to be an introduction, not an in-depth article on everything there is to know about evolution and related topics. That's what the main article is for. GSlicer (t • c) 05:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Can I make an Introduction to creationism article then? --RucasHost 05:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply Who said you couldn't? GSlicer (t • c) 05:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment I just assumed it wouldn't be allowed. --RucasHost 05:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Reply Creationism is a pseudoscience. Evolution is supported by a mountain of evidence. And, there is absolutely no valid evidence for creationism. Wikipedia is not a place to promote pseudoscience. RS1900 05:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
          • As long as it was compliant with WP:UNDUE & provided an informative & accurate simplification/summary, I would see no problem. Hrafn42^Talk_Stalk 06:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
            • The primary reason for the other introduction pages was the technical level of the discussion - high-level mathematics and difficult to grasp concepts such as wave–particle duality. The question is whether creationism includes such difficult concepts. The current page, while detailed, does not introduce any difficult to grasp concepts, so I do not see a reason for an "introduction to creationism" page. I would suggest that RucasHost research creationism in reliable, peer-reviewed histories of the debate and add citations to the already existing page on creationism as it is sorely lacking in citations. That way, creationism and evolution will be on equal footing in wikipedia. He would be doing a great service to the community as all topics should be covered with care. Awadewit | talk 06:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
              • There might be case for an introduction to the legal, and political debates around ID, but as for introducing creationism... that's the purpose of the Creationism article. It's a brief overview and introduction to the various forms of creationism, and related concepts. ornis (t) 07:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
                • True. I should have phrased my earlier comment better: if an Intro-to-Creo article ... that added significant incremental accurate informational value (over the existing article) ... Hrafn42^Talk_Stalk 08:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • Yeah, perhaps a general introduction to the legal and social wrangling over the last hundred and fifty years or so, might be interesting to write, when and if the current fracas at ID dies down. ornis (t) 08:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep; I don't understand on what basis the deletion is proposed. The topic is notable, the article is well sourced, neutral, and encyclopedic. Without undue weight, it links the Creation-evolution controversy and other alternative viewpoints. Dicklyon 05:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Who has nominated this article for deletion? On what basis? The article is fine! The article is encyclopedic. It is a fine article. RS1900 05:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep WP:AGF is out the window. This is the second (that I've seen) notable, well sourced article that this editor has nominated for deletion without giving a valid rationale because they contradict his religious beliefs. faithless (^speak) 05:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep As Markus Poessel has written in his defense of the "introduction to" genre, that wikipedia is many things to many people. I, for one, am happy that the editors of introduction to evolution have worked so hard to introduce the cornerstone of the study of biology to a wide range of readers. As Sander Säde has already pointed out, there are numerous "introduction to's" on wikipedia already, with introduction to general relativity having reached FA status. RucasHost's concerns would best be addressed by carefully and thoughtfully reading Talk:Evolution/FAQ and Creation-evolution controversy. I believe that the latter page is written on an accessible level and does not require an "introduction". Awadewit | talk 05:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per Sander Säde (on Intro articles), WP:UNDUE (& the fact that WP:POV isn't a valid rationale for deletion). Hrafn42^Talk_Stalk 06:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as a useful introduction to a technical subject, regarding "1 side" see NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". .... dave souza, talk 07:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. There is a well-established precedent for these "introductory" articles, and this one is well received and much respected. And the notion that it's not NPOV because it only presents one side of the so-called "debate" is ludicrous. Snalwibma 07:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Perhaps we can close this now under WP:SNOW and WP:SK? -- Sander Säde 07:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• blindingly obvious speedy keep Good grief! Someone close this already. ornis (t) 07:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The nominator needs to read and understand this article, and indeed the scientific method, rather than try to have it deleted. Nick mallory 07:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Evolution As with Rucas, this is the only "Introduction to..." article I've seen on Wikipedia. At least, do a move so that this can be renamed. As with "in popular culture" articles, we DO NOT need people to follow up with their own "Intro to" (or, worse, "All About Evolution") articles. The idea of someone brilliant writing an introduction for us morons is pretentious. Nice article, dumb title. Keep, sure, but not with this name. Mandsford 11:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see: argumentum ad ignorantiam. I guess you just ignored the list of other "Introduction to..." articles above. ornis (t) 11:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You might also care to look at Category:Introductions, which explains what these introductory articles are about, and at the brief discussion on the subject at Talk:Introduction to genetics. Snalwibma 11:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. There is plenty of support for "Introduction to .." articles and this is a good example. --Bduke 11:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think someone needs to tell RucasHost about the policies of Wikipedia. Nominating a good article for deletion is totally unacceptable. Next time, if RucasHost makes similar error, he should be blocked for disruptive editing. RS1900 11:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The premise of the argument is flawed. No more should be necessary to be said. --Agamemnon2 12:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are many articles that begin with to &namespace=0 Introduction to on wikipedia. ffm 12:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Snalwibma. --ざくら木 13:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Sander Säde et al. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:21, 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 Keep. The sources provided by GRBerry clearly demonstrate notability. Eluchil404 22:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Yaconelli

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

Without wanting to hurt anybodies feelings, this page is obviously a tribute from this mans friends and families. This would be ok if it was re-edited, provided he was actually notable. The reference is little more than a blog, and it is evident from the personal quotes and info that this is either not notable, or a practical joke.delete JJJ999 04:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep It is possible to verify the contents of this article. A quick google search shows quite a number of hits for this subject. Moreover, the article is well referenced as well. The subject in question also wrote quite a number of books as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • query- really? the references look like blog type sources to me... is there really anything notable there?JJJ999 08:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The sources listed for him are two blogs and a bio page on the "Youth Specialties" organization he founded. As for his books, there are several on Amazon, but they are mostly published by "Zondervan" which appears to be affiliated with the aforementioned Youth Specialties. I see nothing to indicate that he or any of his self-published books are notable. Cap'n Walker 20:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Can some more people vote this off so we can club it to death? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Maybe he was a nice guy, but just not notable enough. Ward3001 22:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - nn author, his books rank in the deep thousands in sales ranks at Amazon, while most places consider the top 100 or so "best sellers", his books show a smattering a few orders of magnitude less notable: a couple of books apparently better than 100,000th in rank, and several in 200,000th rank, and Spiritual Challenge Journal--The Next Level ranking as Amazon's 656,648th best seller in books. Just nn. Carlossuarez46 23:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Strike- time is up, clear consensus.JJJ999 05:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly notable. See coverage in Christianity Today at the time of his death, a few months later, their online news magazine interviewed a couple years earlier. (Full versions of first two only available to subscribers.) See coverage of death in Crosswalk.com's news department, by their senior news & culture editor here (1st of 3 web pages). Audio interview by World Vision report available at [28]. Obituary in a secular newspaper here. Amazon book rankings are current sales volume; he died 4 years ago, so the current rankings are not meaningful indicators of the ranks of the books at the time they were released, which is when best sellerdom is measured. Plenty more sources out there; I didn't bother going past the first page of google results since notability is obvious once the research is done. GRBerry 17:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —GRBerry 17:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per GRBerry, this is in line with WP:BIO as the subject is notable within his niche or subject of expertise. Burntsauce 21:49, 26 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, withdrawn by nominator. Bduke 11:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dominionism

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

Blatant POV fork. There is no way this article can be salvaged. RucasHost 04:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Article's been around since 2004. What's it forked from? Don't assume everyone reading the AfD knows the history of the editing dispute in question. cab 04:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep It's hard to assume good faith here after perusing this editor's userpage. Article is notable and very well sourced, and no valid rationale for deletion is given. faithless (^speak) 04:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I gave a very valid reason, the article clearly pushes a certain POV. At the very least, an extensive re-write is nessecary to make this article NPOV. --RucasHost 05:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment How does it push a POV? The very first sentence contains the word "alleged" and the second sentence addresses that it is a controversial topic. It is quite neutral. Even if it did push a POV, that's not a reason to delete the article. faithless (^speak) 05:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; no policy reason to even bring it up for deletion; the topic is notable, the article is thoroughly referenced and reasonabley balanced, and has active ongoing editing without too much warring. Dicklyon 06:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are 38 sources in this article. If the nominator wishes to improve the article by adding new material he's welcome to do so, but disagreeing with something on wikipedia isn't a valid reason for its deletion. Nick mallory 07:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Not a blatant POV article so much as a blatant POV AfD nomination. It's a potentially controversial subject, but the article steers a steady course through it - and anyway it easily meets notability criteria. This is an encyclopedia, and dominionism is a valid and notable subject for it. Snalwibma 07:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• speedy keep this is an important, notable topic, widely discussed in a variety of media. The nominator's rationale is incoherent anyway. Someone close this as WP:SNOW please. ornis (t) 07:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep This nomination is very ill-timed. User:RucasHost apparently did not read the article's talk page before making this nomination. There has been an extended conversation on POV and related issues over the past week, and I will post a set of new topics in the next day or two, when my research is completed. Please let the consensus process take its course. --BlueMoonlet 09:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Alright, I will withdraw this AFD. How do I do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RucasHost (talk • contribs) 09:52, 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. Wizardman 17:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neal Winter

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

This subject is only notable for being a child sex offender, and he's no Charlie Manson. Crockspot 03:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Question So what's your deletion rationale? I assume that it's not lack of notability, as you said yourself that he is notable. faithless (^speak) 05:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• I thought my rationale was obvious, but I'll spell it out. This subject is notable only for one "event", and that event is not particularly notable, such as a Dahmer or Manson situation. - Crockspot 18:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have a vested interest in this article. There is a non publication order on the victims names and I believe it would be reasonably easy to trace the victimes as the names of places the subject attended is listed in this article and subsequent links. I do not see how this information would be relevant to an encyclopedia.KatieLeone 05:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of wider importance, fails WP:BLP1E. Compare Michael Charles Glennon, a case which traveled to the national supreme court, and created a journalism ethics furor involving a top national broadcast personality. Disclaimer: I have worked on that article.--Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a police blotter. Will reconsider if evidence is provided that this case is particularly notable. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable --Tom 19:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as notable from the magnitude of the crime. Non publication orders in Australia do not apply to the US--but anyway, we don't include the names--quite rightly under our own BLP policies. They would be no more traceable here than they are through the existing stories in Australia. BLP does not apply to him, having been convicted as shown by RSs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • Question Why does BLP not apply in this case? Please advise! Thanks.218.185.73.168 01:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Unless I completely misunderstand the concept, every living person is covered by WP's living persons policies. Being in prison does not make a difference.Steve Dufour —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete He is a criminal and is now in prison. There is nothing special or interesting about him. Steve Dufour 01:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep This article will probably be deleted, and I won't be sad to see it go. He has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As far as the only notable for one event argument, he was convicted of molesting three boys over ten years; that's not one event. Furthermore, while this isn't the place to discuss it, I believe that policy is fundamentally flawed. For instance, Leon Czolgosz is notable only for assassinating William McKinley. Certainly he is deserving of an article? faithless (^speak) 16:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You have a good point. On the other hand Czolgosz has had a lasting effect on history, this person probably did not. A person who commits serious crimes will always get lots of press coverage, but I don't think that really means they are notable -- unless there is something really unusual about them. Steve Dufour 18:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, but I don't believe that the guidelines/policies of WP make that distinction, at least not very clearly. Don't get me wrong, I'm not really saying that I think this guy ought to have an article, I'm just saying that by Wikipedia's standards, the article seems warranted. faithless (^speak) 20:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment'; As I interpret BLP, we are justified in incorporating negative information--even very highly negative information--if it is sourced reliably enough and relevant to the notability. Thus the information about him passes BLP. By standards of elemental fairness, we are or at least should have a much more restrictive stand on including negative information about those just accused of crimes, over those convicted. A notable event or series of events if sufficiently important does make a person notable. A single instance of abuse would not in my opinion have justified an article. The extensive pattern here and the apparent nation-wide publicity does.DGG (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Most criminals commit more than one crime and if they are caught they will be in lots of newspapers. Should they all have WP articles? (If the prisons have computers for the inmates to use this could give them something to do with their time.) Steve Dufour 04:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This is on the fringe so no love will be lost if the article should go but I do believe that he meets WP:BIO now that some minor corrections have been made to the article. [29] Burntsauce 21:51, 26 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, an early closure per WP:SNOW. I should note, though, that being a hoax or autobiography isn't grounds for speedy deletion, at least per se. — TKD::Talk 22:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pagan, Jenny L

Pagan, Jenny L (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An autobiographical article created just now. Attempts to assert notability as being a top 100 influential students in the US, but not backed by any sources, nor do any exist by searching her on Google. (Only 1 result.) It's likely to not satisfy WP:BIO as well. Alasdair 03:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)